TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Emma and Sherryl Leocadio for qualified trafficking in persons. The court found that they recruited minors from Bohol, promising internet cafe jobs in Pampanga, but intended to exploit them for cybersex. Even though the parents consented and no force was used, the court emphasized that trafficking minors for exploitation is illegal, especially when taking advantage of their vulnerability due to poverty. This ruling underscores the state’s commitment to protecting children from sexual exploitation, regardless of deceptive promises of employment.

Lured by False Promises: Unmasking Cybersex Trafficking in Rural Communities

In the remote barangays of Jagoliao and Nasingin in Bohol, the promise of work in a distant city can be a powerful lure, especially for families struggling with poverty. This case, People v. Leocadio, revolves around such a deceptive promise, where accused-appellants Emma and Sherryl Leocadio enticed twelve young girls, mostly minors, with the prospect of jobs in an internet cafe in Pampanga. However, the grim reality was far from legitimate employment; it was a scheme for cybersex exploitation. The Supreme Court was tasked to determine whether the Leocadios were indeed guilty of qualified trafficking in persons, considering the vulnerabilities of the victims and the deceptive nature of the recruitment.

The prosecution presented compelling testimonies from four victims—CCC, DDD, AAA, and BBB—detailing how the Leocadios recruited them. Sherryl directly told CCC about a job involving “dancing strip wearing only bra and panty” in an internet cafe. Emma, on the other hand, engaged with the mothers, offering upfront payments of P2,000 and P1,000 to CCC’s and DDD’s mothers respectively, framing it as an advance deductible from their salaries. This financial incentive, however small, played a crucial role in securing parental consent, highlighting the economic vulnerability of these families. The victims were transported from Bohol to Cebu, and their journey towards Pampanga was abruptly halted at Pier 4 in Cebu City due to discrepancies in their tickets, leading to police intervention and their rescue.

The defense argued that Emma was merely helping relatives by escorting their children to Manila and that the other girls joined voluntarily. They denied any recruitment or intention for exploitation. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both found the Leocadios guilty. The Supreme Court, in this decision penned by Chief Justice Peralta, meticulously dissected the elements of trafficking in persons as defined under Republic Act No. 9208, the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003. The law defines Trafficking in Persons as:

Section 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act:

(a) Trafficking in Persons – refers to 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 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.

The Supreme Court reiterated the three key elements for proving trafficking in persons, as previously established in People of the Philippines v. Nancy Lasaca Ramirez:

1. The act of recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons.
2. The means used, including coercion, fraud, deception, abuse of vulnerability, or giving/receiving payments for consent.
3. The purpose of exploitation, encompassing sexual exploitation, prostitution, forced labor, etc.

Applying these elements, the Court found that the prosecution successfully proved all three. The testimonies of CCC, DDD, AAA, and BBB clearly established the recruitment aspect. The advance payments to parents, though seemingly small, were considered as means of exploitation, taking advantage of the families’ vulnerability. Crucially, the Court emphasized that consent from the victims or their parents is not a defense in trafficking cases, especially involving minors. As highlighted in Antonio Planteras, Jr. v. People of the Philippines, “Knowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense under Republic Act No. 9208. 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.”

The purpose of exploitation was unequivocally established as sexual exploitation and prostitution. Victim testimonies revealed that they were explicitly told about performing lewd acts and undressing in front of foreigners online. BBB’s prior experience working for Emma’s son, Richard, where she was made to “undress facing the camera and to dance in front of it,” further solidified the exploitative intent. The Court underscored that actual performance of indecent acts is not necessary for the crime to be consummated; the intent to exploit is sufficient.

The trafficking was deemed qualified under Section 6 of R.A. No. 9208 because the victims were children and the crime was committed in large scale (against more than three persons). The Court also rejected the defense’s claim of no conspiracy, finding that Emma and Sherryl acted in concert, with Sherryl directly recruiting CCC and both being involved in the transportation and planning. The penalty imposed—life imprisonment and a fine of Two Million Pesos for each accused—was affirmed, along with moral damages of P100,000 and exemplary damages of P100,000 for each victim.

This case serves as a stark reminder of the insidious nature of human trafficking, particularly cybersex trafficking, and its devastating impact on vulnerable communities. It reinforces the legal principle that exploiting children for sexual purposes, even under the guise of opportunity and with parental consent obtained through deceptive means, constitutes a grave offense under Philippine law. The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the state’s unwavering commitment to protect children from all forms of exploitation and to hold perpetrators accountable.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. EMMA LEOCADIO Y SALAZAR AND SHERRYL LEOCADIO Y SALAZAR, G.R. No. 237697, July 15, 2020