31\epubltr of tbe 1~bilippines

$>upre1ne (!Court
;ffl!lnnila

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 263603

Plaintiff-appellee,
Present:

LEONEN, Chairperson,
LAZARO-JAVIER,*
-versus- M. LOPEZ,
J. LOPEZ, and
KHO,JR.,JJ

Promulgated:
EUL VINCENT 0. RODRIGUEZ,
Accused-appellant.
x----------------------- -------------------------------------- --

DECISION

M. LOPEZ, J.:

In this appeal, accused-appehant Eul Vincent 0. Rodriguez

(Rodriguez) assails the Decision' dated June 17, 2021 and Resolution2 dated
February 22, 2022 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
03154, which affirmed his conviction for qualified trafficking in persons
under Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9208, as
amended by Republic Act No. l 0364.

• On official business.
1 Rollo, pp. 9- 52. Penned by Associate Justice Bautista G. Corpin, Jr. , with the concurrence of Associate
Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Nancy C. Rivas-Palmones of Special Eighteenth Division, Court of
Appeals, Cebu City.
Id. at 55--56. Penned by Associate Justice Bautista G. Corpin, Jr. , 1,;:ith the concurrence of Associate
Justices Gabriel T. lngles ar:d Nancy C. Rivas-Palmones of Special Eighteenth Division, Court of
Appeals, Cebu City.
Decision G.R. No. 263603

ANTECEDENTS

Rodriguez was charged with qualified trafficking under the following

Information:

That on or about the 13 th day of February 2014, at about 10:55

o'clock in the evening, and for sometime subsequent thereto, in the City of
11111, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused, with deliberate intent, did and there engage in providing and
transporting a minor, [AAA.263603], 3 for the purpose of prostitution, by
acting as his procurer for a male customer, in exchange for money, profit,
or any other consideration.

CONTRARY TO LA W. 4

Upon arraignment, Rodriguez pleaded not guilty. During pre-trial, the

parties stipulated: (1) on the fact of arrest; (2) that the first time the police saw
Rodriguez was during his arrest; and (3) that prior to the entrapment, the
procurer and the decoy communicated online. Thereafter, trial ensued. 5

The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Police Officer 3

Jerry Gambi (PO3 Gambi), Senior Police Officer 1 Etelberto Timagos (SPOl
Timagos), Police Senior Inspector Maria Macatangay (PSI Macatangay),
Police Chief Inspector Ryan Ace Sala (PCI Sala), Police Officer 1 Nestor
Abasolo, Jr. (POI Abasolo ), Katrina Jane Marie Umali (Umali), and the
victim himself, AAA263603. 6

The prosecution established that the United States Immigration and

Customs Enforcement (US ICE) informed PSI Macatangay, Chief of the
Regional Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force of Region 7, regarding the
activities of Rodriguez. PSI Macatangay learned that a certain "Eula
Rodriguez," who was later confirmed to be Rodriguez, was engaged in human
trafficking through the use ofFacebook and other media communications. The
US ICE gave PSI Macatangay a printout of the Skype Account of "Eula
Rodriguez" which indicated the account holder's Skype name as
"eula.rodriguez56," as well as the account holder's birth date, gender, and
photo. 7 Thus, on November 15, 2013, PSI Macatangay assigned PO3 Gambi
to investigate and validate the infonnation received from the US ICE. 8

In compliance, PO3 Gambi created a decoy Facebook account using the

name "Tristan James." He then searched for Rodriguez's Facebook account,
and was able to find it under the name "Bbyeuhan Rodriguez." lt used an
account photo resembling the photo shown to him by PSI Macatangay. PO3
Gmm b1• sent a 1nen
.i:: • d request an d a message saymg
• "l11.• " 9

Initials were used in place of the victim's name pursuant to Supreme Court Amended Administrative
Circular No. 83-2015 dated September 5, 2017.
Id. at 10.
Id.
6 Id. at 59--68. Penned by Presiding Judge Ester M. Veloso.
7 TSN, PSI l\1aria Macatangay, December l, 2015, pp. 4-5.
8
Id. at 8.
9
Rollo, p. I l.

I
Decision 3 G.R. No. 263603

Sometime in November 2013, PO3 Gambi conducted a physical

surveillance of Rodriguez's house in , which was at the back
of the Tita Gwapa Supermarket and beside the old Public Market.
During his cross-examination, PO3 Gambi prepared a sketch of the vicinity
of the area that he surveyed., He claimed that he saw Rodriguez but decided
not to approach him. PO3 Gambi also testified that he asked an old lady in the
area if there was a person named "Eula Rodriguez" living nearby. The old
lady pointed to Rodriguez's bot:.se. 10

In January 2014, Rodriguez eventually accepted PO3 Garn.bi's friend

request on Facebook and they started communicating. In the course of their
conversations, Rodriguez asked PO3 Gambi to chat with the account
"sofia.negra" on Skype. In Skype, Rodriguez, using the account "sofia.negra"
asked for n10netary help and offered a nude show involving three girls in
exchange. PO3 Gambi informed Rodriguez that he was a businessman
residing in Guam, but he could send the money to Rodriguez through a friend
in Zamboanga City. PO3 Gambi then sought the assistance of another agent
in Zamboanga City, who sent PHP 1,000.00 to a certain vVindolyn Cedeno
(Cedeno) via Western Union per Rodriguez's instructions. Despite having
received the money, Rodriguez refused to present the nude show. He
explained that the police were "very hot" about nude shows involving minors.
After their correspondence, PO3 Gambi saved and printed their chat logs. 11

Thereafter, on February 5, 2014, Rodriguez again contacted PO3

Gambi through a Skype video call, this time using the name "Windolyn
Cedeno" through the account "cassandra.labajo". PO3 Gambi recognized that
it was Rodriguez because the Skype account used the same pictures as the
previous account, "sofia.negra". Moreover, he was able to see Rodriguez's
face during their Skype video call while he refused to show his face, reasoning
that there was something wrong with his camera. 12

During their video call, Rodriguez offered a nude show for USD 50.00.
PO3 Gambi asked his confidential decoy in the United States to send money
according to Rodriguez's instructions. However, when Rodriguez received
the money, he again refused to follow through with the nude show since he
was at an internet cafe. Instead, he showed the faces of two young girls, ages
16 and 17 years old. PO3 Gambi took a video recording of their interaction
and stored it in a USB. He also printed their chat logs. 13

Finally, on February 10, 2014, Rodriguez, using the Skype account

"so:fia.negra", reached out to PO3 Gambi. He informed PO3 Gambi that he
was ready to present a nude show with his 16-year-old and 17-year-old
cousms. Rodriguez first moved the conversation to the Skype account

io Id.
11
Id. at 11--12.
12
Id. at 12.
13 Id.
Decision G.R. No. 263603

"cassandra.labajo". He then presi;~nted the two minors and ordered them to

remove their upper garments und lick each other. At that point, PO3 Gambi
stopped the show to prevent further damage to the victims. He explained that
he needed to go to work. The entire on!ine interaction was again recorded by
PO3 Gambi. 14

PO3 Gambi provided the report of his surveillance to PSI Macatangay,

who in turn instructed him to prepare an entrapment operation against
Rodriguez. 15

Thus, on February 13, 2014, PO3 Gambi, through Skype, reached out
to the "cassandra.labajo" Skype account. He told Rodriguez that he had a
~ l e Edwar.ds, who was staying at the Waterfront Hotel in
- - Rodriguez offered to meet with Kyle Edwards and bring
AAA263603, also known as "Tosip," to do a nude show in person. Rodriguez
also proposed that PO3 Gambi's friend could have sex with him and Tosip.
He requested USD 75.00 for their fare, and a part of it will be given to Tosip's
parents. 16 PO3 Gambi, through his agent in Zamboanga, sent PHP 2,500.00
to Cedeno via Western Union. Rodriguez confirmed receipt of the money. 17

Thereafter, PSI Macatangay set up a team for the entrapment operation.

During their briefing, the team agreed to use fluorescent powder-dusted
marked money consisting of ten PHP 1,000.00 bills. SPOl Timagos was
assigned to act as the police decoy. He would accompany the confidential
informant (CI), who would act as "Kyle Edwards." The plan was for SPOI
Timagos to act as the CI' s driver and the one who would hand over the marked
money to Rodriguez. 18

On the same day, at 6:00 p.m., the team proceeded to the Waterfront
Hotel and booked Room 113 7 where the CI stayed while waiting for
Rodriguez. The rest of the team, on the other hand, positioned themselves in
the lobby of the hotel. At around 9:30 p.m., Rodriguez arrived at the
Waterfront Hotel with AAA263603. After 15 minutes, SPOl Timagos
received a call from the CI asking SPO 1 Timagos to bring the marked money
to Room 113 7. When SPO 1 Timagos entered the room, he saw Rodriguez
seated on the bed. The CI then introduced SPO 1 Timagos as his driver and
asked the latter to hand over the money to Rodriguez. However, Rodriguez
refused to accept the money and asked SPO 1 Timagos to leave it on the table.
SPO 1 Timagos noticed that he had not yet seen the minor child; hence, he
asked to use the bathroom. However, Rodriguez stopped him and said that
somebody was using it so SPO 1 Timagos should use the comfort room in the
lobby. 19

14
Id. at 13.
1s Id.
16
CA rollo, p. 89.
17
Rollo, p. 13.
18
Id. at 13-14.
19
Id.at14.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 263603

SPOl Timagos asked pcnmss1on to leave the room. When SPOl

Timagos was about to leave~ the Cl picked up the money from the table and
handed it over to Rodriguez~ who received it. SPO 1 Timagos, upon seeing
Rodriguez accept the marked money, texted the team to inform them that the
transaction had been consummated. Afterwards, SPO 1 Timagos arrested
Rodriguez and the team arrived ~~hnrt;y atler. They recovered from Rodriguez
the marked money, a bag, a camera, a sex toy, a cellphone, sim cards, and
various money transfer receipts?i AAA263603 was turned over to the care of
the Department of Social WeJfri.re and Development (DSWD). 21

Upon inspection, the dorsal and palmar aspects of both hands of

Rodriguez were found positive for the presence of bright orange ultra-violet
fluorescent powder. 22

The sim cards and the cellphone retrieved were examined by forensic
analyst PO 1 Abasolo. He testified that Rodriguez was communicating with
contacts named "Afam Kyle" and "Taxi Nash" on the day of the entrapment
operation. Some of the text messages sent by Rodriguez are reproduced
below:

1. Down town now kyle .. hang on there your hard cock.. hehe .. lols.

2. So wish u are happy to met me kyle.is this your first time meeting up
with a young boy and ladyboy?

3. Wow! its remarkable for me to fulfill your long time wants .. yeah .. u
like big cocks?just let us have the idea on your desire to know how to
please you

4. Let us know kyle if youll be the one to give or u wanted to experience

receiving our cocks?hmmp .. 23

As for the victim, AAA263603 was born on September 10, 1999,24 and
was only 14 years old at the time of the incident. His father was deceased, and
he was living with his mother, a laundry woman.

AAA263603 testified that he first met Rodriguez, whom he calls Eula,

in 2012. In 2013, he and Rodriguez started stripping naked in front of the
internet. Before each "show," Rodriguez would chat with the foreigners. After
the show, Rodriguez would receive money from their American customers,
either through Western Union or Lhuillier. AAA263603 averred that he had
performed 20 shows for Rodriguez. \¥hile he never knew how much was
being remitted to Rodriguez, he narrated that his share would be between PHP
100.00 to PI-IP 600.00. 25

20 Id.
21 Id.•
z2 Id.
23 Id. at 25.
24
Id. at 15.
25
Id. at 64.
Decision t) G.R. No. 263603

With respect to the ini~'ident on 'February 13, 2014, AAA263603

testified that he was watching television at home when Rodriguez informed
him not to go anywhere since they wonld be going to the Waterfront Hotel to
meet with an American and eat some pizza. At arow1d 9:00 p.m., they rode a
taxi to the hotel. They then headed to a hotel room where they sat down and
had pizza with an American. 26

Meanwhile, AAA263603 went to the toilet. After relieving himself, he

recalled seeing a Filipino ml1rr in the hotel room who asked him to go to the
parking area so they could talk. He was then brought to the DSWD. 27

Umali testified regarding the psychological makeup of AAA263603.

She worked in the Women and Children Protection Center and was tasked
with conducting trauma assessment and psychological evaluation. 28 In her
testimony, she noted that AA.A263603 did not exhibit any trauma indicators,
but added that it was still possible for the symptoms to manifest later in life.
Further, she admitted that she was not a licensed psychologist. 29

For the defense, Rodriguez was presented as its lone vvitness. Rodriguez
filed his Judicial Affidavit in lieu of direct testimony in open court. 30

Rodriguez denied the accusations against him. He denied involving

AAA263603 in nude shows and asserted that he only brought AAA263603 to
the vVaterfront Hotel to eat pizza with the foreigner, and nothing more. 31 In
fact, he intended to go there alone. But since he sensed that the foreigner had
good intentions, he decided to bring AAA263603 because it would be
"merrier" 32 if they had more people with them during Valentine's Day. 33
Further, he: asserted that AAA263603 was coached by the DSWD and
International Justice Mission (IJM), a global organization that assisted in the
prosecution of the case. 34

Rodriguez raised legal issues in his testimony. Specifically, he argued

that his right to due process was violated when the chat logs and videos of his
conversation with PO3 Gambi were presented, as these were not related to the
incident alleged in the Information filed against him. Moreover, he posited
that these pieces of evidence were an intrusion of his constitutional right to
privacy of communication and in violation of Republic Act No. 4200. At any
rate, he alleged that he did not receive the money, but that it was fotced onto
him. This was evidenced by the fluorescent powder found in both the palmar
and dorsal sides of his hands. Rodriguez also argued that his arrest was illegal

26
Id. at 16.
21 Id.
28
TSN, Katrina Jane Marie Umali, May 16, 2017, p. 13.
29
Rollo, p. 16.
30
Id. at 68.
31
Id. at 68-69.
32
Id. at 70.
33 Id.
34
Id. at 68.

I
Decision 7 G.R. No. 263603

and that his personal belongings \Nere inadmissible for being "fruits of the
poisonous tree." He denied mvning the sex toy. 35

In its Judgment, 36 the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Rodriguez

guilty of qualified trafficking. It found that the witnesses for the prosecution
were credible, significantly corrciborative on material points, and unstained by
any improper motive. 37 It rejected Rodriguez's defense of denial and ruled
that the evidence showed Rodriguez~s ill intentions when he brought
AAA263603 to the Waterfront HoteL 38 The dispositive portion of the
judgment reads:

WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused EUL VINCENT

ONDOY RODRIGUEZ GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Violation of Sec. 4(a) in relation to Sec. 6, of [Republic Act No.] 9208, as
amended by [Republic Act No.] I 0364, and sentence him to suffer the
penalty oflife imprisonment without eligibility for parole, and to pay a fine
of [PI-IP] 2,000,000.00. He is further ordered to pay the offended party AAA
moral damages of [PHP] 500,000.00 and exemplary damages of [PHP]
100,000.00 with interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all monetary
awards for damages, from the date of the finality of this decision until fully
paid.

SO ORDERED. 39

Rodriguez filed his appeal before the CA. In his Brief4° and Reply-
41
Brief, he argued that the trial court erred in appreciating the pieces of
evidence seized from him, which were inadmissible since he was arrested
without a warrant. He likewise alleged that the Information filed against him
was only in relation to the incident on February 13, 2014; thus the trial court
should not have relied on his prior acts. He claimed that he was instigated by
the police officers. He also raised alleged errors in PO3 Gambi's testimony
regarding the location of Rodriguez's house and the sketch of the
neighborhood where Rodriguez resided.

Rodriguez argued that the prosecution failed to establish that there was
a transaction between him and the CI. Based on the testimony of SPO 1
Timagos, he only heard the CI offer money to Rodriguez. 42 Hence, the
prosecution had no proof that the CI and Rodriguez agreed on the price or
even the gender of the alleged child victim. 43 According to Rodriguez, the
prosecution was only able to establish that he and the CI agreed to meet, but
not that the CI agreed to meet with AAA263603. 44

35
id. at 69.
36 Id. at 58--73. The July 1J, 2018 Decision in Crim. Case No. CBU-102742. Penned by Presiding Judge
Ester M. Veloso of the Regional Trial Court o f - City, Branch 6.
37
ld. at 17.
Js Id.
39
/d.atl7--l8.
4
°
41
CA rollo, pp. 36--62.
Id. at 102-116.
42
ld.at57.
43 Id at 56.
44
Id. at 59.

J
Decision 8 G.R. No. 263603

Rodriguez also asserted that AAA263603 was coached, since

AAA263603 testified that he knev✓ that the case was for trafficking but could
not explain what trafficking was. He makes much of the fact that
AAA263 603 'smother refused to cooperate with the prosecution since she was
allegedly aware that AAA263603 rnerely went to the Waterfront Hotel to eat
pizza. Further, Umali has not found any alarming results from the
psychological makeup of the victim. 45

Finally, Rodriguez contended that the prosecution also cannot rely on

the chat logs and videos between Rodriguez and PO3 Gambi as these are
inadmissible for being violative of the Constitution and Republic Act No.
4200. 46

The appellate court affirmed Rodriguez's conv1ct10n. It ruled that

Rodriguez's arrest was lawful, being one made inflagrante delicto; hence, the
pieces of evidence recovered from Rodriguez were admissible. 47 It likewise
held that the police conducted a legitimate entrapment operation, not an
instigation. 48 It found that the arguments against the surveillance conducted
by PO3 Gambi are inconsequential because prior surveillance is not a
condition for the validity of an entrapment operation. 49 It was also immaterial
that none of the witnesses heard the conversation between the CI and
Rodriguez since the transaction had already been discussed at length before
the meeting at the Waterfront Hotel. 50

With respect to the chat logs and videos, the appellate court found these
relevant because they were offered as evidence of Rodriguez's intent,
knowledge, identity, plan, system, scheme, and predisposition. 51 There was
also no evidence presented to show that AAA263603 was unduly influenced
by the IJM and DSWD. 52

The appellate court also found PCI Sala' s explanation sufficient with
respect to the placement of the fluorescent powder in both the dorsal and
palmar portions of Rodriguez's hands. According to PCI Sala, thi~ can occur
in most cases depending on the way the accused was handled by the police
given that ultraviolet powder is a highly transferrable substance. 53

Ultimately, the CA found that there was proof beyond reasonable doubt
that Rodriguez committed the crime charged. 54 The assailed CA Decision
disposed:

45
Id. at 19-22.
46
Id. at 114-115.
47
Rollo, pp. 22-23.
48
Id. at 23.
49
Id. at 29.
50
!d.at31.
51
Id. at 32-35.
52
Id. at 35-39.
53
Id. at 49-50.
54
Id. at 39-48.

I
Decision 0,, G.R. No. 263603

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The

Judgment dated July 11, 2018 ofthe Regional Trial Comi, Branch 6,111
u:1 • Case N o. cn
• Cnn1. .1:, 1 •t.L, .is
r iv'•''7;!';
~1·-u.~; : ·it,,FIRMED .
• , ,~.1r

-
SO ORDERED. 55

The appellate court denied Rodriguez's Motion for Reconsideration56

which only reiterated the arguments already raised.

Hence, this appeal.

Both the People, 57 through the Office of the Solicitor General, and
Rodriguez58 manifested that they would adopt the arguments they raised in
their briefs before the CA.

In summary, Rodriguez raises three main arguments against his

conviction. First, his arrest was illegal because it was an instigation, not an
entrapment.. Consequently, the pieces of evidence recovered from him are
inadmissible in evidence. Second, the trial court erred in relying on the chat
logs as these are "extraneous evidence" and a violation of his constitutional
right to privacy. Third, the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the
crime of qualified trafficking since none of the prosecution's witnesses had
personal knowledge of the conversation between the CI and Rodriguez.

RULING

Upon judicious review of the records of the case, the Court adopts the
factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The Court upholds the
. ruling of the courts a quo that Rodriguez's guilt for the offense of qualified
trafficking against AAA263603 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

We stress that factual findings of the trial court, including its

assessment of the credibility of witnesses, and the probative weight of their
testimonies, as well as of the documentary evidence, are accorded great
weight and respect, especially when the same are affirmed by the CA. 59

Here, Rodriguez was charged and convicted for qualified trafficking

under. Section 4 (a), in relation to Section 6 (a) of Republic Act No. 9208, as
amended by Republic Act No. 10364:

Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons.-It shall be unlawful for any

person, natural or juridical, to commit any of the following acts:

(a) To recruit, transport, transfe.r, harbor, provide, or receive a person by

any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or

55
Id. at 52.
56 CArollo,p.168-191.
57
Rollo, p. 77.
58
Temporary rollo.
59 People v. Amurao, 878 Phil. 306,323 (2020) [Per J. Caguioa, First Division].

I
Decision 10 G.R. No. 263603

overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of

prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

Section 6. Qual?fied Tra,;7icking in Persons.-The following are

considered as qualified trafficking:

(a) When the trafficked person is a child[.]

In People v. Casio, 60 the Court defined the elements of trafficking in

persons:

(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 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." 61 (Emphasis in the original)

The crime is qualified when the trafficked person is a "child" which is

defined as any "person below 18 years of age or one who is over 18 but is
unable to fully take care of or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or
condition." 62 In such cases, the recruitment, transportation, transfer,
harboring, or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be
considered as "trafficking in persons" regardless of the means used. 63 More
importantly, the minor's consent to the sexual transaction is irrelevant to the
commission of the crime as victims who are minors cannot validly give their
consent. 64

In thils case, the presence of all the elements of qualified trafficking was
duly established by the prosecution. The prosecution's testimonial and
documentary evidence had established beyond reasonable doubt that
Rodriguez transported AAA263 603 to \Vaterfront Hotel on Febniary 13, 2014
for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Based on AAA263 603 's Certificate of
Live Birth, 65 he was born on September 10, 1999; hence, was only 14 years
old at the time of the incident.

60 749 Phil. 458 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division).

61
Id. at 470. Citations omitted.
62
Republic Act No. 9208 (2003), as cJmended by Republic Act :\lo. l 0364 (20 l2), sec. J(b).
63 Republic Act No. 9208 (2003), as amended by Republic Act No. 10364 (2012), sec. J(b).
64
749 Phil. 458, 475-476 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
65
CA rollo, p. 72.
Decision l1 G.R. No. 263603

On this point, Rodriguez argues that the prosecution failed to prove all
the elements of the crime because: ( 1) none of the prosecution witnesses heard
the conversation between him and the CI; hence, there was no proof of the
illegal transaction; 66 and (2) A.AA263603 did not suffer any psychological
trauma. 67 These arguments are untenable.

It is immaterial that none of the witnesses heard the conversation

between Rodriguez and the CI. Evidence on record clearly shows that
Rodriguez and the CI already agreed on the criminal transaction before the
meeting at the hotel. Text messages that were sent by Rodriguez to a contact
named "Afam Kyle," referring to the Cl "Kyle Edwards," on the night of
February 13, 2014 show that the sexual exploitation of AAA263603 was
already agreed upon:

2. So wish u are happy to meet kyle. Is this your first time meeting up
•with a young boy [and] ladyboy?

3. 'Wow!its remarkable for me to fulfill your long time wants .. yeah .. u

like big cocks?just let us have the idea on your desires.to know how to
please you. 68

Moreover, we find no reason to depart from the findings of the trial

court, as affirmed by the appellate court, that it is possible for AAA263603 to
manifest symptoms of trauma later in his life. 69 At any rate, finding traunrn is
not an element of qualified trafficking in persons.

Neither do the legal issues raised by the accused convince us to rule

otherwise.

Rodriguez was not instigated to

commit human trafficking. His
arrest was made after a valid
entrapment operation

In People v. Mendoza, 70 the Court clarified the distinctions between

instigation and entrapment, viz.:

... Instigation means luring the accused into a crime that he, otherwise, had
no intention to commit, in order to prosecute him. On the other hand,
entrapment is the employment of ways and means in order to trap or capture
a lawbreaker. Instigation presupposes that the criminal intent to commit an
offense originated from the inducer and not the accused who had no
intention to commit the crime and would not have committed it were it not
for the initiatives by the inducer. ln entrapment, the criminal intent or design

66 CA rollo, p. 48.
67
Id. at 60.
68
Rollo, p. 25.
69
Id. at 51.
70 814 Phil. 3 l (2017) [Per .I. Peralta, Second Division]. citing People v. Dansico, 659 Phil. 216, 225-226
(201 J) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
Decision G.R. No. 263603

to commit the offense charged origim1tes in the mind of the accused; the law·
enforcement officials merely :facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by
employing ruses and schemes. 1n instigation, the law enforcers act as active
co-principals. Instigation leads to the acquittal of the accused, while
entrapment does not bar prosecution and conviction. 71

Further, in People v. Dorio., 72 the Court explained the litmus test to

determine the validity of an entrapment operation, to wit:

Initially, an accused has the burden of p:coviding sufficient evidence that the
government induced him to commit the offense. Once established, the
burden shifts to the govermnent to show otherwise. When entrapment is
raised as a defense, American federal courts and a majority of state
courts use the "subjective" or "origin of intent" test laid down in
Sorrells v. United States to determine whether entrapment actually
occurred. The focus of the inquiry is on the accused's predisposition to
commit the offense charged, his state of mind[,] and inclination before
his initial exposure to government agents. All relevant facts such as the
accused's mental and character traits, his past offenses, activities,, his.
eagerness in committing the crime, his reputation, etc., are considered to
assess his state of mind before the crime. The predisposition test emphasizes
the accused's propensity to commit the offense rather than the officer's
misconduct and reflects an attempt to draw a line between a "trap for the
unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal." ... Some states,
however, have adopted the "objective" test. This test was first
authoritatively laid down in the case of Grossman v. State rendered by
the S111preme Court of Alaska. Several other states have subsequently
adopted the test by judicial pronouncement or legislation. Here, the
court considers the nature of the police activity involved and the
propriety of police conduct. The inquiry is focused on the inducements
used by government agents, on police conduct, not on the accused and his
predisposition to commit the crime. For the goal of the defense is to deter
unlawful police conduct. The test of entrapment is whether the conduct of
the law enforcement agent was likely to induce a normally law-abiding
person, other than one who is ready and willing to commit the offense; for
purposes of this test, it is presumed that a law-abiding person would
normally resist the temptation to commit a crime that is presented by the
simple opportunity to act unlawfully. 73 (Italics in the original, citations
omitted, emphasis supplied)

Using both tests, the Comi finds that the police operatives conducted a
valid entrapment operation.

For the subjective test, the testimonies offered by the prosecution

clearly showed that Rodriguez was predisposed to commit the offense even
before PO3 Gambi informed him of the presence of "Kyle Edwards."
AAA263603 's testimony that he performed at least 20 nude shows, under the
instruction of Rodriguez, readily shows that Rodriguez had a history of
engaging in human trafficking and exploiting minors:

71 Id. at 42, citing People v. Dansico, 659 Phil. 216, 225--226 (2011) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
72
361 Phil. 595 (1999) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
73
Id. Citations omitted.
Decision I3 G.R. No. 263603

Atty. Guico
Q: Can you describe before this Honorable Court what usually happened
when you do a show bc1~1rc lhe ir~ternet?
A: Stripped naked.

Q: Before you do the show what usually happened?

A: Eul Vincent will chat with an American .

. Q: Can you still remember how many times the accused made a show
through the internet?
A: Twenty times. 74

Rodriguez's predisposition to commit the crime is further bolstered by

the conversations of PO3 Gambit and Rodriguez even before February 13,
2014. It must be stressed that Rodriguez himself offered the nude shows to
PO3 Gambil involving other minors.

For the objectjve test, PO3 Gambi's testimony sufficiently establishes

that he neither induced nor persuaded Rodriguez to bring or offer AAA263603
to his "foreigner friend." At most, he only informed Rodriguez that his
"foreigner friend" would be staying at the Waterfront Hotel:

Atty. Guico (Priv. Prosec)

Q: Can you tell us what [was] your conversation during that time?
A: As part of the preparation of entrapment operation I told him that I
have a foreigner friend, my confidential decoy, who happens to be a
b u s i n e s s ~ to be in Ill staying at the Waterfront
Hotel in . . . . . . .

Q: After you told [Rodriguez] that you have a foreigner friend staying in
Waterfront Hotel, _ , what happened next?
A: He offered to meet my business partner and he will bring with him the
16 years old found out to be [AAA263603] and a 14 years old and
they will be together to go to Waterfront Hotel to perform and actual
nude show [that] they had performed in the video.

Q: 'What was your reply?

A: I said, what show, what can you offer?

Q: 'What was [Rodriguez's] reply if any?

A: He said, they can be naked and actually they can fuck with my friend,
my decoy friend. 75

Indeed, PO3 Gambi remained steadfast in his narration even during his
cross-examination:

Atty. Salva
Q: And in fact, it was also you who advised the accused to bring minors?

74 Rollo, pp. 40--4 l.

75 Id. at 43.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 263603

A: No, I'm not the one. He offc:::ed to bring minors, the one that was
shown by him to me on Skype on February 5. He offered to bring the
two (2) minors with hin-t for the sexual exploitation of my confidential
decoy. 76

Undeniably, the criminal intent originated from Rodriguez himself. The

idea and resolve to commit the crirne came from him. 77 There was no illicit
inducement on the part of the police for Rodriguez to commit the crime.
Verily, the incident on February 13, 2014 was an entrapment operation, not
an instigation. It is settled that entrapment operations have been sanctioned as
a means of arresting offenders who traffic persons. 78 Thus, Rodriguez was
validly arrested, rendering the search and seizure incidental to his arrest
valid. 79

With respect to the issues raised regarding surveillance, suffice it to say

that surveillance is not a precondition for a valid entrapment. 80 Hence, the
Court finds no reason to discuss this at length. Besides the issues raised
regarding the surveillance (i.e., address of the accused and distances between
landmarks) are not relevant to the entrapment conducted nor to the elements
of the crime charged.

Since the entrapment was a valid

police operation, the defense of
denial is unavailing to Rodriguez

Rodriguez denies committing the crime. He attempts to paint a picture

that he and AAA263603 only went to the Waterfront Hotel "to have an
acquittance [sic] with the American and to eat pizza." 81 He errs.

It is settled that instigation is a positive defense. It is in the nature of a

confession and avoidance. The accused effectively admits that he performed
the crime charged, only that the criminal intent did not originate from him.
Thus, instigation is incompatible with the defense of denial:

Furthermore, when Legaspi testified in court, her defense was one

of denial and not instigation. While instigation is a positive defense, it
partakes of the nature of a confession and avoidance. In instigation, the
crime is actually performed by the accused, except that the intent originates
from the mind of the inducer. Thus, it is incompatible with the defense of
denial, where the theory is that tbc accused did not commit the offense
at all. Instigation and denial, therefore, cannot be present
conc1l!rrently. 82 (Emphasis supplied)

76
CA rollo, 46.
77 People v. Valencia, 904 Phil. 518 (2021) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
7s Id.
79 Teodosio v. Court ofAppeals, 475 PhiL 80, 96 (2004) (Per J. Corona, Third Division].
so See People v. Casio, 749 Phil. 458. 478 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
st Id.
82 People v. Legaspi, 677 Phil. 181, J93--194(2011) lPer J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
Decision 15 G.R. No. 263603

In this case, by raising the defense of instigation, Rodriguez admitted

to committing the crime of qualified trafficking, Thus, he has the burden of
providing sufficient evidence that the government induced him to commit the
offense. 83 However, we have exhaustively discussed that Rodriguez was not
instigated, and that the operations ~onducted on February 13, 2014 were a
valid entrapment operation. Consequently, Rodriguez has voluntarily
adniitted to the commission of the oft~~nse. He cannot now be allowed to argue
that he and AAA263603 only met with the CI to "eat pizza." We need not
belabor his defense of denial.

The chat logs and videos are

admissible in evidence and do ,iot
violate Rodriguez's right to privac_v

We reject Rodriguez's contentions that the recorded chat logs and

videos are inadmissible in evidence for violation of his right to privacy.
Republic Act No. 10173, also known as the Data Privacy Act of 2012, allows
the processing of sensitive personal information when it relates to the
determination of criminal liability of a data subject84 and when necessary for
the protection of lawful rights and interests of persons in court proceedings. 85

Thus, in the case of Cadajas v. People, 86 we rejected the accused's

arglilrtent that the photographs and conversations in the Facebook Messages
between him and the minor victim cannot be used against him, viz:

In this case, the photographs and conversations in the Facebook

Messenger account that were obtained and used as evidence against
petitioner, which he considers as fruit of the poisonous tree, were not
obtained through the efforts of the police officers or any agent of the State.
Rather, these were obtained by a private individual. Indeed,
the rule governing the admissibility of an evidence under Article III of
the Constitution must affect only those pieces of evidence obtained by the
State through its agents. It is these individuals who can flex government
muscles and use government resources for a possible abuse. However,
where private individuals are involved, for which their relationship is
governed by the New Civil Code, the admissibility of an evidence cannot
be determined by the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Here, the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution were

properly authenticated when AAA identified them in open court. As
further pointed out by Associate .Justice Rodil V. Zalameda during the
delib<:i·ations of this case, the DP A aUows the processing of data and
sensitive personal information where it relates to the determination of
criminal liabiHty of a data sub_ject, such as a violation of [Republic Act]
No. 10175 in relation to [Republic Act] No. 9775 and when necessary
for the protection of hnvful rights and interests of persons in com:t
proceedings, as in this case •where the cinmmmications and photos

83 People v. Doria, 36 l Phil. 595 ( 1999) [Per J. Puno, En Bancl

84 DataPrivacyAct(2012),sec.19.
85 Data Privacy Act (2012), sec. n
86 915 Phil. 220 (2021) [Per J, J. Lopez, En Banc].
Decision G.R. No. 263603

sought to be excluded ,~,t~~:~} J,i~b'.i'nliH:ed in evidence to establish AAA's

legal daims before the rar· ...,s(:tutor'i; office and the courts. 87 (Emphasis
supplied)

Similarly,· the communications, photos, and videos sought to be

excluded by Rodriguez were submitted in evidence to prosecute him for
violation of qualified trafficking and t;J establish AAA263603 's legal claims.
Thus, there is no violation of the right to privacy.
- i,· - - -- -----'- --: --
Neither can Rodriguez rd y on Republic Act No. 4200, or the Anti-Wire
Tapping Law. In Gaanan v. J!,ttermediate Appellate Court, 88 we have clarified
that the prohibition therein only applies to instruments used for tapping the
main line of a telephone:

An extension telephoJJe _caqnot be placed in the same category as a

dicta.phone, dictagraph or ihe othei· devices enumerated in Section 1
of [Republic Act] No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be considered as
"tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone line. The telephone extension in
this case was not installed for that purpose. It just happened to be there for
ordinary office use. It is a rule in statutory construction that in order to
detennine the true intent of the legislature, the particular clauses and phrases
of the statute should not be taken as detached and isolated expressions, but
the whole and every part thereof must be considered in fixing the meaning
of any of its parts.

Hence, the phrase "device or arrangement" in Section l

of [Republic Act] No. 4200, although not exclusive to that enumerated
thereiin, should be construed to comprehend instruments of the same or
similar nature, that is, instruments the use of which would be
tantamount to tapping the main line of a telephone. It refers to
instruments whose installation. or presence c~nnot be presumed by the
party or parties being overheard because, by their very nature, they are
not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping,
intercepting or recording a telephone conversation. 89 (Emphasis
supplied)

By no stretch of the imagination can the recording of Skype

conversations and pictures be of the same nature as "tapping the main line of
a telephone." Thus, the trial court properly admitted and appreciated these
pieces of evidence.

Moreover, as aptly held by the appellate court, these items are evidence
of Rodriguez's "identity, plan, system, scheme, or habif' under Rule 130,
Section 34 of the Rules of Evidence. Here, the videos and chat logs were not
offered to prove the existence of the crime charged in the Information. Rather,
it was only to show the modus operandi of Rodriguez in reaching .out to

s1 id.
88 229 Phil. 139 (1986) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Second Division).
s9 !cl

I
Decision 17 G.R. No. 263603

foreigners via Skype or '}7;-\t:t;;)r.)ok • and offering minors for sexual

exploitatioill. 90

Penalty and Damages

The. Court affirms the irnposition of the.penalty of life imprisonment

and fine in the amount of PHP 2,000;000.00 as provided under Section l0(e)
of Republic Act No. 9208, as arnended by Republic Act No. 10364. 91
However, the phrase "without eligihiHty of parole" should be removed.
Pursuant to A.M. No. l 5-08•-·02•·SC, 92 the qualification of "without eligibility
for parole" shall only be used to emphasize that the accused should have been
•sentenced to suffer the death penalty had not been for Republic Act No. 9346.

•We likewise affirm the award of PHP 500,000.00 as moral damages

and PHP 100,000.00 as exernpl.ary darnages, with legal interest of 6% per
annum from finality of judgmern: until full payment, pursuant to our
pronouncement in People v. Estonilo, Sr. 93

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated

June 17, 2021 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03154
convicting accused-appellant Eul Vincent 0. Rodriguez of violation of
qualified trafficking in persons under Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6 of
Republic Act No. 9208, as amended by Republic Act No. 10364 is
AFF'IRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused--appellant is sentenced to life
imprisonment and ordered to PAY a fine of PHP 2,000,000.00, moral
damages of PHP 500,000.00, and exemplary damages amounting to PHP
l 00,000.00 .

All rnonetary amounts shall earn legal interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the finality of this Decision until full payment.

SO ORDERED.

'!O See People v. Magpayo, 297 Phil. 13 (l 993) [Per J. Bid in, Third Division].
91 Republic Act No. 9208 (2003), as amended by Republic Act No. 10364(201:2), sec. lO(e) states:

Section 10 . Penalties and Sanctions.--The following penalties and sanctions are hereby
established for the offenses enumerated in this Act:

(e) Any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Section 6 shall suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment and a fine of not 1ess than Two Million Pesos ([PHP] 2,000,000.00) but not
more than Five !Vlillion Pesos ([PHP] 5,000,000.GQ); .
n Guidelines for the Proper Use of the Phrnsc "Without Eligibility fr,r Parole" in Indivisible Penalties
dated August 4, 2015.
93 745 Phil. 331. 356(2014) [Per J. Lcomirdo-De Castro, First Division Jo
Decision G.R. No. 263603

WE CONCUR:

Associate Justice
Chairperson

(on official business)

AMY C. LAZARO-JAVIER . JHOSE~OPEZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice

-~->-,,;, -
~·~---,?'~
/ ~'ffiNIOT.KHO~
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.