PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. OFELIA A. COMIA AND MARICEL GUTIERREZ TAPON, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Comia

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Ofelia Comia and Maricel Gutierrez Tapon for qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act Number 9208, as amended by Republic Act Number 10364. Comia was the floor manager of a nightclub in Makati City, and Tapon was its cashier. The trial court convicted Comia as principal and Tapon as accomplice of qualified trafficking, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The case matters because the Supreme Court, on automatic review of the records, re-examined the qualifying circumstance of the victim's minority, reduced Comia's conviction from qualified to simple trafficking, and acquitted Tapon altogether. It is a working lesson on how the prosecution must prove every element and every qualifying circumstance beyond reasonable doubt.

Procedural History

Comia, Tapon, and two other employees were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City with one count of qualified trafficking in persons and three counts of violation of Section 12-A, paragraph 3 of Republic Act Number 7610, as amended. All pleaded not guilty. The trial court denied Comia's petition for bail but allowed the others to post bail. After trial, the trial court convicted Comia and Tapon of qualified trafficking and of simple trafficking in the three other cases, and acquitted their two co-accused on reasonable doubt. On partial reconsideration, the trial court issued an Amended Decision convicting Comia of qualified trafficking as principal, with life imprisonment and a fine of two million pesos, and convicting Tapon as accomplice, with fifteen years imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos, while acquitting both of the three counts under Republic Act Number 7610. Comia and Tapon appealed to the Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal and affirmed the Amended Decision. They then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court. The Court noted that the proper remedy was an ordinary appeal by notice of appeal, but in the interest of justice it treated the petition as an ordinary appeal and decided the case on the merits.

Facts

AAA was recruited as a dancer at the nightclub where Comia worked as floor manager and Tapon as cashier. Comia, whom the dancers called Mommy Ofel, explained the work to AAA. A customer could "table" a dancer, meaning she would sit and drink with him. A customer could also avail of "VIP services" or a "bar fine," meaning the dancer would perform sexual services in a private room or a hotel in exchange for money. AAA performed these services several times, receiving three thousand pesos for each service while the "mamasangs" received three thousand nine hundred pesos.

On the night of April 17, 2015, agents of the National Bureau of Investigation conducted an entrapment operation. Comia called the dancers to a show-up on stage so that the poseur-customers could choose. The agents chose two girls. AAA testified that Comia went to the cashier and obtained condoms from Tapon, gave the condoms to the agents, and led them to the private rooms on the second floor. The agents then signaled the back-up team, and the team entered the club.

At trial, the prosecution presented AAA, the agents, and a forensic odontologist who testified that the absence of AAA's third molar indicated that she was still a minor. The defense presented a civil registry officer who testified that the local civil registry had no record of AAA's birth, an expert who testified that dental examination is not a reliable basis for determining age, and AAA's police clearance and community tax certificate showing a date of birth that would make her of legal age. The trial court nonetheless relied on AAA's school records and the dental examination to find that she was a minor.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution duly established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Comia as principal for the crime of qualified trafficking in persons.
• Whether or not the prosecution duly established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Tapon as accomplice for the crime of qualified trafficking in persons.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3(a) of Republic Act Number 9208, as amended, defines trafficking in persons:

"(a) Trafficking in Persons – refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, 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."

This definition supplies the three elements the prosecution must prove: the act of trafficking, the means used, and the purpose of exploitation.

Section 4(a) of the same law defines the punishable act:

"SEC. 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, or sexual exploitation."

This is the provision under which Comia was charged and convicted.

Section 6 of the same law supplies the qualifying circumstance:

"SEC. 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons.—Violations of Section 4 of this Act shall be considered as qualified trafficking: (a) When the trafficked person is a child."

This is the circumstance that raised the crime to qualified trafficking and that the Court found unproven.

Section 4-B of the same law defines accomplice liability:

"SEC. 4-B. Accomplice Liability. - Whoever knowingly aids, abets, cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts defined in this Act shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(c) of this Act."

This is the provision under which Tapon was convicted as an accomplice.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution proved the elements of trafficking in persons against Comia. AAA testified consistently that Comia hired her as a dancer and explained that her work included sexual services for customers. Comia instructed the dancers to line up for the customers to choose from, and AAA was chosen several times and performed sexual acts for money. The agent corroborated that Comia was the floor manager who offered the girls to customers and who obtained condoms from the cashier on the night of the entrapment. These acts constitute recruiting, providing, and offering a person for the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation, taking advantage of the victim's vulnerability.

However, the Court held that the qualifying circumstance of minority was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The local civil registry had no record of AAA's birth. The school record relied upon by the trial court was not identified and authenticated under the Rules on Evidence. The dental examination was not a reliable basis, since three of the four persons examined by the odontologist were later shown to be of legal age. The police clearance and community tax certificate, which are public documents, showed a date of birth that would make AAA of legal age. Absent proof of minority, the crime is simple trafficking in persons, not qualified trafficking. The Court therefore reduced Comia's conviction to simple trafficking.

On the second issue, the Court held that Tapon's guilt as an accomplice was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence showed only that she was the cashier who received payment and handed out condoms. The Court found that these acts did not establish that she knowingly aided, abetted, or cooperated in the execution of the offense. Tapon was therefore acquitted.

Doctrine

First, the elements of trafficking in persons are the act of recruiting, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transporting, transferring, maintaining, harboring, or receiving a person; the means used, such as threat, force, coercion, deception, abuse of power, or taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person; and the purpose of exploitation, which includes prostitution and sexual exploitation. Second, the qualifying circumstance that the trafficked person is a child must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. A school record not authenticated under the Rules on Evidence, a dental examination, and the absence of a birth record do not suffice when public documents show a different age. Third, accomplice liability under Section 4-B requires that the accused knowingly aided, abetted, or cooperated in the execution of the offense. Merely performing routine duties such as receiving payment and handing out items at the cashier does not, by itself, establish the required knowledge and cooperation.

Disposition

The Court partially granted the appeal. It convicted Comia of simple trafficking in persons instead of qualified trafficking, and it acquitted Tapon for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Remember This

Remember that the minority of the victim is a qualifying circumstance that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and that an unauthenticated school record or a dental examination cannot substitute for a duly established age. Examiners like to use this case to test the elements of trafficking in persons, the distinction between qualified and simple trafficking, and the strict requirements for accomplice liability.