The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed a Court of Appeals’ (CA) decision which upheld the trial court’s imposition of life imprisonment on a couple who lured a 15-year-old girl into prostitution in 2009 in Batangas City.
In a resolution made public last January 12, the SC said the CA did not commit any reversible error in upholding the conviction of Amelia G. Culis and Marvin C. Culis for violations of Republic Act No. 9208, the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.
The trial court and the CA found the couple guilty of violations of Section 4 (e) in relation to Sections 6 (a) and 10 (a) of RA 9208.
Section 4 (e) provides that it is unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, “to maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;” Section 6 (a) states that the violation is qualified trafficking in persons “when the trafficked person is a child;” and Section 10 (a) prescribes the penalties and sanctions.
On top of the jail term, the SC also affirmed the increase in the moral damages imposed by the CA on the couple – from P75,000 decreed by the trial court to P500,000 – and the additional payment of P100,000 in exemplary damages.
The trial court ordered the payment of P2 million in fine. The CA added a six per cent interest on the fine until fully paid.
The SC, however, deleted the six per cent interest on the P2 million fine except the interest on the monetary award for damages.
The SC resolution stated:
“It is settled that when the victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, it passes the test of credibility, and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof.
“Therefore, without any corroboration, accused-appellants' (Amelia and Marvin Culis) denial and alibi cannot overcome the positive and straightforward testimony of the victim. In this case, the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime.
“As such, the trial court and the CA correctly ruled that accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified trafficking.”
The trial court’s judgment of conviction that was handed down by the Batangas City regional trial court (RTC) on Sept. 13, 2016 was affirmed with modification by the CA in its April 16, 2018 decision.
The criminal charge sheet against the Culis couple, as reprinted in the CA decision, stated that “on or about December 29, 2009 up to February 16, 2010 at (exact place omitted), Batangas City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together, without authority of law, thru fraud, deception and taking advantage of vulnerability of the person, did then and there wilfully and feloniously recruit, hire, and maintain (name of the girl omitted), a 15-year old minor, for the purpose of prostitution/sexual exploitation. The qualifying circumstance of minority, the victim, being 15 years old, is attendant in the commission of the offense.”
During the trial of the case, the victim narrated how she was “peddled” by the couple to several men for a fee.
She pointed out that in all the “transactions,” the couple automatically deducted P500 for their commission and P200 for travel expenses since the couple’s tri-cycle was always used in ferrying her to the “customers.”
In between sobs during the hearing, the girl testified that from the first “customer,” she got P1,300 after deducting the commission and the tricycle fare.
In some instances, she would only get P300 in “bookings” done almost three times a week.
She admitted she ran away from home and met the Culis couple when she was desperate and in need of finances.
Later, she decided to quit because her conscience was bothering her. She said she started to work as a cashier in a video bar where her mother found her.
It was during a confrontation before barangay officials, and later, in a police station that she confessed her ordeal. A case was filed against the Culis couple who denied the charges and interposed a defense of alibi.
In their appeal before the CA, the couple told the appellate court that the trial court committed an error in convicting them based on the inconsistent testimonies of the girl and the insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence.
But the CA denied the couple’s appeal and affirmed the trial court’s ruling.
It found the testimony of the girl credible for “it narrated even the ugly details of the times she was brokered for sex by appellants and her experiences and sexual encounters with her customers.”
“As a child, she could not have provided these details if she did not actually experience them. Indeed, a child-victim could not have spoken tenaciously and explicitly on the details of the rape, or in this case, sexual exploitation, if she had not in fact suffered such crime at the hands of appellants,” the CA said.
“Further, with respect to testimonies of child-victims, courts have always been guided by the principle that these testimonies should be given full weight and credit, since when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, or in this case subjected to sexual exploitation, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that crime was indeed committed against her,” it added.
“Youth and immaturity could be badges of truth. This observation is a matter of judicial cognizance borne out by human nature and experience. There could not have been a more powerful testament to the truth than this ‘public baring of unspoken grief,’” it said.
In rejecting the couple’s allegations, the CA said: “In any event, assuming arguendo that complainant volunteered herself to be peddled to customers by Amelia, the same will not negate appellants' liability for trafficking in persons.”
Citing a 2014 SC decision, the CA pointed out: “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 appellate court’s decision was written by then CA Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro Javier who is now an associate justice of the SC.