Child Trafficking in Cyber Sex

[G. R. No. 235652. July 09, 2018.]

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, Vs. XXX and YYY, Accused-Appellants.
AAA,BBB and CCC, for Appellee
XXX and YYY, for Appellants

Facts
Appellee, AAA is a minor who involved in prostitution along with her siblings BBB and
CCC, abused by their parents XXX and YYY, the three siblings force to do live show in front of
webcam with their customer a foreign national who are living in Makati City, Philippines, to
support their finances, shelter, food and clothing. Aside from live show in front of camera, AAA
brought to the Hotel in Laguna to meet the foreign national. They had sexual inter course to
exchange of the amount of P100,000. On a contrary law, the qualifying circumstances that the
trafficked person is a child and that accused parents XXX and YYY and exercise parental
authority over the trafficked person as the parent of complaint AAA.
Issue
The resolution is whether or not XXX and YYY are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of four
(4) and three (3) counts, respectively of Qualified Trafficking in person.
Held
Yes, the CA found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified trafficking in persons
deprived an penalized under section 4 (e) In related to section 6 (a) and (d) of R.A. 9208.
Accordingly the accused appellant suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine in the
amount of P2 million.
 Minor Prostitutions
[G. R. No. 210798, September 14, 2016.]
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, Vs. Beverly Villanueva Y Manalili @Bebang,
Accused-Appellant.
AAA and Private Complaint, Appellee
Beverly Villanueva Y Manalili @Bebang, Appellant

Facts
On April 25, 2007, AAA Appellee, ran away from home after finding out that she was
adopted and after being scolded by her mother who become a private complaint in this case.
AAA was a 13 years old minor and she was recruit and hired as Guest Relation Officer (GRO)
thereby exploiting and taking advantage of her vulnerability as a child. The friend of AAA
informed private complaint that AAA was staying at the On Tap Videoke Bar, working as a
Guest Relation Officer. Private complaint sought assistants from the Channel 2 Tv Program
“XXX” to regain custody over AAA. Accompanied by the tv crew, lodged a preliminary complaint
with the Southern Police District (SPD) Headquarters of Taguig City against On Tap Videoke
Bar and a Task force to rescue AAA. After the operation, AAA, was taken to the SOD
Headquarters together with accused-appellant and five (5) others Videoke Bar employees were
without Mayor’s permit and Health permit. Accused-Appellant maintained that the time of raid
was conducted she was at her sisters house. She went with the authorities to the SOD
Headquarters present herself as the registered owner of the Videoke Bar, accused appellant
denied that she hire and recruit AAA as a GRO, insisting that she was not involved in the day to
day operations. The court appellant unaware of AAA’s stay in the Videoke Bar given that she
was the registered owner thereof.
Issue
Since AAA was not presented in the court, the prosecution was not able to offer direct
evidence showing that accused appellant actually recruited, abandoned or maintained AAA in
the Videoke Bar for the purpose of exploiting her.
Held
1. Yes, the RTC ruling find that accused appellant Beverly Villanueva y Manalili @Bebang
is guilty of Qualified Trafficking in person under section 6 of Republic Act 9208, the court
sentence her to suffer and penalty of Life imprisonment and penalized of P3 million
pesos and cancellation of license/permit to operate her On Tao Videoke Bar.
2. No. The CA, decision that failure of prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. Beverly Villanueva y Manalili @Bebang is Acquitted of charge of violation of
section 6 of Republic Act. No. 9208 or Qualified Trafficking also she release from
detention unless she is being held to another lawful case.
 Solo Parents and Children Support
[G. R. No. 193707, September 14, 2016.]
Norma A. Socorro, for and in behalf of her minor child Roderigo Narjo Van Wilsem, Petitioners
Vs. Ernst Johan Brickman Van Wilsem, Respondent
Norma A. Socorro and Roderigo Narjo Van Wilsem, Petitioners
Ernst Johan Brickman Van Wilsem, Respondent

Facts
According to petitioner, respondent made a promise to provide monthly support to their
son in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty (250) Guildene (equivalent to P17,500). However, since
the arrival petitioner and her son in the Philippines, respondent never give support to the son
Roderigo. On August 28, 2009, petitioner, through her counsel sent a demanding letter for
support from respondent. However, respondent refused to received the letter. Petitioner filed a
complainant affidavit with the provincial prosecution in Cebu City, Against respondent for the
latter’s unjust refused to support his minor child with petitioner. Upon motion and after notice
and hearing, the RTC Cebu issued a hold departure order against respondent. Respondent was
arrested and posted bail. Petitioner also filed a motion/applicants of permanent protection order
which respondent filed his opposition.
The court hereby reiterates its ruling that accused is a foreign national he is not subject to
our national law (The Family Code) in regards to a parents duty the obligation to give support to
his child. Respondent cannot be charge of violating R. A. No. 9262 for his alleged failure to
support his child.
Issue
1. Whether or not a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under
Philippine Law.
2. Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R. A. No. 9262 for
his unjustified failure to support his minor child.
Ruling
No. The RTC, City Cebu decision that the case is Remanded to conduct the further
proceeding based on the merits of the case and also this case is Reversed and Set Aside.
 Providing Benefits to Solo Parents and Children
[G. R. No 235498, July 30, 2018]
Renalyn A. Masbate and Spouses Renato Masbate and Marlyn Masbate, Petitioners
Vs. Ricky James Relucio, Respondent.
Renalyn A. Masbate, Renato Masbate and Marlyn Masbate, Petitioners
Ricky James Relucio, Respondent

Facts
Respondent, Ricky James alleged that On November 7, 2015, spouses Renato
and Marlyn Masbate (Renalyn’s Parents) took Queenie from the school where he had
enrolled her. When asked to give Queenie back, Renalyn’s parents refused instead
showed a copy of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA), executed by Renalyn’s granting
full parental rights, authority and custody over Queenie. Ricky James filed a petition for
habeas corpus and child custody (petition a quo). Ricky James claimed that the hearing
conducted on December 3, 2015 was not the kind of hearing that was procedurally
contempt under A. A. No. 03-04-04- SC, known as “Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ
of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody Minor”.
The motion was denied in an order wherein the RTC emphasized that Queenie
was born out of wedlock, for which reason she shall be under the parental authority of
her mother Renalyn, pursuant the article 176 of the Family Code. Ricky James invited
that the tender age presumption in article 213 of the Family Code is rebuttable by
evidence of the mother’s neglects, abandonment and unemployment other factors and
claimed that Renalyn abandoned Queenie. Renalyn went to Manila and failed to seek
employment to support her daughter.
Issue
The main issue for the courts resolutions is whether or not the CA correctly
remanded the case a quo for determination of who should exercise custody over
Queenie.
Held
1. Yes, the CA found that the RTC hastily dismissed the petition a quo upon
Queenie’s production in Court. When the objective of the case was to establish
the allegation that Renalyn had been neglecting Queenie, which was a questions
of fact that must be resolved by the trial.
2. CA Granted that Ricky James can give support for her daughter Queenie
additional of visitation rights of two (2) day’s a week, which provision for
additional visitation day’s that maybe permitted by Renalyn.