Philippines v. Annaliza D. Quebec A.K.A. "Budang"

Philippines v. Annaliza D. Quebec a.k.a.
“Budang”
Philippines
UNODC No.: PHL060
Fact Summary
This case initiated after the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) received a letter from
the Director of Investigations at the International Justice Mission, informing of the human
trafficking activities of the defendant and her accomplices.
Upon receiving this information, the Chief of the Anti-Trafficking Division of the NBI
assigned agent L.C. the task of conducting an investigation into the alleged illegal
activities of the defendant and her cohorts. After obtaining preliminary information, the
Executive Officer of the Anti-Trafficking Division decided to set up a covert operation. As
part of this operation, agent L.C. contacted the defendant under an assumed name. After
a number of communications, the defendant offered to meet with the undercover agent,
who was pretending to be “Raymond”, a friend of a foreigner named “Mario” who was
interested in buying sex. For this operation, the NBI obtained the assistance of the
Immigration and Customs Enforcements of the Homeland Security Department of the
United States, who provided them with two Caucasian agents who acted as “Mario” and
Mario’s friend “Mitch”.
With the assistance of the ICE, the NBI then implemented the sting operation. The
defendant met with Raymond (agent L.C.) at a restaurant. The purpose of this meeting
was, purportedly, for the defendant to present Raymond with girls, so he could evaluate
whether the girls met Mario’s requirements. They were later joined by a man who the
defendant introduced as her husband “Jeminy”. The defendant, together with this man,
offered Raymond (agent L.C.) three girls for the purpose of prostitution: “L” (whom he was
told was 17 years old), “K” (who the defendants said was 15 years old), and “R”.
Undercover agent L.C. then told the defendant that the girls met Mario’s requirements,
and agreed to pay the defendants 80,000 PHP for five girls for a 24 hour period. Then,
agent L.C., together with the defendant, “Jeminy” and the three girls, proceeded to a
nearby hotel, where Mario was supposedly staying. Upon reaching the hotel, one of the
American agents, pretending to be Mario, opened the door, and agent L.C., the defendant
and the three girls entered the room. Shortly after, NBI operatives arrived in the room and
arrested the defendant and her accomplices. Only one of the three girls, K., turned out to
really be a minor. She was 17 years old.
Sentence Date:2014-02-07
Author: UNODC
Keywords
Form of Trafficking: Internal
Sector in which exploitation takes place: Commercial sexual exploitation
Acts: Recruitment Transfer
Purpose of Exploitation: Exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of
sexual exploitation
Trafficking in Persons Protocol: Article 3, Trafficking in Persons Protocol, Article 5,
Trafficking in Persons Protocol
Means: Deception Abuse of power or a position of vulnerability
Details
• Special investigative techniques
• controlled delivery
• electronic or other forms of surveillance
• undercover operation(s)
• Joint investigative teams
Procedural Information
Legal System: Mixed System
Latest Court Ruling: Court of 1st Instance
Type of Proceeding: Criminal
1st Instance:
Court: Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region
Location: Makati City
Date of decision: 07-02-2014
Reference: Crim. Case No. 12-1930
Victims / Plaintiffs in the first instance

Victim: K.
Gender: Child
Nationality: Filipino
Age: 17
Born: 1995
Victim: J.
Gender: Female
Victim: R.
Gender: Female
Defendants / Respondents in the first instance

Defendant: Annaliza D. Quebec a.k.a. “Budang”
Gender:
Female
Two other accused - O.M.P. a.k.a. “Ingkong”, and C.M.M.- were tried on a separate
parallel trial relating to this same incident. However, the case for qualified trafficking filed
against them was dismissed after the court granted their demurrer to evidence (on the
ground of insufficiency of evidence).
With regards to the accused J.M. a.k.a. “Jeminy”, he was indicted but the court failed to
acquire jurisdiction over him, as he remained at large at the time of the trial.
Legal Reasoning:
The prosecution presented its case through the testimonies of its witnesses, namely:
National Bureau of Investigation Special Agents L.C. and R.R.C.S., the two complainants
(two of the three victims who filed charges against the defendant), and the mother of one
of the complainants; together with a wealth of documentary and physical evidence
(including photographs and video recordings of the operation).
The defendant filed a demurrer to evidence (motion to dismiss filed by the defendant after
the prosecution had rested their case, on the ground of insufficiency of evidence), but the
court found that the evidence of the prosecution against the defendant was sufficient to
sustain a conviction, and thus denied the demurrer to evidence.
The Court noted that the means employed by the defendant in order to recruit the three
victims did not need to be established by the prosecution, considering that one of the
victims was a minor. In addition to this, the Court found that the prosecution had proved
that the defendant had taken advantage of the vulnerable position of the victims: she
enticed K., an easily impressionable teenage girl, with a misrepresentation that her
American cousin would buy her material things, and she took advantage of R’s economic
vulnerability.
The Court also highlighted that the presence or absence of consent of the victim is
irrelevant under S 3(a) of the said Act 9208, which defines trafficking in persons as: “the
recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, or receipt of persons with or without
the victim’s consent or knowledge…”
Finally, the Court held that the defendant recruited and hired K. (a minor), J., and R. for
the purpose of prostitution and transported them to the hotel where the foreign customers
were waiting.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court found that the prosecution had sufficiently
proven beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime of Trafficking in
Persons under s 3(a) and s 6 of R.A.9208.
Charges / Claims / Decisions
Defendant: Annaliza D. Quebec a.k.a. “Budang”
Verdict: Guilty
Charge / Claim:Qualified Trafficking in Persons
Legislation / Statute / Code:S 4(e) in relation to ss 3(o) and 5(a)(c), and 10(c) of the
Republic Act 9208 and s 5(a) of the Republic Act No. 8369
Fine / Payment to State:Yes 2000000 PHP (10,000-50,000 USD)
Court
Regional Trial Court of the National Capital Judicial Region

Philippines v. Annaliza D. Quebec A.K.A. "Budang"

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippines v. Annaliza D. Quebec A.K.A. "Budang"

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippines v. Annaliza D. Quebec a.k.a.

Victims / Plaintiffs in the first instance

Defendants / Respondents in the first instance

You might also like