Trafficking in persons

This is a case of violation of RA 9205 as amended by RA 10364, more particularly simulating of the birth of a child for the purpose of selling the child, and soliciting a child and acquiring custody of said child through any means from among hospitals, clinics, nurseries, day care centers, refugee or evacuation centers and low

income families for the purpose of selling the child. (Sec. 4-A par. (4) and (e)).
The case here is attempted trafficking in person only, because the offender only initiated its commission but failed to or did not execute all the elements of the crime by reason of some cause other than voluntary desistance. This is illustrated in the case of Margie (all the names mentioned here are not their true names).

The case here involves Annie, a 7-month-old child whose biological mother is Benilda (not her true name). Because of extreme poverty, Benilda left the care and custody of Annie to Margie, the stepmother of Lucy.

One morning, Lucy, accompanied by her friends Sonya and Linda, went to the office of the local civil register to inquire about the requirements for the regis-tration of birth of Annie. The registrar gave them a blank form for supplying the information required in a certificate and asked them to fill it out and told them to submit a copy of the marriage certificate of Annie’s parents.

In the afternoon of the same day, the three came back to the civil registrar’s office and submitted a license and a Certificate of Marriage issued by Southern State of

USA to Sonya and Jerry, who were supposedly married in said state. Said documents state that both are Caucasian. Sonya, Lucy and Linda also submitted the required form to fill out the birth certificate. So, the civil registrar prepared Annie’s birth certificate showing her parents’ names, their date of marriage and the name and signature of Linda, the midwife who attended to Annie’s birth. After that, Annie’s birth certificate was issued.
Six months later, senior police officers went to the rural health birthing clinic to investigate the details of the birth of Annie after a receiving information from the US

Navy Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS) indicating that Annie’s birth certificate appeared to be spurious since it is indicated there that her parents were Caucasian while she was of Filipino descent.

The police officers also found from the rural health birthing clinic that Sonya did not give birth to Annie, contrary to the information in Annie’s birth certificate. They also found out from Linda, the midwife who supposedly attended Annie’s birth, that Sonya merely approached her and asked for help in registering Annie’s birth, to which she agreed. Linda then informed the police that Annie was in the custody of Margie, the stepmother of Lucy.

When the police officers arrived at Margie’s residence, they found out that Margie already transferred residence, so they proceeded to her new residence and found that Annie was in Margie’s custody. Margie told them that Sonya left Annie in her custody because Sonya could not bring her child outside the coun-try since the child’s documents were still being processed.

So Margie, Sonya, Linda and Lucy were charged with violation of Section 4-A par. (d) and (e) of RA 9208 or the Anti Trafficking in persons Act as amended by RA

10364 for conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another in willfully and unlawfully and knowingly simulating the birth cer-tificate of Annie, and acquiring the custody of a 7-month-old child from her low income family for the purpose of selling such child, to the damages and prej-udice of said child. Only

Margie and Linda were arrested and tried.

According to Margie, she took custody of Annie while waiting for Sonya to return. She said that Sonya just left the child outside her apartment and was no longer there when she saw the child. Margie also testified that prior to that date, Sonya and Lucy arrived from Japan and Sonya stayed in her apartment but Annie was not with them.

After hearing, the RTC found Margie and Linda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime attempted trafficking in person and sentenced them to 15 years imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000 each. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). So Margie appealed to the Supreme Court (SC).

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the RTC and the CA. The SC said all the elements of attempted trafficking in persons under Sec. 4-A par. (d) and (e) were established.

First it was proven that Annie was under 15 years old when the crime was committed as shown by her birth certificate. Moreover, Annie’s photograph pre-sented in the RTC and attached to the record shows that Annie is indeed a minor.

Second, the witness from the local civil registrar testified, and narrated that Sonya and Lucy acted in concert in registering and simulating Annie’s birth with Sonya as her mother and Linda as the midwife. Sonya, Linda and Lucy went to the local civil registrar and filled up the form for issuance of the simulated birth certificate, with

Linda voluntarily signing the certificate of live birth indicating that she was the midwife when Sonya gave birth to Annie even if the documents of the rural health birthing clinic show that Sonya did not give birth to Annie. Margie even admitted that Annie was in her custody even if she knows that Annie does not look like a Caucasian and could not have been the daughter of Sonya.

Thus the evidence on record and the testimonies of the witnesses reveal that the acts of Margie, together with Linda and Lucy, were part of the collective ef-fort to enable Sonya to illegally bring Annie, the baby she bought from her biological mother Benilda, to the United States of America.

So Margie, who appealed this case to the SC, is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted trafficking in person as found by the RTC and the CA and is sentence to 15 years imprisonment and a fine of P500,000. (Maestardo VS. People, G.R. 253629 Sept. 28, 2022)