PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

NANCY LASACA RAMIREZ

a.k.a. "ZOY" or "SOY", accused-appellant.

[G.R. No. 217978. January 30, 2019.]

FACTS:
RTC and CA convicted Nancy Lasaca Ramirez a.k.a Zoy or Soy of qualified trafficking of
persons in relation to Sec4 (e) of RA 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003. In Lapu-
Lapu City, police officers were disguised as customers of a KTV bar. Two girls, AAA and BBB,
approached them but the police wanted to get two more girls. Later on, Ramirez came and
went to get two more girls Nica and Cindy. When they were in a taxi going to a motel, the
police handed them Php2,400 and informed the girls that they were policemen. BBB, a minor,
testified that she was pimped by Ramirez several times already. That on the night of the
incident, Ramirez approached her and asked if she wanted to have sex for Php200. AAA also a
minor, likewise testified that Ramirez pimped her twice already and she knew that Ramirez was
a pimp because she would negotiate prices, get girls to have sex with customers, and get
commission from it. Ramirez, however, said that at about 9pm, she and her sister Francy was in
a grill place watching a live band when a group of policemen arrested her and pushed her into a
van. She said that it was BBB who negotiated with poseur customers and that she does not
working in the KTV bar.

ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution proved accused-appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable
doubt of qualified trafficking persons.

HELD: Yes. The crime is still considered trafficking if it involves the "recruitment,
transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation" even if
it does not involve any of the means stated under the law. Trafficking is considered qualified
when "the trafficked person is a child." In People v. Casio, it enumerated the elements of the
trafficking in persons. RA 10364 amended RA 9208. 1.) The act of “recruitment, obtaining
,hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or
without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national border.” 2.) The means
used which include “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. 3.) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes “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 appellant was charged with qualified trafficking(Sec 4 RA 9208) that it is unlawful for
anyone “to maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution of pornography.” In the Casio
case, it recognizes that the crime is consummated even if no sexual intercourse had taken place
since the mere transaction consummates the crime. Ramirez uses as defense the AAA and
BBB’s consent to the transaction or that BBB received the payment on her behalf. Again in
Casio, 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.
Accused-appellant hired children to engage in prostitution, taking advantage of their
vulnerability as minors. AAA's and BBB's acquiescence to the illicit transactions cannot be
considered as a valid defense. Ramirez is liable under RA 9208, Sec 4(e) as qualified by Sec 6(a)
and punished under Sec 10(c).