THE Supreme Court (SC) has upheld the life imprisonment sentence meted out to Australian national Peter Gerald Scully for recruiting two minors for prostitution, pornography, and sexual exploitation.
In a decision promulgated on November 26, 2024 but only made public yesterday, the SC’s second division, through Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, affirmed the conviction of Scully and his co-accused, Carme Ann Alvarez, for qualified trafficking under Republic Act 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.
Records of the case showed that Alvarez lured two girls, aged 9 and 12 on September 19, 2014 from a mall by offering them food and promising more if they came with her. She then took them to a house where they met Scully. Once inside, Scully gave them alcohol, made them undress, and took photos of them naked.
He later chained their necks and forced them to watch a pornographic film.
The girls managed to escape four days later and immediately reported the crime to the police.
The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted Scully and Alvarez, prompting them to appeal to the SC.
In appealing their conviction, Scully and Alvarez argue that their acts do not constitute trafficking as they abducted the girls to satisfy their lust, not of others.
They also stressed that no pornographic material was shown as evidence and claimed that the RTC violated their constitutional right to be heard when they were not able to present their defense.
The SC denied their appeal, finding that all the elements of trafficking under RA 9208 were clearly met, namely, that trafficking occurs when individuals are recruited, transported, or transferred – regardless of consent or knowledge – under threats, coercion, deception, or abuse of power, for exploitative purposes such as prostitution, forced labor, slavery, or removal or sale of organs.
The crime is classified as qualified trafficking when the victims are minors, which carries a life sentence.
“The essence of trafficking is the act of recruiting or using, with or without consent, another human being for sexual exploitation. It is sufficient that they were proven to have lured, enticed, and transported their victims for sexual exploitation,” the SC said, adding that Scully and Alvarez are not cleared of guilt just because no pornographic material was found.
The SC also ruled that their constitutional right to be heard was not violated when they failed to present their defense before the RTC, adding that their lawyers repeatedly requested trial postponements, which the RTC liberally granted to ensure fairness.
“After multiple absences by both the accused and their counsel, the RTC determined that they had waived their right to present evidence,” the SC said.
The High Court emphasized that courts do not have to wait indefinitely for the accused, as they must ensure a swift and fair trial.
“If the accused is given enough chances to present evidence but still neglects their defense, they may be considered to have waived their right to do so,” it said.
“Indeed, for justice to prevail, the scales must be balanced, and judges must ensure that all those who appear or are brought to the bar of justice are afforded a fair opportunity to present their side,” it added.
Aside from affirming their life sentence, the SC also fined Scully and Alvarez P5 million each and pay each victim P600,000 in damages.
Scully was previously convicted in a separate case for one count of human trafficking and five counts of rape by sexual assault of children. His crimes were deemed so severe that some sectors even called for the reintroduction of the death penalty on Scully, though capital punishment was abolished in the Philippines in 2006.
