Illegal Recruitment:
Participating in contracting workers for employment abroad, which is a recruitment activity under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042, such as making the complainant sign the p[purported employment contracts and giving them further instructions with regard to their application for work abroad, giving the complainants a distinct impression that the accused has the power and authority to deploy them for employment abroad. Moreover, it is clear from the definition of illegal recruitment that it can be committed whether for profit or not. For illegal recruitment to be committed, it is not necessary that the offender receives money from the private complainant as a result of the recruitment activity conducted by the offender. It is sufficient that the the offender has given the impression that they have the power to send workers abroad for employment purposes.[1]
Conspiracy:
“There are two kinds of conspiracy, i.e. express conspiracy and implied conspiracy. Implied conspiracy is proved through the mode and manner of the commission of the offense, or from the acts of accused before, during and after the commission of the crime indubitably pointing to a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest.”[2]
Estafa:
“It is thus settled that one cannot commit estafa with abuse of confidence when the ownership over the money, goods or other personal property received by the accused has been transferred to the latter. Undoubtedly, one cannot misappropriate, or otherwise dispose of without right, property which one already owns. In Salazar v. People, and Esguerra v. People, the Court has observed that in a contract of sale, payments already made by the vender to the vendor are “subject to the disposal of the vendor – hence, “[i]f the transaction fails, the obligation to return the [same’ ensues but this obligation is civil and not of criminal nature.” (Citations omitted)[3]
“Verily, entering into a contract necessarily carries with it reciprocal promises on the part of the contracting parties to keep each one’s end of the bargain. Indeed, there is a chance that such promises may have been fraudulently made, done in bad faith, and with n o intention of fulfilling the same — even from the beginning. However, such promises, no matter how enticing, exorbitant, or doubtful, may still have been honestly made, done in good faith, and with a clear intention of fulfilling the same. In the first instance, the party who reneges on his or her obligation may be exposed to civil and criminal prosecution for Estafa; in contrast, the second situation may only give rise to a civil action. The present case falls more squarely under the latter.”[4]
Bigamy:
“Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of Bigamy are: ((1) the offender has been legally married; (2) the first marriage has not been legally dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse has not been judicially declared presumptively dead; (3) he contracts a subsequent marriage; and (4) the subsequent marriage would have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first. Stated otherwise, one of the essential of Bigamy is a prior valid marriage. If the supposed “first marriage” was void ab initio, it is inexistent from the beginning, and thus, an element of the felony of Bigamy would be lacking. In which case, the acquittal of the accused for the felony of Bigamy is warranted. XX”[5]
Lack of marriage license of the first marriage, as proved by the Certification issued by the Local Civil Registrar, makes the first marriage void, and therefore, one of the elements of the crime of Bigamy is lacking.[6]
Rape:
The fact that the victim did not give her consent to be the subject of the sexual act, in the sense that sexual act was committed through force, threat, or intimidation, takes it out of the coverage of Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610. In such case, the Revised Penal Code shall apply. Verily, the insertion of a finger into a 12-year old girl’s vagina through force, threat or intimidation is punishable as rape under Article 266-A (2) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended.”[7]
Acts of Lasciviousness:
Applying the ruling in Gramatica, Republic Act 7610 applies only when the victim is a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, i.e., a child who indulges in the sexual act for money, profit, or any other consideration, or due to the influence of an adult. As regards coercion or influence of an adult, We clarified that such coercion or influence should not rise to the level of force or intimidation because a semblance of consent from the child-victim to do the sexual act, albeit defective or vitiated, is required for Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610 to apply. Nevertheless, the allegations of facts in the Information properly constitutes the crime of acts of lasciviousness as penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. For a successful prosecution under this provision, the following elements must concur: (1) that the offender committed any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that such act was done under any of the following circumstances: (a) through force, threat or intimidation; (b) where the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious’s; (c) by means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority; or (d) when the offended party is under 12 years old or demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. The fact that victim is under 12 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, all the other circumstances in committing the lascivious acts need not be present.[8]
Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610
The term “moral ascendancy” need not be expressly specified in the subject Information to properly charge the-appellant of Sexual Abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 considering that Section 2 (g) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases, expresses the terms, i.e. persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in sexual intercourse. The Court finds that accused-appellant’’s actuations may be classified as “coercion” and “influence”” within the purview of Section 5, Article III of Republic Act No. 7610. Accused, taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over the victim, was able to persuade and influence the latter to indulge and engage in sexual intercourse, subjecting her to sexual abuse as a consequence. This is precisely the purpose of the legislature in passing Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610: to prevent any adult, syndicate or group from coercing or influencing or enticing through money, profit or consideration, any minor to engage or indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct exploiting him/her to prostitution or subjecting him/her to other sexual abuse and consequently, debasing, degrading and demanding his/her intrinsic worth and dignity as a child.[9]
RA 9208
Attempted trafficking in persons:
“”As explained in People v. Valencia, the elements of trafficking in persons are are the following:
- 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 the national borders”
- 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 a to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person”;
- 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”
As correctly ruled by the CA, the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. First, petitioner recruited AAA to work as an “escort” or engage in prostitution. Second, petitioner threatened AAA that he will post her naked photos to convince her to engage in prostitution. Third, the work AAA was being convinced to engage in is prostitution. However, due to a cause other than the voluntary desistance of the petitioners, the recruitment to engage in prostitution was not consummated. Hence, the crime was only in its attempted stage.”[10]
[1] People v. Caluducan, G.R. No. 264486, February 19, 2026
[2] People of the Philippines vs. Castillo, 920 Phil. 996, 1012 (2022), cited in People v. Caluducan, G.R. No. 264486, February 19, 2026
[3] Cho Han Choon v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 227602, February 12, 2026
[4] Cho Han Choon v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 2276022, February 12, 2026
[5] Lapira v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 233512, February 26, 2026
[6] Lapira v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No, 233512, February 26, 2026
[7] People v. Cerna, G.R. No. 267178, February 11, 2026
[8] People v. Cerna, G.R. No. 267178, February 11, 2026
[9][9] People of the Philippines vs. XXX267860, G.R. No. 267860, February 3, 2026
[10] Veran v. Edjer, G.R. No. E-2172, February 9, 2026 citing People v. Valencia, 904 Phil. 518 (2021)