People Vs Ramirez

G.R. No. 217978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE…APPELLANT.
: January 2019 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 2/26/20, 12:20 AM
Philippine Supreme Court

Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2019 > January 2019
Decisions > G.R. No. 217978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-
APPELLEE, v. NANCY LASACA RAMIREZ A.K.A. "ZOY" OR "SOY"
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.:
This is an Appeal assailing the Court of Appeals October 23, 2014 Decision1 in
CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 01655, which affirmed the Regional Trial Court
January 9, 2013 Judgment2 in Crim. Case No. R-LLP-09-05622-CR. The trial
court found Nancy Lasaca Ramirez a.k.a. "ZOY" or "SOY" (Ramirez) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of qualified trafficking of persons in relation to
Section 4(e)3 of Republic Act No. 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act
of 2003.
In an Information, Ramirez was charged with qualified trafficking of persons

in relation to Section 4(e) of Republic Act No. 9208. It read:
That on the 5th day of December, 2009, at or about 9:45 o'clock (sic) in the
evening, in xxxxxxxxxxx, Lapu-Lapu City, Philippines, within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the aforenamed accused, did then
and there willfully and unlawfully maintain or hire Nica Jean U. Goc-ong,
20 years old, AAA, 16 year old minor, Cindy Pancho, 20 years old and
BBB, 15 year old minor, to engage in prostitution and offered them for sex
or any form of sexual exploitation to poseur customers.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
Ramirez pleaded not guilty on arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued.5
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2019januarydecisions.php?id=66 Page 1 of 16
G.R. No. 217978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE…APPELLANT. : January 2019 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 2/26/20, 12:20 AM
The prosecution alleged that at around 9:45 p.m. on December 5, 2009,

Police Officer 1 Nef Nemenzo (PO1 Nemenzo) and 13 other members of the
Regional Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force conducted an entrapment
operation in xxxxxxxxxxx, Lapu-Lapu City. The operation was "based on their
surveillance of a widespread sexual service for sale by young girls"6 in the
area.7
The operation was divided into two (2) groups. PO1 Nemenzo's group
targeted the area of xxxxxxxxxxx KTV Bar in front of xxxxxxxxxxx Grill. He
would be disguised as a customer negotiating for the prices of the minors'
services.8
In the bar, PO1 Nemenzo and a team member, Police Officer 1 Llanes (PO1
Llanes), ordered beers and waited for the pimps. Two (2) women approached
them and introduced themselves as AAA and BBB.9 Upon hearing that they
would need two (2) more girls, another woman approached them and
introduced herself as Nancy, who was later identified as Ramirez. She told the
police officers that she could provide the girls. Then, BBB and Ramirez left,
and after a while, returned with two (2) more girls. They agreed that each girl
would cost P600.00 as payment for sexual services.10
After Ramirez provided the four (4) girls, the group left and hailed a taxi
heading for xxxxxxxxxxx Motel. Ramirez had told the girls to accept the
money that they would be given. In the taxi, PO1 Llanes handed P2,400.00 to
one (1) 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.11
The prosecution also presented the testimony of BBB, a minor, who testified
knowing Ramirez and that she herself was pimped out by Ramirez several
times already. BBB stated that on the night of the incident, Ramirez
approached her and asked if she wanted to have sex for P200.00. She
accepted and later, she and another girl, AAA, approached two (2) customers.
The men said that they needed two (2) more girls, so Ramirez instructed BBB
to get a couple more. She came back with two (2) girls, Nica and Cindy. After
the deal was made, the six (6) of them boarded a taxi.12
Before they left, Ramirez instructed BBB to get the money from the two (2)
men. While in the taxi, one (1) of the men handed her P2,400.00. She
received the money and told her companions to set aside P400.00 as their
pimp's share. Instead of going to the motel, the taxi stopped and the men
introduced themselves as police officers.13
The prosecution likewise presented the testimony of AAA, a minor, who

testified that she had already been pimped by Ramirez twice. On the night of
the incident, AAA testified that Ramirez pimped her and three (3) other girls
out to two (2) customers for P2,400.00. She stated that she knew Ramirez to
be a pimp because Ramirez would look for customers, negotiate prices, get
girls to have sex with the customers, and get commission from it.14
In her defense, Ramirez testified that at about 9:00p.m. on December 5,

2009, she and her sister, Francy Ramirez, were at xxxxxxxxxxx Grill watching
a live band when two (2) men rushed to them, arrested her, and pushed her
into a van. She asked why she was being arrested but the men just laughed. In
the van, she saw BBB, who told her that police officers were around the area
to arrest prostitutes. The men then brought her to a gas station, where they
were made to board another van with other women and two (2) gay men.
They were brought to the police station in xxxxxxxxxxx, Cebu City, where they
were investigated for prostitution.15
In its January 9, 2013 Judgment,16 the Regional Trial Court found Ramirez
guilty. The dispositive portion read:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby

rendered finding the accused, Nancy Lasaca Ramirez guilty of the crime of
Qualified Trafficking of Person in Relation to Sec. 4 (e) of R.A. 9208
beyond reasonable doubt and sentences her to suffer the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00).
SO ORDERED.17
Ramirez appealed before the Court of Appeals.18 She argued that she does not
work at xxxxxxxxxxx KTV Bar, and that it was BBB who negotiated with the
poseur customers about the girls' prices and received the supposed payment
for sexual services.19 She posits that the advanced payment made to BBB was
"contrary to human nature and natural course of events"20 since no sexual
activity had occurred yet. She insists that she was in the area just to watch a
live band.21
In its October 23, 2014 Decision,22 the Court of Appeals denied the Appeal
and affirmed the Regional Trial Court January 9, 2013 Judgment. It
highlighted the trial court's finding of overwhelming evidence against
Ramirez, as two (2) of the minor victims positively identified her as their
pimp.23
The Court of Appeals held that Ramirez not being employed at the
xxxxxxxxxxx KTV Bar was irrelevant. It also found that even if BBB initiated
the negotiation with the poseur customers, the deal was only closed when
Ramirez brought another pair of girls.24 It further noted that it was not
uncommon for the payment to be received by the hired girls instead of the
pimps. In any case, BBB testified that P400.00 had already been earmarked
from the P2,400.00 payment as Ramirez' commission. This was enough to
conclude that she was the girls' pimp.25
Ramirez filed a Notice of Appeal,26 to which the Court of Appeals gave due
course,27 elevating the case records to this Court.28
In its June 29, 2015 Resolution,29 this Court noted the elevation of records
and directed the parties to file their supplemental briefs. Both parties
manifested that they were no longer submitting supplemental briefs and
moved that this Court instead consider the arguments in their briefs
submitted before the Court of Appeals.30
While the case was pending, accused-appellant sent a handwritten letter31 to

this Court, insisting 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.32 She submits that BBB pointed
to her as a pimp only because the police officers were threatening to detain
her instead.33
This Court is confronted with the sole issue of whether or not the prosecution
proved accused-appellant Nancy Lasaca Ramirez' guilt beyond reasonable
doubt of qualified trafficking of persons.
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.34 Trafficking is considered qualified when "the trafficked person is a
child[.]"35
In People v. Casio,36 this Court enumerated the elements that must be

established to successfully prosecute the crime:
The elements of trafficking in persons can be derived from its definition

under Section 3 (a) of Republic Act No. 9208, thus:
(1) The act of "recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, or receipt

of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or
across national borders."
(2) The means used which include "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["]; and
(3) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes "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."37
Republic Act No. 9208 has since been amended by Republic Act No. 1036438
on February 6, 2013. In recognition of the amendments to the law, Casio
clarifies that crimes prosecuted under Republic Act No. 10364 must have the
following elements:
Under Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of trafficking in persons have
been expanded to include the following acts:
(1) The act of "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[";]
(2) The means used include "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"[;]
(3) The purpose of trafficking includes "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[.]"39 (Emphasis in the
original)
Here, accused-appellant was charged with having violated qualified

trafficking in relation to Section 4(e) of Republic Act No. 9208, which
provides that it is unlawful for anyone "[t]o maintain or hire a person to
engage in prostitution or pornography[.]"
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 P2,400.00. 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
This Court in People v. Rodriguez40 acknowledged that as with Casio, the

corroborating testimonies of the arresting officer and the minor victims were
sufficient to sustain a conviction under the law. In People v. Spouses Ybanez,
et al.,41 this Court likewise affirmed the conviction of traffickers arrested
based on a surveillance report on the prostitution of minors within the area.
In People v. XXX and YYY,42 this Court held that the exploitation of minors,
through either prostitution or pornography, is explicitly prohibited under the
law. Casio also recognizes that the crime is considered consummated even if
no sexual intercourse had taken place since the mere transaction
consummates the crime.43
Here, accused-appellant cannot use as a valid defense either BBB's and AAA's
consent to the transaction, or that BBB received the payment on her behalf.
In Casio:44
The victim's consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive,

or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Even
without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor's
consent is not given out of his or her own free will.45
Similarly, in People v. De Dios:46
It did not matter that there was no threat, force, coercion, abduction,
fraud, deception or abuse of power that was employed by De Dios when
she involved AAA in her illicit sexual trade. AAA was still a minor when
she was exposed to prostitution by the prodding, promises and acts of De
Dios. Trafficking in persons may be committed also by means of taking
advantage of the persons' vulnerability as minors, a circumstance that
applied to AAA, was sufficiently alleged in the information and proved
during the trial. This element was further achieved through the offer of
financial gain for the illicit services that were provided by AAA to the
customers of De Dios.47
Accused-appellant hired children to engage in prostitution, taking advantage

of their vulnerability as minors. AAA's and BBB's acquiescence to the illicit
transactions cannot be considered as a valid defense.
Accused-appellant initially used the defense of denial, testifying that she was
merely in the area to listen to a live band 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.48
Moreover, accused-appellant, in her handwritten letter to this Court,49

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.50 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.
This Court, therefore, affirms the trial court and the Court of Appeals'
conviction of accused-appellant in violation of Republic Act No. 9208,
Section 4(e), as qualified by Section 6(a) and punished under Section 10(c).52
In Casio,53 however, this Court held that moral damages and exemplary
damages must also be imposed. In People v. Aguirre:54
The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous

case to the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts.
In fact[,] it is worse, thus, justifying the award of moral damages.
Exemplary damages are imposed when the crime is aggravated, as in this
case.55
Thus, in line with jurisprudence, this Court deems it proper to impose moral
damages of P500,000.00 and exemplary damages of P100,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals October

23, 2014 Decision in CA-G.R. CEB-CR HC No. 01655 is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Nancy Lasaca Ramirez a.k.a "ZOY" or
"SOY" is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of having violated
Republic Act No. 9208, Section 4(e), as qualified by Section 6(a). She is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Two
Million Pesos (P2,000,000.00). She is further ordered to pay Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) as moral damages and One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as exemplary damages to each of the minor
victims, AAA and BBB.
All damages awarded shall be subject to the rate of six percent (6%) per
annum from the finality of this Decision until its full satisfaction.56
SO ORDERED.
Carpio,*Peralta, (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., and Carandang, JJ., concur.
March 29, 2019
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs / Mesdames:
Please take notice that on January 30, 2019 a Decision, copy attached
hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the
original of which was received by this Office on March 29, 2019 at 2:27 p.m.
Very truly yours,
(SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
*
Designated additional Member per Raffle dated January 28, 2019.
1Rollo, pp. 3-14. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Ramon
Paul L. Hernando (now an Associate Justice of this Court) and concurred

in by Associate Justices Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla and Marie Christine
Azcarraga-Jacob of the Twentieth Division, Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
2
CA rollo, pp. 38-41. The Judgment was penned by Presiding Judge
Toribio S. Quiwag of Branch 27, Regional Trial Court, Lapu-Lapu City.
3
Rep. Act No. 9208 (2003), sec. 4 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: (e) To
maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography[.]
4 RTC records, p. 2.
5
CA rollo, p. 38.
6
Id. at 39.
7
Id. at 38-39.
8 Id. at 39.
9 Id.
10
Id.
11
CA rollo, p. 39.
12
Id.
13
Id.
14 Id. at 39-40.
15
Id. at 40.
16
Id. at 38-41.
17
Id. at 41.
18
Id. at 25-37.
19 Id. at 33-34.
20
Id. at 34.
21
Id. at 34-35.
22
Rollo, pp. 3-14.
23
Id. at 8.
24 Id. at 11-12.
25
Id. at 13.
26
Id. at 15-16.
27
Id. at 17.
28
Id. at 1.
29
Id. at 19-20.
30
Id. at 22-26 and 29-31.
31
Id. at 34-41.
32 Id. at 35.
33
Id. at 37.
34
Rep. Act No. 9208 (2003), sec. 3(a).
35
Rep. Act No. 9208 (2003), sec. 6(a).
36
749 Phil. 458 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
37 Id. at 472-473 citing Rep. Act No. 9208, sec. 3(a).
38
Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012.
39
People v. Casio, 749 Phil. 458, 474 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third
Division].
40
G.R. No. 211721, September 20, 2017, 840 SCRA 388 [Per J. Martires,
Third Division].
41 793 Phil. 877 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].
42
G.R. No. 235652, July 9, 2018, [Per J. Perlas-Bemabe, Second Division].
43
People v. Casio,749 Phil. 458 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]. See
also People v. Aguirre, G.R. No. 219952, November 20, 2017, [Per J.
Tijam, First Division].
44
45
Id. at 475-476 citing United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,
"Human Trafficking FAQs".
46
G.R. No. 234018, June 6, 2018, [Per J. Reyes, Jr., Second Division].
47 Id. at 7-8.
48
See People v. Bandojo, Jr., G.R. No. 234161, October 17, 2018, [Per J.
Reyes, A., Jr., Second Division].
49Rollo, pp. 34-41.
50
Id. at 35.
51
CA rollo, p. 39.
52
Rep. Act No. 9208 (2003), sec. 10. Penalties and Sanctions. — The
following penalties and sanctions are hereby established for the offenses
enumerated in this Act:
....
(c) Any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Section 6 shall
suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two
million pesos (P2,000,000.00) but not more than Five million pesos
(P5,000,000.00)[.]
53
54
G.R. No. 219952, November 20, 2017, [Per J. Tijam, First Division].
55Id. at 11, citing People v. Lalli, et al., 675 Phil. 126 (2011) [Per J. Carpio,
Second Division]; People v. Casio, 749 Phil. 458 (2014) [Per J. Leonen,
Third Division]; and People v. Hirang, 803 Phil. 277 (2017) [Per J. Reyes,
Third Division].
56Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 716 Phil. 267 (2013) [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].

People Vs Ramirez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Ramirez

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Ramirez

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 217978 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE…APPELLANT.

: January 2019 - Philipppine Supreme Court Decisions 2/26/20, 12:20 AM

Philippine Supreme Court

In an Information, Ramirez was charged with qualified trafficking of persons

Ramirez pleaded not guilty on arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued.5

The prosecution alleged that at around 9:45 p.m. on December 5, 2009,

The prosecution likewise presented the testimony of AAA, a minor, who

In her defense, Ramirez testified that at about 9:00p.m. on December 5,

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby

While the case was pending, accused-appellant sent a handwritten letter31 to

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,

The crime is still considered trafficking if it involves the "recruitment,

In People v. Casio,36 this Court enumerated the elements that must be

The elements of trafficking in persons can be derived from its definition

(1) The act of "recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, or receipt

advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of

(3) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes "exploitation or

(1) The act of "recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering,

(3) The purpose of trafficking includes "the exploitation or the prostitution of

Here, accused-appellant was charged with having violated qualified

engage in prostitution or pornography[.]"

The prosecution established that on the night of December 5, 2009, accused-

This Court in People v. Rodriguez40 acknowledged that as with Casio, the

The victim's consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive,

Similarly, in People v. De Dios:46

Accused-appellant hired children to engage in prostitution, taking advantage

Moreover, accused-appellant, in her handwritten letter to this Court,49

The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DISMISSED. The Court of Appeals October

Carpio,*Peralta, (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., and Carandang, JJ., concur.

March 29, 2019

Very truly yours,

(SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Paul L. Hernando (now an Associate Justice of this Court) and concurred

SECTION 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. — It shall be unlawful for any

37 Id. at 472-473 citing Rep. Act No. 9208, sec. 3(a).

41 793 Phil. 877 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, Third Division].

49Rollo, pp. 34-41.

You might also like