PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. HYO SOON KIM, XXX276117, AND YYY276117, ACCUSED, XXX276117 AND YYY276117, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Kim

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in a case of qualified trafficking in persons. The People of the Philippines prosecuted Hyo Soon Kim, a Korean national known to the family as Rocks, together with the parents of a sixteen year old girl identified in the record as AAA276117. The Information alleged that the parents obtained, provided, and offered their own daughter to Kim, taking advantage of her vulnerability by reason of her minority, poverty, and their ascendancy over her, through pandering her to Kim so that she could be engaged in lascivious conduct in exchange for money and other benefits. The case matters because it tests how the anti-trafficking law treats parents who deliver their own child to a paying abuser, and because it shows what the prosecution must prove when the victim is a minor and the exploiters are the very persons bound to protect her.

Procedural History

All three accused were arraigned and each entered a plea of not guilty. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated on several matters, among them the minority of the complainant, the authenticity of her Certificate of Live Birth, the fact that the two accused parents are her parents, and the fact that the National Bureau of Investigation agents had no search warrant or warrant of arrest when the arrests were made. Kim filed a petition for bail, hearings were held, and the petition was denied; his motion for reconsideration was likewise denied. Trial then proceeded, with the prosecution presenting its witnesses and the defense presenting its own, including all three accused.

The Regional Trial Court convicted all three. Kim and the father were convicted as principals by direct participation and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of two million pesos. The mother was convicted as an accomplice and sentenced to fifteen years of imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos. All were ordered to pay moral and exemplary damages, with the shares and subsidiary liabilities apportioned in the decision. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The case then reached the Supreme Court by appeal.

Facts

AAA276117 is the daughter of the two accused parents. Her father had worked as a boatman and once served as a tour guide for Kim, and because of Kim's regular visits the two men became friends. Kim frequently visited the family home, was generous, treated the father and relatives, and gave them small amounts of money. When AAA276117 was in Grade Five the family moved, and Kim helped them build a small hut as their new residence. He continued visiting, and on each visit he would give AAA276117 five thousand pesos, part of which she gave to her mother for household expenses.

Around November 2017 an aunt told AAA276117 that Kim appeared to have romantic feelings for her. On that same day she found herself alone with Kim in a room, where he confessed his feelings, and from then on she avoided him. Kim increased the frequency of his visits and began staying overnight. During drinking sessions he insisted that she sit beside him and invited her into the room, where he inappropriately touched her private areas. When she resisted, Kim became angry and left, and her parents scolded her, explaining that Kim would withhold money when upset. Thereafter he gave her larger sums, ranging from twenty thousand to forty thousand pesos. In December 2017, on a nighttime jeepney ride to a restaurant, he put his arm around her shoulder and touched her breasts. In January 2018 he told her that before taking her on a trip she should first have sexual intercourse with him. In February 2018 he kissed her on the lips, and when she pushed him away he left angrily; her parents scolded her again and warned that she would suffer in poverty. On another occasion he touched her vagina and gave her twenty thousand pesos the same day. On March 5, 2018 he gave her forty thousand pesos, which was used to buy household items, and again demanded sexual intercourse in exchange for money for a birthday celebration, which she refused.

Her aunt testified that the parents had asked her to persuade AAA276117 to have sexual intercourse with Kim so that he would continue giving them money, and that the father told her not to concern herself because AAA276117 was not her child. On March 13, 2018 the aunt and AAA276117 filed a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation, which formed a team with a social welfare officer for a rescue operation. On the night of March 15, 2018, the team saw Kim, after speaking with the father, enter the room where AAA276117 was sleeping, lie beside her, and touch her breast and vagina. The agents entered, rescued her, and arrested Kim and both parents. The defense denied the charges, and Kim claimed the case was filed to extort money from him.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused for qualified trafficking in persons was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the mother was correctly convicted as an accomplice rather than as a principal.
• Whether or not the penalties and the awards of damages were proper.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364, defines the acts of trafficking in persons:

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 act charged against the accused, and it supplies the elements the prosecution had to prove.

Section 3(b) of the same law defines trafficking in persons:

Section 3. Definition of Terms. — (b) 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 means, including taking advantage of vulnerability and giving or receiving payments to obtain consent, that the evidence had to establish.

Section 6(a) of the same law qualifies the crime:

Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. — The following are considered as qualified trafficking: (a) When the trafficked person is a child.

Because the victim was sixteen years old, the crime is qualified and carries the higher penalty.

Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court held that the elements of qualified trafficking were established beyond reasonable doubt. The victim was a child, a fact stipulated during pre-trial and supported by her Certificate of Live Birth. The parents obtained, provided, and offered her to Kim, taking advantage of her vulnerability by reason of her minority, poverty, and their ascendancy over her, and Kim received her for sexual exploitation, touching and kissing her private parts in exchange for money. The Court gave weight to the victim's candid testimony and to the accounts of the agents who personally witnessed Kim touching her breast and vagina on the night of the rescue. Against this, the defenses of denial and extortion were rejected, as denial is a weak defense that cannot prevail over positive identification, and the claim of extortion was not shown to have been established.

On the second issue, the Court sustained the trial court's characterization of the mother's participation. The father and Kim were convicted as principals by direct participation, while the mother was convicted as an accomplice, her participation being that of one who cooperated in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts without taking part as a principal. On the third issue, the Court upheld the penalties of life imprisonment and a two million peso fine for the principals, and fifteen years of imprisonment and a five hundred thousand peso fine for the accomplice, together with the awards of moral and exemplary damages and the six percent interest per annum from finality of the decision until fully paid.

Doctrine

First, trafficking in persons is committed when a person recruits, obtains, provides, or offers another for sexual exploitation, and the victim's consent is immaterial; the law expressly covers trafficking with or without the victim's consent or knowledge. Second, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, and giving or receiving payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another, are among the means that bring the act within the definition. Third, when the trafficked person is a child, the crime is qualified trafficking under Section 6(a), and the minority of the victim, once established, raises the offense and the penalty. Fourth, parents who deliver their own child to a paying exploiter act with the aggravating circumstance of ascendancy, and one who cooperates by previous or simultaneous acts without participating as a principal is liable as an accomplice. Fifth, denial is a weak defense that cannot overcome the positive and credible testimony of the victim and of eyewitnesses.

Disposition

The appeal was denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, so the People won and all three accused stand convicted of qualified trafficking in persons, with the penalties and damages sustained.

Remember This

The one line to memorize is that trafficking exists even with the victim's consent, and it becomes qualified when the trafficked person is a child. Examiners use this case to test the elements of qualified trafficking under the anti-trafficking law, the distinction between principal and accomplice in the parents' participation, and the rule that denial cannot prevail over positive testimony.