MARK ANGELO VERANO Y EDEJER, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Verano versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Verano versus People of the Philippines, a criminal case in which the accused, Mark Angelo Verano, was charged with three separate offenses arising from a single course of conduct against a woman desperate for work: trafficking in persons under the anti-trafficking law, a violation of the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act, and grave threats under the Revised Penal Code. The case matters for two reasons. First, it is a clean teaching case on the elements of trafficking in persons and on how the crime is committed in the attempted stage. Second, and more importantly for the Bar, it is the case that fixes the amounts of moral and exemplary damages that may be awarded to a victim of attempted trafficking in persons, a question on which jurisprudence had previously been silent.

Procedural History

Verano was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City in three separate Informations. After arraignment, where he pleaded not guilty, trial ensued. The Regional Trial Court convicted him of attempted trafficking in persons under Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364, and acquitted him of the voyeurism charge and of grave threats. He appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal and affirmed the Decision of the trial court. Aggrieved, Verano filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, raising essentially factual questions about the credibility of the complainant and the sufficiency of the evidence.

Facts

In the evening of February 4, 2019, the complainant, referred to as AAA, received a message from one Christian Madrigal offering her a job and telling her to message a certain Keith Sy on Facebook if she was interested. AAA inquired, and Keith told her it was an escort job and that she had to send nude photos of herself so he could check if she was qualified. Desperate for a job, AAA sent a half-naked photo of herself. Keith then told her she was qualified for a luxury day, which meant earning double the normal fee. Before she could start, however, Keith informed her that she needed to undergo a sex training with one Justine Madrigal in a hotel in Santa Mesa, subject to a training fee of 1,000 pesos.

When AAA realized the job was to be a sex worker, she backed out. Keith got angry and instructed her to talk to Justine. When she insisted on backing out, both Keith and Justine threatened to post her nude photos on the internet. Despite her pleas, her photos were in fact posted on a Facebook account of one Mary Joy Salazar. AAA sought help from the authorities and was referred to the Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, which planned an entrapment operation because Justine kept threatening her. Verano was apprehended after he took the marked 1,000 peso bill from AAA, supposedly representing the training fee. At the police station, it was discovered that Justine, Keith, and Mary Joy were all fake names of Verano.

For his part, Verano denied the charges. He claimed he was suddenly arrested by three persons in civilian clothes while about to board a passenger jeepney, that his belongings were taken from him, and that he first saw AAA only at the precinct. The trial court convicted him of attempted trafficking in persons but acquitted him of the other two charges, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Verano for attempted trafficking in persons under Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364.
• Whether or not Verano may be convicted of the violation of Section 4(b) of the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act and of grave threats despite his conviction for trafficking in persons.
• Whether or not the amounts of moral and exemplary damages awarded to the victim were proper.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended, defines the acts of trafficking in persons, and it is the provision under which Verano was charged and convicted:

Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit any of the following acts: (a) To recruit, obtain, hire, provide, offer, transport, transfer, maintain, harbor, or receive a person by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage.

This is the core prohibition, and the Court measured the evidence against its elements of recruitment, means, and purpose.

Republic Act No. 10364 expressly defines and penalizes the attempted stage of the offense, which is the stage the Court found in this case:

Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. x x x. Where there are acts to initiate the commission of a trafficking offense but the offender failed to or did not execute all the elements of the crime, by accident or by reason of some cause other than voluntary desistance, such overt acts shall be deemed as an attempt to commit an act of trafficking in persons.

This provision is decisive because Verano did not complete the recruitment for prostitution, yet his overt acts were still punishable as a distinct crime.

On the penalty, the same law provides that a violation of Section 4(a) carries imprisonment of 15 years and a fine of not less than 500,000 pesos but not more than 1 million pesos, which is why the fine of 750,000 pesos was sustained.

On damages, the Court relied on Article 2219 of the Civil Code, which lists the cases in which moral damages may be recovered:

Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries; (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries; (3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts; (4) Adultery or concubinage; (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest; (6) Illegal search; (7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation; (8) Malicious prosecution; (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309; (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

Trafficking in persons is treated as analogous to the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts, which justifies the award of moral damages to the victim.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court upheld the conviction. It first noted a procedural point: the petition raised essentially factual questions, and under Rule 45 the Court's jurisdiction is limited to errors of law, so factual questions are generally proscribed. No exception applied. Even so, the Court affirmed on the merits. Applying its earlier ruling in People versus Valencia, it held that all three elements of trafficking were proven beyond reasonable doubt: Verano recruited AAA to work as an escort or engage in prostitution; he used threat, by warning that he would post her naked photos, to convince her; and the purpose was prostitution. Because the recruitment was not consummated due to a cause other than Verano's voluntary desistance, the crime was committed only in the attempted stage.

On the second issue, the Court agreed that Verano could not be convicted of the other charges. On the voyeurism charge, there was no evidence that he reproduced or copied the nude photo; what was proven was that it was uploaded online, which is a violation of Section 4(d) of the same law, a different crime whose elements are not included in those of Section 4(b), so the variance doctrine could not apply. On grave threats, the act of threatening AAA was already subsumed in the trafficking charge, because the use of threat is itself an element of the means of trafficking.

On the third issue, the Court modified the damages. It noted that jurisprudence had set moral damages at 500,000 pesos and exemplary damages at 100,000 pesos for consummated and qualified trafficking, but that no amount had yet been fixed for attempted trafficking. Relying on its ruling in Ferrer versus People, which clarified that attempted trafficking is a separate crime created by Republic Act No. 10364, and on Guy versus Tulfo, which held that the amount of moral damages depends on the circumstances of each case, the Court reduced the awards to 50,000 pesos as moral damages and 30,000 pesos as exemplary damages.

Doctrine

First, the elements of trafficking in persons are recruitment or obtaining of a person, by means of threat, force, coercion, or deception, for the purpose of exploitation or prostitution. Second, attempted trafficking in persons is a separate crime under Republic Act No. 10364: where the offender performs overt acts to initiate the offense but fails to execute all its elements by reason of a cause other than voluntary desistance, the crime is attempted. Third, when the threat is the very means used to recruit the victim, it is absorbed in the trafficking charge and cannot be prosecuted separately. Fourth, a charge under one subsection of a special law cannot be converted into a conviction under another subsection whose elements are not included in the first, because the variance doctrine does not apply. Fifth, victims of attempted trafficking in persons are entitled to moral damages of 50,000 pesos and exemplary damages of 30,000 pesos, lower than the amounts for consummated or qualified trafficking, with legal interest at 6 percent per annum from finality of judgment.

Disposition

The petition was denied. The Court of Appeals Decision was affirmed with modification: Verano was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted trafficking in persons, sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment and a fine of 750,000 pesos, and ordered to pay the complainant 50,000 pesos as moral damages and 30,000 pesos as exemplary damages, with legal interest.

Remember This

Memorize this line: attempted trafficking in persons is a separate crime, and its victim is entitled to 50,000 pesos in moral damages and 30,000 pesos in exemplary damages. Examiners like to use this case to test the elements of trafficking, the absorption of the threat into the trafficking charge, and the distinction in damages between attempted and consummated trafficking.