CUTANDA, Deszth Atria T.
JD-1A
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
NANCY LASACA RAMIRES A.K.A. “ZOY” OR “SOY”
G.R. No. 217978, January 30, 2019
FACTS: An entrapment operation was conducted by Regional Anti-Human Trafficking Task
Force and was able to apprehend Ramirez, who, during the operation introduced herself and
was found to be a pimp. She informed the police officers during the operation that she could
provide them with girls. After agreement and Ramirez provided them with four (4) girls, they
hailed a taxi and handed money to one of the girls. As soon as the girl received it, PO1 Nemenzo
and PO1 Llanes introduced themselves as police officers, and turned the girls over to their team
leader in a civilian van parked near them. The police officers were told to return to the area and
await the other teams' return. Later, Ramirez was arrested when BBB pointed to her as the pimp.
Ramirez avers that on the night of the incident, she was merely in the area with her sister to
watch a live band. She claims that she only met BBB that night, and that BBB suddenly dragged
her to look for two (2) more girls. She further alleges that it was BBB who negotiated with the
two (2) customers and that she had no idea what was going on. She submits that BBB pointed
to her as a pimp only because the police officers were threatening to detain her instead.
ISSUE: Whether or not the prosecution proved accused-appellant Nancy Lasaca Ramirez'
guilt beyond reasonable doubt of qualified trafficking of persons
RULING: Yes. Republic Act No. 9208 defines trafficking in persons as:
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act:
(a) Trafficking in Persons — refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or 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 persons,
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.
The crime is still considered trafficking if it involves the "recruitment, transportation, transfer,
harboring[,] or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation" even if it does not involve any of
the means stated under the law. Trafficking is considered qualified when "the trafficked person
is a child[.]"
In this case, the prosecution established that on the night of December 5, 2009, accused-
appellant approached PO1 Nemenzo and offered him the sexual services of four (4) girls, two
(2) of whom were minors, for ₱2,400.00. The police operation had been the result of previous
surveillance conducted within the area by the Regional Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force. Both
minor victims testified that this incident was not the first time that accused-appellant pimped
them out to customers, and that any payment to them would include the payment of commission
to accused-appellant.
In addition, Ramirez changes her testimonies as to why she was on the area at that night. Initially
used the defense of denial, testifying that she was merely in the area to listen to a live band
CUTANDA, Deszth Atria T. JD-1A
when the police rushed to her and arrested her. Denial, however, becomes a weak defense
against the positive identification by the poseur-buyer and the minor victims.
Moreover, accused-appellant, in her handwritten letter to the Court seemingly abandoned her
earlier statement that she was just in the area to watch a live band when the police rushed to
and arrested her. This time, she alleged that it was BBB who approached and dragged her to
the police officers, and who also started negotiating prices. This contradicts her earlier statement
that she had no knowledge of the transaction. Worse, this appears to corroborate the prosecution
witnesses' testimonies that she was indeed at the transaction.
In any case, PO1 Nemenzo had categorically testified that he and PO1 Llanes were approached
by accused-appellant, who had negotiated prices on AAA and BBB's behalf.51 Accused-
appellant has not alleged any ill motive on PO1 Nemenzo's part to testify against her.
Even if the minors acquiesce to the illicit transactions, this cannot be considered as a valid
defense. It did not matter that there was no threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception
or abuse of power that was employed. Trafficking in persons may be committed also by means
of taking advantage of the persons' vulnerability as minors, a circumstance that applied to this
case.
