People v. Mora, G.R. No.
242682, 1 July 2019
DOCTRINE: Trafficking in Persons as the "recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or
receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national
borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud,
deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or,
the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control
over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the
exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or
services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs." The same provision further
provides that he recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the
purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as 'trafficking in persons' even if it does not
involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph." 22 The crime of "Trafficking in
Persons" becomes qualified when, among others, the trafficked person is a child.
FACTS: The case was filed before the RTC, charging Mora and Polvoriza of the crime of
Qualified Trafficking in Persons, that they are in conspiracy with one another, for purpose of
exploitation, such as prostitution and other forms of sexual exploitation, did, then and there
willfully, unlawfully and knowingly hire and maintain “AAA” at OTOY'S VIDEOKE BAR, and in
pursuit of aforesaid conspiracy, said accused-Nerissa Mora, take said [AAA] at Barangay Itaran,
Polangui, Albay and brought her to said [Otoy's] Videoke Bar, by way of deception and taking
advantage of the vulnerability of said “AAA”, as a minor; and accused-Maria Salome Polvoriza
as manager/owner, did RECEIVE and EMPLOY said AAA as a prostitute in the said Videoke
Bar, to her damage and prejudice.
That the crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance of minority, victim-AAA, being
16 years of age.
The prosecution claimed that, Mora was able to convince AAA, then a minor, to come with her.
Upon arriving thereat, Mora left AAA at Otoy's Videoke Bar (Otoy's) owned by Polvoriza;
thereafter, Polvoriza locked AAA inside a room therein, prohibited her from going out, and took
her mobile phone and destroyed its SIM card. Polvoriza then made AAA work as an entertainer
at Otoy's under the stage name "Rizza M. Rañada," forcing her to take shabu, dance naked,
and even have sex with the customers. Eight (8) months later, AAA was able to escape from
Polvoriza's custody and return to her father, to whom she narrated her ordeal. Her father then
took AAA to the police station to report the matter and also to a medico-legal, who, after
examination, confirmed, inter alia, that AAA sustained multiple hymenal lacerations which could
have resulted from consensual and forcible sexual contact.
In her defense, while Mora admitted knowing Polvoriza, she denied being close friends with her.
She also averred that she and AAA had been close to each other and even treated the latter as
her own sister. She then narrated that, AAA insisted that she accompany her to which Mora
reluctantly agreed. Upon arrival thereat, AAA proceeded inside Otoy's and a few moments later
returned outside to give her P200.00. Thereafter, she returned home. Finally, she claimed that
when she first met AAA, she thought that the latter was already of age based on her physical
appearance.
ISSUE: Whether or not Mora's conviction for Qualified Trafficking in Persons should be upheld.
HELD: Mora and Polvoriza are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged as the
prosecution had clearly established the existence of the elements 24 thereof, as seen in the
following: (a) Mora, through deception and by taking advantage of AAA's vulnerability as a
minor, was able to "convince" the latter to go to Buraburan, Buhi, Camarines Sur; (b) upon
arrival thereat, Mora took AAA to Polvoriza's videoke bar, i.e., Otoy's, and left her there; and (c)
since then and for the next eight (8) months, Polvoriza forced AAA to work as a prostitute in
Otoy's, coercing her to perform lewd acts on a nightly basis, such as dancing naked in front of
male customers and even having sex with them. In this regard, the courts a quo correctly found
untenable Mora and Polvoriza's insistence that it was AAA who voluntarily presented herself to
work as an entertainer/sex worker in Otoy's, as trafficking in persons can still be committed even
if the victim gives consent - most especially in cases where the victim is a minor. In this regard,
case law instructs that the victim's consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive,
abusive, or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the
use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor's consent is not given out of his or her
own free will.
