G.R. No. 248694 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RANIE ESTONILO Y DE GUZMAN, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, found Estonilo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of violation of Section 5 (a) (5), Article III of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610, [4] otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act." The Facts This case stemmed from two (2) separate Informations filed before the RTC, each charging Estonilo of Qualified Trafficking in Persons, defined and penalized under Section 4, in relation to Section 6 (a) of RA 92058, [5] otherwise known as the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003," the accusatory portions of which read: Criminal Case No.10-5894 e period from March 6, 2010 to March 13, 2010, in the xxxxxxxxxxx , Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and harbor, maintain, hire, provide and/or receive xxxxxxxxxxx , a minor 12 years old, by any means or under the pretext of domestic employment or sexual exploitation taking advantage of the vulnerability of the minor in violation of Section 4 in relation to Sec. 6 (a) Republic Act No. 9208. CONTRARY TO LAW. [6] Criminal Case No.10-5895 The period from March 6, 2010 to March 13, 2010, in the xxxxxxxxxxx , Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and harbor, maintain, hire, provide and/or receive xxxxxxxxxxx a minor 11 years old, by any means or under the pretext of domestic employment or sexual exploitation taking advantage of the vulnerability of the minor in violation of Section 4 in relation to Sec. 6 (a) Republic Act No. 9208. CONTRARY TO LAW. [7] The prosecution claimed that sometime in January 2010, Estonilo approached AAA, [8] then 12 years old, in an effort to convince the latter to " mamakla " in exchange for money. For this purpose, Estonilo even introduced him to a "client" who offered P2,000.00 for AAA's sexual services, but AAA refused. However, Estoni1o was persistent with his recruiting efforts, and this culminated in the evening of March 6, 2010. On that night, AAA was on his way home with his friend, BBB, then 11 years old, when Estonilo called their attention. Estonilo persistently coerced AAA to have sex with BBB at a nearby vacant lot in exchange for P300.00 so that they will learn how to perform sexual acts. The children acceded and had sexual contact with each other with AAA inserting his penis into BBB's mouth and anus. About a week later, or on March 13, 2010, AAA, BBB, and their friends were frolicking at a swimming pool when Estonilo arrived with his bicycle. Estonilo called AAA and told him to have sexual contact with BBB at a nearby bathroom. Fearing that Estonilo might get mad, AAA and BBB again had sexual contact with each other. At that time, Estonilo even suggested that AAA have sex with BBB's 11-year old aunt who was with them, but AAA refused. The next day, AAA felt pain while urinating, prompting his mother to