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 petition for review on certiorari brought by Mark Angelo Verano against the People of the Philippines. Verano was convicted by the trial court, and the conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, for the crime of attempted trafficking in persons under Section 4(a) of Republic Act Number 9208, as amended by Republic Act Number 10364, the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012. The case matters for two reasons. First, it settles the elements of trafficking in persons and explains when the crime is only attempted. Second, and more importantly for the Bar, it fixes the amounts of moral and exemplary damages that may be awarded to a victim of attempted trafficking in persons, a stage of the crime for which jurisprudence had not yet set amounts.

Procedural History

Verano was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City in three separate Informations: trafficking in persons under Section 4(a) of Republic Act Number 9208, as amended; a violation of Section 4(b) of Republic Act Number 9995, the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009; and grave threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code. He pleaded not guilty to all charges, and trial ensued.

The trial court convicted him of attempted trafficking in persons and sentenced him to imprisonment of 15 years and a fine of 750,000 pesos, with moral damages of 200,000 pesos and exemplary damages of 100,000 pesos. It acquitted him of the voyeurism charge and of grave threats. Verano appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court. Aggrieved, Verano filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

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 about the job, 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 AAA could start, Keith informed her that she needed to undergo a sex training with one Justine Madrigal, to be held in a hotel in Santa Mesa and 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, AAA found her photos 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. Based on the information she shared, an entrapment operation was planned, since Justine kept threatening her. During the operation, 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 and claimed he was suddenly arrested by three men in civilian clothes.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of Verano for the crime of attempted trafficking in persons under Section 4(a) of Republic Act Number 9208, as amended by Republic Act Number 10364.
• Whether or not Verano may be convicted of the other charges of violation of Section 4(b) of the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 and grave threats.
• Whether or not the award of moral and exemplary damages to AAA should be modified.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4(a) of Republic Act Number 9208, as amended, defines the act of trafficking in persons, and it provides:

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 provision under which Verano was charged and convicted, and its elements define the act, the means, and the purpose of the crime.

Republic Act Number 10364 expressly defines the attempted stage of the crime, and it provides:

Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. There shall also be a crime of attempted trafficking in persons 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 the basis for convicting Verano of attempted trafficking rather than consummated trafficking, because the recruitment was not completed for a cause other than his own desistance.

Article 2217 of the Civil Code describes moral damages, and it provides:

Article 2217. Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury. Though incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the defendant's wrongful act or omission.

This provision supports the award of moral damages to AAA for the suffering caused by Verano's threats and by the posting of her photos.

Article 2229 of the Civil Code governs exemplary damages, and it provides:

Article 2229. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.

This provision supports the award of exemplary damages as a correction for the public good.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court upheld the conviction. It first noted that the petition raised factual questions, which are not proper in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, since the Court's jurisdiction is limited to errors of law. Nevertheless, the Court affirmed on the merits. Following its earlier ruling in People versus Valencia, the elements of trafficking in persons are the act of recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons; the means used, such as threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power, or taking advantage of vulnerability; and the purpose of exploitation or prostitution. The Court found all three elements proven: Verano recruited AAA to work as an escort or engage in prostitution; he threatened to post her nude photos to convince her; and the work she was being convinced to engage in was prostitution. However, because the recruitment was not consummated for a cause other than his voluntary desistance, the crime was only attempted.

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 Republic Act Number 9995, a different crime whose elements are not included in Section 4(b), so the variance doctrine cannot apply. On grave threats, the act of threatening AAA is already subsumed in the trafficking charge, since threat or coercion is one of its elements.

On the third issue, the Court modified the damages. It noted that jurisprudence has set moral damages at 500,000 pesos and exemplary damages at 100,000 pesos for consummated and qualified trafficking, but no amount had yet been set for attempted trafficking. Treating attempted trafficking as a separate crime under Republic Act Number 10364, the Court awarded moral damages of 50,000 pesos and exemplary damages of 30,000 pesos, finding these sufficient for the suffering AAA experienced.

Doctrine

First, the elements of trafficking in persons are the act of recruitment or obtaining of a person, the means used such as threat or coercion, and the purpose of exploitation or prostitution. Second, attempted trafficking in persons is a separate crime under Republic Act Number 10364, committed when the offender fails to execute all the elements of the crime by accident or by reason of some cause other than voluntary desistance. Third, the penalty for a violation of Section 4(a) is imprisonment of 15 years and a fine of not less than 500,000 pesos but not more than 1 million pesos. Fourth, moral damages of 50,000 pesos and exemplary damages of 30,000 pesos are due to a victim of attempted trafficking in persons, lower than the amounts for consummated or qualified trafficking.

Disposition

The petition was denied. The Court affirmed the conviction of Verano for attempted trafficking in persons, sentenced him to 15 years of imprisonment and a fine of 750,000 pesos, and ordered him to pay AAA moral damages of 50,000 pesos and exemplary damages of 30,000 pesos, with legal interest of 6 percent per annum from finality until full satisfaction.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that attempted trafficking in persons is a separate crime, and its victim is entitled to moral damages of 50,000 pesos and exemplary damages of 30,000 pesos. Examiners like to use this case to test the elements of trafficking in persons, the distinction between the attempted and consummated stages, and the amounts of damages for each stage.