The three defendants were charged with syndicated qualified trafficking, as defined under section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(c) of R.A. 9208. This was due to the recruitment and provision of the victim, A.A.A, for the purpose of prostitution, and the crime allegedly being committed by a group of three. Trafficking is ‘deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.’

The prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the first named accused, Reynaldo Santiago, recruited and provided A.A.A for the purposes sexual exploitation through prostitution. It was established that he had haggled over a price for A.A.A and instructed her to go to a hotel room where a guest was looking for a woman. She was told that the transaction would cost the guest PHP500 of which she would receive PHP350. The remaining PHP150 would go to the person who facilitated the transaction, Reynaldo Santiago. A.A.A went to the hotel to meet the guest. The Court held that Reynaldo Santiago entered into a transaction with another person for the purpose of recruiting or engaging A.A.A to have sexual intercourse with said person in exchange for money. It further held that Reynaldo Santiago intended to sexually exploit A.A.A through prostitution and in doing so, committed the act of ‘recruiting or providing a person by any means, for the purpose of prostitution, in exchange for money’, as defined by Section 3(c) of R.A. 9208.

The remaining two defendants, R.C.M. and R.L.A. were acquitted on the basis that the prosecution failed to provide evidence to prove conspiracy. The Court held that the participation of R.C.M. and R.L.A respectively had not been proven. Both were considered to be mere bystanders at the Plaza when their arrests took place.

The Court held that the participation of R.C.M. had not been proven. Furthermore, it was of the opinion that R.C.M. was a mere bystander at the Plaza at the time of his arrest.

For the accused to be considered to be acting as a syndicate there must be conspiracy or a common intent to perpetuate the punishable act. In order to establish such a conspiracy there must be two or more persons who come to an agreement to commit the punishable act and decide to commit it. The Court found that all elements required to prove conspiracy were absent in this case. Thus, R.C.M. was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court held that the participation of R.L.A. had not been proven. Furthermore, it was of the opinion that R.L.A. was a mere bystander at the Plaza at the time of his arrest.

For the accused to be considered to be acting as a syndicate there must be conspiracy or a common intent to perpetuate the punishable act. In order to establish such a conspiracy there must be two or more persons who come to an agreement to commit the punishable act and decide to commit it. The Court found that all elements required to prove conspiracy were absent in this case. Thus, R.L.A. was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.