PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. WILLINGTON RODRIGUEZ y HERMOSA
G.R. No. 211721
September 20, 2017
FACTS:
Willington Rodriguez y Hermosa was charged with trafficking in persons for allegedly selling
sexual favors from three girls to PO1 Raymond Escober. Rodriguez was caught while
Escober, along with PO1 Reynaldo Bereber, and P/Insp. Pruli James D. Lopez, were
preparing for Oplan Bugaw, an operation intended to eradicate prostitution in Quezon City.
Rodriguez allegedly told Escober “Sir, sir, babae, sir” and the latter asked him how much and
gave him a marked P500 bill. This signaled Escober’s back-up to arrest Rodriguez and bring
him, along with the three girls, to the police station.
Upon the sole testimony of Escober; the joint affidavit of Escober, Bereber, and Lopez; and
a photocopy of the marked P500 bill, Rodriguez was convicted by both the RTC and the CA
for qualified trafficking in persons under Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6(c) of Republic
Act No. 9208.
In defense, Rodriguez claims that he was only selling cigarettes when Escober grabbed him
and brought him to the police station. Further, he raises the failure of the prosecution to
present the three alleged victims or their affidavits, and, likewise, the original marked P500
bill which was in Lopez’s possession. He claims innocence and contends that he could not
be convicted based on Escober’s testimony alone.
ISSUE:
Was Rodriguez properly convicted?
HELD:
NO. Prosecution failed to prove the presence of the elements of trafficking under Section 3(a)
of R.A. No. 9208: (a) the act of recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipts
of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national
borders; (b) 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; and (c) the purpose of trafficking is
exploitation.
Escober’s testimony, the sole evidence which led to Rodriguez’s conviction, lacked material
facts to prove any of the above elements. It makes no mention of how Rodriguez called the
girls over or that Rodriguez intended to sell sexual favors when he said “sir, sir, babae, sir”
as Escober only understood this to imply prostitution. Thus, prosecution should not have
relied on the testimony alone and should have presented any of the three girls as they were
in the best position to allege whether trafficking or any abuse did occur. Alternatively,
corroborative testimony with Lopez and/or Bereber would have strengthened their position.
The gravamen of 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. This must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, anyone would be
accused of"trafficking in persons" or of any other crime, without presenting the material
testimony of the alleged victim.