Stiffer penalties for trafficker who files SC appeal

Inquirer file photo

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has imposed a heavier penalty of life sentence and a P2 million fine on a man who appealed his earlier conviction for trafficking, which earned him a jail term of 17 to 40 years and a P500,000 fine.

Nell Tuazon was initially sentenced for engaging the services of a trafficked person in violation of Section 11 of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 as amended after he was caught with a minor in a hotel.

But in its decision on G.R. No. 267946 which was made public only recently, the high court’s Second Division modified his sentence after finding him liable for qualified trafficking, which carries a heavier penalty.

READ: Mother who sold own baby for P45,000 gets life imprisonment

“Here, the crime of trafficking in persons was qualified by the fact that it was committed against [the minor] who was only 16 years old at the time the incident happened,” the court’s Second Division said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier.

Accused’s argument

In 2021, the Court of Appeals sentenced Tuazon to 17 to 40 years in prison, modifying the earlier decision of a regional trial court, which imposed a six to 10-year jail term.

Seeking remedy from the Supreme Court, Tuazon argued that no members of the hotel staff had testified about his presence there with the minor.

He also pointed out that the alleged sexual peddler and the latter’s companion, who were said to have brought the minor to him, were not presented as witnesses.

Additionally, Tuazon claimed that the medico-legal report indicated the minor had sexual contact with other men, but not with him.

However, in a decision dated May 27, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction for qualified trafficking.

The high court relied on the testimony of the minor who identified Tuazon as the person who had engaged her through a sexual peddler who was paid P5,000.

The Supreme Court further emphasized that Tuazon’s claim that he did not force the minor to travel with him or go to the hotel did not absolve him of liability.

Sufficient

“Even if true, [this] does not negate his culpability since the crime may be committed ‘with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge,” the high tribunal said.

It also rejected his argument that the minor’s testimony was unreliable due to the absence of other witnesses corroborating his presence in the hotel.

The Supreme Court ruled that corroborating testimonies from the minor and the arresting officer were sufficient to secure a conviction in the trafficking in-person case.

It also noted the testimony of a police officer who detailed how authorities verified the report about the minor’s presence in the hotel and subsequently rescued her.

The high court further dismissed Tuazon’s claim that the medico-legal report, which did not establish sexual contact with him, absolved him of the crime.

“The crime of trafficking in persons is considered consummated even if no sexual intercourse takes place. Merely engaging in the transaction consummates the crime,” it said.