(7) People vs. Monsanto, March 20, 2019, G.R. No. 241247 FACTS: On December 5, 2012 AAA met the accused-appellant in Valenzuela City, at the house of Kristine and Reynante, where AAA had been living as a house helper. Only 14 years old at that time and an orphan, AAA enticed to live with the accused-appellant at his rented room in Pandacan, Manila in February 2013. Where she also work as an on call waitress to augment the income of her partner. As testified by AAA, accused-appellant took her to Robinson Mall in Ermita, Manila, to meet foreigners. Wherein accused-appellant would let AAA approach any foreigner to conversed and accept any invitation from the foreigner to go with them to the hotel room and have an intercourse with the foreigner. The money that being payed to AAA would be used to pay their bills and buy them food. On February 2014, AAA and accused-appellant had a fight wherein the former would abused AAA that resulted her to run away from her partner. On March 4, 2014, one Barangay Kagawad received a report that accused-appellant attempted to kill AAA by placing AAA on a pedicab in the middle of the road and would be hit by a truck. This prompted the barangay kagawad to take AAA and arrest her partner and be take into investigation. Wherein they found out that the girl is only 16 years old and her live in partner is a 43 year-old man who also was her pimp. On March 5, 2014, AAA underwent ano-genital examination by Dr. Hernandez, wherein according to the result, there was a blunt force or penetrating trauma. On September 23, 2014, upon the examination of Dr. Dumdum, the girl is indeed a minor since her wisdom tooth have not yet erupted. On November 15, 2016, the RTC did not charge the accused-appellant with RA 7610 since there was no evidence that the accused-appellant personally talk with the foreigners. But, instead the accused-appellant was charge with RA 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Person of 2003) the accusedappellant had indeed living with a minor. The accused-appellant filed an appeal to the court. ISSUE: Whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant’s guilt under the child trafficking charge. RULING: Accused-appellant insist that the prosecution failed to prove that AAA was a minor during the alleged period when the offense was committed. All his arguments are based on the result on the medical evaluations from the doctors who examine the girl. AAA was still a minor when she was enticed by the accused-appellant to live with him, and was also a minor when she was engaged in prostitution until such time the accused-appellant’s arrest. All the elements of human trafficking are present to the case, relating to the act, the means and the purpose. However, it reveals that the offering or providing of persons using any of the enumerated means for the purpose of exploitation, is only one among several ways of committing the offense. The court explan that the crime of human trafficking is not so much the offer of a woman or child, it is the act of recruiting or using, with or without consent, a fellow human being for sexual exploitation. Wherefore, the appeal is dismissed. The decision dated January 31, 201 of the court of appeals, upholding the conviction of accused-appellant.