Title: People vs.
Mora
Case: G.R. No. 242682
Ponente: PERLAS-BERNABE, J
Decision Date: Jul 1, 2019
Accused-appellant Nerissa Mora appeals her conviction for Qualified Trafficking in Persons, but the
Court upholds the conviction, emphasizing the prosecution's successful establishment of the elements of
the crime and rejecting the defense's claim of voluntary participation by the victim.
Facts:
The case involves accused-appellant Nerissa Mora a.k.a. Neri Balagta Mora (Mora) who filed an appeal
against the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the Judgment of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) convicting her and her co-accused, Maria Salome Polvoriza (Polvoriza), of Qualified Trafficking
in Persons under Republic Act No. 9208. The case stemmed from an Information filed before the RTC,
charging Mora and Polvoriza of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons. The prosecution claimed
that Mora and Polvoriza conspired to take a minor victim, AAA, to a videoke bar where she was forced to
work as a sex worker. Mora and Polvoriza denied the charges and presented their own defenses.
Issue: The main issue in the case is whether Mora's conviction for Qualified Trafficking in Persons should
be upheld.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that Mora's appeal is without merit and affirmed her conviction for Qualified Trafficking
in Persons. The Court held that the prosecution had successfully established the elements of the crime
charged, including the fact that Mora and Polvoriza conspired to take AAA to the videoke bar and forced
her to work as a sex worker. The Court also rejected Mora and Polvoriza's claim that AAA voluntarily
presented herself to work at the bar, emphasizing that consent is immaterial in cases of human trafficking,
especially when the victim is a minor. The Court upheld the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of
P2,000,000.00 imposed by the lower courts, as well as the award of moral and exemplary damages to
AAA.
Ratio:
The Court based its decision on Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, which defines Trafficking in
Persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, or harboring of persons for the purpose of
exploitation. The Court noted that the crime becomes qualified when the trafficked person is a child. In
this case, Mora and Polvoriza were charged with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(e) in
relation to Section 6(a) of the law. The Court found that the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable
doubt the elements of the crime, including the fact that Mora and Polvoriza conspired to take AAA to the
videoke bar and forced her to work as a sex worker. The Court emphasized that consent is immaterial in
cases of human trafficking, especially when the victim is a minor. The Court upheld the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of P2,000,000.00 imposed by the lower courts, as well as the award of moral and
exemplary damages to AAA.
