The Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the conviction of a woman for qualified trafficking in persons involving a 13-year-old girl, stressing that trafficking cases cannot be dismissed on the basis of an affidavit of desistance and that such retractions are particularly unreliable when made by victims of exploitation. 

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC Third Division dismissed the appeal of Mary Joy Dela Torre and affirmed her conviction for qualified trafficking in persons, carrying a penalty of life imprisonment and a P2-million fine. 

“Cases involving trafficking in persons should not be dismissed based on the affidavit of desistance executed by the victims or their parents or legal guardians,” the Court said, citing the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act. 

FACTS AND ISSUE

The case stemmed from the trafficking of a then-13-year-old girl in August 2016. Dela Torre, her elder sister and another individual were charged with qualified trafficking for allegedly offering the minor to a male customer for sexual acts in exchange for money. The case against the third accused was later dismissed. 

The victim testified that Dela Torre offered her P15,000 to meet a man for sex, accompanied her to a hotel the following day and instructed her on what to do with the client. She also testified that Dela Torre later took the P15,000 paid by the man. 

During the proceedings, the victim and her mother executed an affidavit of desistance. The girl, however, admitted on cross-examination that she accepted P30,000 in exchange for signing the affidavit prepared by Dela Torre’s counsel, while maintaining that her earlier testimony was true. 

Dela Torre denied recruiting the minor and maintained that she merely accompanied her to meet the man. She also questioned the credibility of the victim’s testimony and argued that the girl initially rejected her offer and voluntarily engaged in the encounter.  

In 2019, the Regional Trial Court convicted Dela Torre of qualified trafficking and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a P2-million fine, while acquitting her sister for insufficient evidence of her involvement. 

The Court of Appeals later affirmed the conviction, finding the victim’s testimony credible despite the affidavit of desistance, while increasing the award of moral damages to P500,000. Dela Torre then elevated the case to the SC, challenging the victim’s credibility and arguing that the prosecution failed to establish qualified trafficking. 

RULING

The SC dismissed the appeal, finding no reason to overturn the consistent findings of the lower courts on the victim’s credibility. It held that the minor inconsistencies cited by the defense did not undermine her account or negate the commission of the crime. 

The SC also gave no weight to the affidavit of desistance, emphasizing that such retractions are “highly suspect” when made by victims of exploitation, particularly children. It noted that the anti-trafficking law expressly provides that trafficking cases should not be dismissed based on affidavits of desistance executed by victims, their parents or legal guardians. The Court added that such an affidavit cannot readily override testimony given in court and subjected to cross-examination.  

The Court further stressed that once a criminal case has been filed, it is the State—not the private complainant—that determines whether the prosecution should proceed. An affidavit of desistance or pardon, by itself, therefore does not warrant the dismissal of a criminal action already instituted in court. 

On the offense itself, the SC found that Dela Torre recruited the minor, took advantage of her vulnerability, facilitated her transportation and offered her sexual services to a man for money. The offense was qualified because the trafficked person was a child, one of the qualifying circumstances under the anti-trafficking law.  

The Court explained that recruitment of a child for exploitation constitutes trafficking even without the means otherwise required under the law. It also rejected the argument that the girl’s initial refusal meant there was no recruitment, ruling that Dela Torre’s act of calling and convincing her to offer sexual services already satisfied the recruitment element.  

“Regardless of whether [the victim] agreed to or declined Mary Joy’s offer, the mere fact that Mary Joy called and convinced her to offer sexual services already meets the element of ‘recruitment’ for purposes of trafficking,” the Court said. 

The SC ultimately affirmed Dela Torre’s life sentence and P2-million fine, as well as the award of P500,000 in moral damages and P100,000 in exemplary damages to the victim, with six percent annual legal interest from the finality of the decision until full payment.

Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.