Sie sind auf Seite 1von 19

12. G.R. No.

223528

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,


vs.
JEFFREY HIRANG y RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

DECISION

REYES, J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated March 9, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
05129, which affirmed the conviction of defendant-appellant Jeffrey Hirang y Rodriguez (Hirang) for violation of
Section 6 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9208, otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.

The Facts

Hirang, also known as Jojit and Jojie, was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City with the
crime of qualified trafficking in persons, as defined and penalized under Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6(a) and
(c), and Section 3(a), (b) and (c) of R.A. No. 9208, via an Amended Information2 that reads:

That on or about June 27, 2007, at Taguig City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named
accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruited, transported and provided in a large
scale minors [AAA],3 17 years old, [BBB], 17 years old, [CCC], 14 years old and [DDD], 17 years old, for the
purpose of prostitution by taking advantage of their vulnerability as young girls through promise of a good time or
"gimik" in a disco and good food if they would simply accompany him in meeting and entertaining his Korean friends
and to induce their full consent further promise them Five Thousand Pesos (Php5,000.00) to Ten Thousand Pesos
(Php10,000.00) each afterwards when in truth and in fact peddled them for sexual favors and pleasure in
consideration of Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php20,000.00) each and engaged' their services in prostitution as in fact
he already received Seven Thousand Pesos down payment from the Korean national who engaged their services.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4 (Emphasis and underlining in the original)

Upon arraignment, Hirang entered a plea of not guilty. After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 5

Version of the Prosecution

The private complainants are minor victims of Hirang in his prostitution activities. The following persons testified for
the prosecution: victims DDD, AAA, CCC and BBB, International Justice Mission (UM) Investigators Alvin Sarmiento
(Sarmiento) and Jeffrey Villagracia (Villagracia), National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Special Investigator (SI)
Menandro Cariaga (Cariaga), SI Anson L. Chumacera and forensic chemist Loren J. Briones. 6

AAA was born on November 25, 1989. She was only 16 years old when Hirang recruited her in August of 2006 as a
sex worker, for which she was paid ₱1,000.00 per day, less Hirang's commission of ₱200.00. She was later
prodded to work as a sexy dancer and prostitute at the Catwalk Club along Quezon Avenue. She joined her
customers in their tables at the club, and gave sexual services in hotels. She left the club after two nights, upon her
live-in partner's order. Still, Hirang sourced several other prostitution jobs for AAA. He convinced AAA to work in a
cybersex den in Muñoz, Quezon City. She received ₱700.00 a month, less ₱200.00 commission received by Hirang.
In September 2006, Hirang made AAA work again as a sexy dancer at Philippine Village bar in Puerto Galera. AAA
had to quit her job when she got pregnant, but resumed work for Hirang after she gave birth.7

CCC was born on December 19, 1992. She was 14 years old when she was recruited by Hirang for his illicit
activities. She met Hirang at the house of Ka Lolet, her best friend's mother. She knew Hirang to be scouting young
girls who could be traded for sex. Sometime in June 2007, Hirang asked CCC to go with him and meet some
Koreans. 8

DDD, who was born on February 11, 1991, was 16 years old when she ran away from home in 2007 and stayed at a
friend's house in Sta. Ana, Taguig City. As she was then in need of money, she accepted an offer from one Ate
Lolet, a pimp, that she be introduced to a male customer, with whom she had sexual intercourse for ₱2,500.00. It
was Ate Lolet who later introduced DDD to Hirang.9

BBB was born on March 28, 1990. CCC is her younger sister. She was 17 years old when on June 27, 2007, she
visited CCC at Ka Lolet's house. There she saw Hirang, who invited her to come with him in meeting some Koreans
that evening. Later in the evening, at around 8:00 p.m., BBB went back to the house of Ka Lo let to meet Hirang. It
was then on June 27, 2007 that Hirang sold BBB, along with AAA, CCC and DDD, to his Korean customers for
sexual activities. Hirang told his victims that they would receive ₱5,000.00 after a "gimik" 10 with them. At around
10:00 p.m., their group proceeded to meet with the Koreans at Chowking restaurant, C-5 in Taguig City. Hirang
instructed the girls to tell the Koreans that they were 16 years of age, as this was their customers' preference. 11
When their group arrived at Chowking, Hirang talked to a Korean and then introduced the girls to him. The Korean
handed money to Hirang and as the latter was counting it, NBI agents arrived at the scene and announced a raid.
NBI agents arrested Hirang, while a social worker approached the girls and brought them to the NBI for their
statements. 12

The raid was conducted following a prior investigation conducted by IJM, a non-profit organization that renders legal
services and is based in Washington, D.C. IJM's investigators Sarmiento and Villagracia gathered data on human
trafficking in Metro Manila, after information that Hirang was selling minors for prostitution. Hirang was introduced by
a confidential informant to Villagracia, who posed as a travel agency employee having Korean friends. Villagracia
claimed to have Korean friends as they knew Hirang to be transacting only with foreign customers. 13

Hirang and Villagracia first agreed to meet on June 20, 2007 at Chowking restaurant along C-5 Road in Taguig City.
Villagracia introduced Hirang to Sarmiento, who introduced himself as Korean national studying English in Manila.
Hirang informed Sarmiento that he had with him AAA, who was good in bed, only 15 years old and could perform
any sexual position, for a fee of ₱20,000.00. Sarmiento, however, told Hirang that he and his other Korean friends
had other plans for the night. Hirang demanded a cancellation fee of ₱1,500.00 and scheduled another meeting with
Sarmiento and the other Koreans on June 26, 2007. 14

Thereafter, IJM submitted a report to the NBI-Field Office Division, and asked for the agency's investigative
assistance and operation against Hirang. On June 26, 2007, IJM and NBI operatives agreed during a conference
that they would conduct an entrapment operation on June 27, 2007. Sarmiento reset his meeting with Hirang to
June 27, 2007. Hirang initially got mad, but was appeased after Sarmiento promised to give a bonus of
₱20,0000.00. Cariaga prepared the marked money to be used during the entrapment, and was tasked to be the
driver of poseur-customer Sarmiento. Several other NBI and IJM agents served as back-up during the operation, in
case any untoward incident should happen. 15

On June 27, 2007, the entrapment was conducted with proper coordination with local authorities. A social worker
from the Deartment of Social Welfare and Development and members of the media for the segment XXX of ABS-
CBN Channel 2 joined the operation. Villagracia secretly recorded his conversation with Hirang. 16

Hirang introduced AAA, BBB, CCC and DDD to Sarmiento, who feigned his desire to pursue the transaction. Hirang
specified the sexual services that the girls could offer, and assured Sarmiento that the girls could fulfill their
customers' sexual fantasies. 17 Sarmiento then handed to Hirang a fictitious check amounting to ₱20,000.00, while
Cariaga handed the ₱7,000.00 marked money. As Hirang was counting the cash, he complained that the amount
was not enough as he charged ₱20,000.00 per girl, plus bonus. At this point, Cariaga performed the pre-arranged
signal with NBI operatives, who declared the entrapment operation and arrested Hirang. An ultraviolet dust
examination later performed upon Hirang rendered positive result for fluorescent powder specks. 18

Version of the Defense

Hirang and his mother Myrna Hirang (Myrna) testified for the defense.

Hirang claimed to be self-employed, selling longganisa and other wares for a living. He denied dealing with sexual
trade. It was upon the instigation of Villagracia, who was introduced to him by his friend Jun Valentin (Valentin), that
he agreed to bring the girls for the supposed Korean clients. Hirang described Villagracia as a drug addict who
frequently visited Valentin's house for pot sessions. Villagracia told Hirang that he knew of Koreans looking for girls
and were willing to pay ₱20,000.00 to ₱25,000.00 for each girl who must be 13 to 14 years old. 19

On June 20, 2007, Hirang, Valentin and two girls went to meet up with Villagracia at Chowking in C-5 Road, but the
Koreans cancelled the transaction. Villagracia was disappointed that the girls brought by Hirang were already 23
years old. They agreed to meet again, but Villagracia reminded Hirang to bring young girls next time. Hirang
promised to do so, and then received ₱500.00 from Villagracia.20

When they later talked again over the telephone, Villagracia advised Hirang to convince the Koreans to hire the girls
so that Hirang and Valentin could receive the ₱5,000.00 commission per girl. Another Korean promised to give a
bonus of ₱10,000.00 if Hirang could provide young girls. Since Hirang claimed to have no girls for the service, he
went to the house of Ka Lolet with whom he had previously transacted whenever he needed girls for sexual
services. Ka Lolet provided BBB, CCC and DDD, while Hirang personally talked to AAA. Hirang and Ka Lolet agreed
to give each girl ₱5,000.00, while a ₱5,000.00 commission for each girl would be divided among him, Ka Lolet,
Villagracia and Valentin.21

Hirang and Villagracia met again on June 26, 2007 at Valentin's house. Villagracia reminded Hirang that the girls
should be young. He also gave instructions on the dresses that the girls should wear during their meeting. On the
evening of June 27, 2007, Hirang went to Ka Lolet's house and from there, brought the girls to Chowking in C-5
Road on board a van provided by Ka Lolet. One Korean national gave Hirang money for their food. As their order
was being served at the restaurant, NBI operatives approached Hirang and arrested him. 22
In her testimony, defense witness Myrna claimed knowing Villagracia, as the latter frequently talked to Hirang over
the cellphone. There were times that she answered Villagracia's calls, and the latter introduced himself as a friend of
Hirang with whom he had an arrangement. 23

Ruling of the RTC

On June 25, 2011, the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 163, Taguig City Station rendered its Decision24 convicting Hirang
of the crime of human trafficking. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, [HIRANG] is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 6
of [R.A.] No. 9208 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Two Million Pesos
(Php2,000,000.00).

SO ORDERED.25

Feeling aggrieved, Hirang appealed26 to the CA based on the following assignment of errors:

I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN REJECTING [HIRANG'S] DEFENSE.

II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE CONFLICTING AND IMPROBABLE
TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.

III. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT [HIRANG'S] RIGHTS UNDER [R.A.] NO. 7438
(AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING
OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF) WERE VIOLATED.27

Ruling of the CA

The CA denied the appeal via a Decision28 dated March 9, 2015, with dispositive portion that reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated June 25, 2011 of the [RTC] of Pasig City, Branch 163,
Taguig City Station in Criminal Case No. 135682 is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.29

Hence, this appeal. 30

The Present Appeal

On June 13, 2016, the Court issued a Resolution notifying the parties that they could file their respective
supplemental briefs.31 However, both Hirang and the Office of the Solicitor General, as counsel for plaintiff-appellee
People of the Philippines, manifested that they would no longer file supplemental briefs, as their respective briefs
filed with the CA sufficiently addressed their particular arguments. 32

Based on the parties' contentions as raised before the CA, the Court is called upon to resolve the following issues:
(1) whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of Hirang for the crime charged;
and (2) whether Hirang should be acquitted in view of the failure of the arresting officers to observe R.A. No. 7438.

Ruling of the Court

The Court affirms Hirang's conviction.

Hirang was charged and convicted for qualified trafficking in persons under Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6(a)
and (c), and Section 3(a), (b) and (c) of R.A. No. 9208, which read:

Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit any of
the following acts:

(a) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means, including those done under the
pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The following are considered as qualified trafficking:

(a) When the trafficked person is a child;


xxxx

(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. 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. It is deemed
committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group;

Section 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act:

(a) Trafficking in Persons - refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with
or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders 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 to achieve the consent of a person
having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, 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.

The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be
considered as "trafficking in persons" even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding
paragraph.

(b) Child - refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or one who is over eighteen (18) but is unable to fully
take care of or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a
physical or mental disability or condition.

(c) Prostitution - refers to any act, transaction, scheme or design involving the use of a person by another, for sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange for money, profit or any other consideration.

In People v. Casio,33 the Court defined the elements of trafficking in persons, as derived from the aforequoted
Section 3(a), to wit:

(1) The act of "recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's
consent or knowledge, within or across national borders";

(2) The means used which include "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 to achieve the consent of a person having control over another"; and

(3) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes "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."34 (Citation omitted
and italics in the original)

The information filed against Hirang sufficiently alleged the recruitment and transportation of the minor victims for
sexual activities and exploitation, with the offender taking advantage of the vulnerability of the young girls through
the guarantee of a good time and financial gain. Pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 9208, the crime committed by
Hirang was qualified trafficking, as it was committed in a large scale and his four victims were under 18 years of
age.

The presence of the crime's elements was established by the prosecution witnesses who testified during the
trial. The young victims themselves testified on their respective ages, and how they were lured by Hirang to
1âwphi1

participate in the latter's illicit sex trade. Hirang recruited the girls to become victims of sexual abuse and
exploitation. Mainly upon a promise of financial benefit, the girls agreed and, thus, joined him on June 27, 2007 in
meeting with the Korean customers in search for prostitutes. Police authorities personally, witnessed Hirang's
unlawful activity, as they conducted the entrapment operations and arrested him after Hirang transacted with the
supposed customers and received payment therefor.

Hirang still sought an acquittal by claiming that the prosecution witnesses' testimonies were conflicting and
improbable. Such alleged inconsistencies pertained to the supposed participation of Ka Lolet in the recruitment of
the victims, how the IJM agents came to personally know of Hirang, and other incidents that involved prior
surveillance and the entrapment operation itself. It is evident, however, that the supposed inconsistencies in the
witnesses' testimonies pertained to minor details that, in any case, could not negate Hirang's unlawful activity and
violation of R.A. No. 9208. Moreover, the Court has ruled time and again that factual findings of the trial court, its
assessment of the credibility of witnesses and the probative weight of their testimonies and the conclusions based
on these factual findings are to be given the highest respect. As a rule, the Court will not weigh anew the evidence
already passed on by the trial court and affirmed by the CA. 35

Hirang argued that he was merely instigated to commit the offense, but even such defense deserves scant
consideration. It has been established by the prosecution that Hirang has been engaged in the illegal activities
1âwphi 1

leading young women to prostitution, and the police officers merely employed means for his capture. Trafficking of
women was his habitual trade; he was merely entrapped by authorities.36 Entrapment is an acceptable means to
capture a wrongdoer. In People v. Bartolome,37the Court distinguished between entrapment and instigation, as it
explained:

Instigation is the means by which the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to
prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of
trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. Thus, in instigation, officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or
lure an accused into committing an offense which he or she would otherwise not commit and has no intention of
committing. But in entrapment, the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of
the accused, and law enforcement officials merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and
schemes; thus, the accused cannot justify his or her conduct. In instigation, where law enforcers act as co-
principals, the accused will have to be acquitted. But entrapment cannot bar prosecution and conviction. As has
been said, instigation is a "trap for the unwary innocent" while entrapment is a "trap for the unwary criminal."38

In this case, it was established during trial that Hirang had been recruiting and deploying young girls for customers
in the sex trade. The IJM personnel approached him for girls precisely because of his illicit activities. Also, Hirang
was not first approached for prostitutes by police or government authorities, but by investigators of IJM, which is a
non-profit and non-governmental organization. IJM only sought coordination with the police officers after Hirang,
Sarmiento and Villagracia had determined to meet on June 27, 2007 for the transaction with the purported Korean
customers. Clearly, there could be no instigation by officers, as barred by law, to speak of.

Even as the Court considers the alleged failure of the apprehending police officers to inform Hirang of the Miranda
rights upon his arrest, there is no sufficient ground for the Court to acquit him. The CA correctly explained that any
defect in the arrest of the accused was cured by his voluntary act of entering a plea and participating in the trial
without raising the issue.39 In People v. Vasquez,40the Court held:

[T]he Court rules that the appellant can no longer assail the validity of his arrest. We reiterated in People v.
Tampis that "[a]ny objection, defect or irregularity attending an arrest must be made before the accused enters his
plea on arraignment. Having failed to move for the quashing of the information against them before their
arraignment, appellants are now estopped from questioning the legality of their arrest. Any irregularity was cured
upon their voluntary submission to the trial court's jurisdiction. x x x. 41 (Citations omitted)

Given the foregoing, there is no cogent reason for the Court to reverse Hirang's conviction for qualified trafficking
under R.A. No. 9208. The RTC and CA correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and fine of
₱2,000,000.00, applying Section 10(c) of R.A. No. 9208, to wit:

Section 10. Penalties and Sanctions. - The following penalties and sanctions are hereby established for the
offenses enumerated in this Act:

xxxx

(c) Any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Section 6 shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a
fine of not less than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) but not more than Five million pesos (5,000,000.00)[.]

Damages in favor of the victims should, however, also be awarded. In line with prevailing jurisprudence,42 each
victim is entitled to ₱500,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages. This is supported by
Article 2219 of the New Civil Code, which reads:

Article 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;

(4) Adultery or concubinage;

(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;

(6) Illegal search;

(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8) Malicious prosecution;

(9) Acts mentioned in A1iicle 309;

(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34 and 35.
xxxx

The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous case to the crimes of seduction,
abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. In fact, it is worse, thereby justifying the award of moral damages. When
the crime is aggravated, the award of exemplary damages is also justified.43

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated March 9, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 05129 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that victims AAA, BBB, CCC and DDD are each entitled to
₱500,000.00 as moral damages and ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.

13. G.R. No. 211465 December 3, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE :PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,


vs.
SHIRLEY A. CASIO, Accused-appellant.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

"Chicks mo dong?"1

With this sadly familiar question being used on the streets of many of our cities, the fate of many desperate women
is sealed and their futures vanquished. This case resulted in the rescue of two minors from this pernicious practice.
Hopefully, there will be more rescues. Trafficking in persons is a deplorable crime. It is committed even though the
minor knew about or consented to the act of trafficking.

This case involves Republic Act No. 9208,2 otherwise known as the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003."3

Accused Shirley A. Casio was charged for the violation of Republic Act No. 9208, Section 4(a), qualified by Section
6(a). The information against accused, dated May 5, 2008, states:

That on or about the 3rd day of May 2008, at about 1:00 o’clock A.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, with intent to gain, did then and there
hire and/or recruit AAA, a minor, 17 years old and BBB for the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation, by
acting as their procurer for different customers, for money, profit or any other consideration, in Violation of Sec. 4,
Par. (a), Qualified by Sec. 6, Par. (a), of R.A. 9208 (Qualified Trafficking in Persons).

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

The facts, as found by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, are as follows:

On May 2, 2008, International Justice Mission (IJM),5 a nongovernmental organization, coordinated with the police in
order to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City.6

Chief PSI George Ylanan, SPO1 Felomino Mendaros, SPO1 Fe Altubar, PO1 Albert Luardo, and PO1 Roy Carlo
Veloso composed the team of police operatives.7 PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso were designated as decoys,
pretending to be tour guides looking for girls to entertain their guests.8 IJM provided them with marked money, which
was recorded in the police blotter.9

The team went to Queensland Motel and rented Rooms 24 and 25. These rooms were adjacent to each other.
Room 24 was designated for the transaction while Room 25 was for the rest of the police team.10

PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso proceeded to D. Jakosalem Street in Barangay Kamagayan, Cebu City’s red light
district. Accused noticed them and called their attention by saying "Chicks mo dong?" (Do you like girls, guys?).11

During trial, PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso testified that their conversation with accused went as follows:

Accused: Chicks mo dong?(Do you like girls, guys?)

PO1 Luardo: Unya mga bag-o? Kanang batan-on kay naa mi guests naghulat sa motel. (Are they new? They must
be young because we have guests waiting at the motel.)

Accused: Naa, hulat kay magkuha ko. (Yes, just wait and I’ll get them.)12
At that point, PO1 Luardo sent a text message to PSI Ylanan that they found a prospective subject.13

After a few minutes, accused returned with AAA and BBB, private complainants in this case.14 Accused: Kining duha
kauyon mo ani? (Are you satisfied with these two?)

PO1 Veloso: Maayo man kaha na sila modala ug kayat? (Well, are they good in sex?)15 Accused gave the
assurance that the girls were good in sex. PO1 Luardo inquired how much their serviceswould cost. Accused
replied, "Tag kinientos" (₱500.00).16

PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo convinced accused to come with them to Queensland Motel. Upon proceeding
toRoom 24, PO1 Veloso handed the marked money to accused.17

As accused counted the money, PO1 Veloso gave PSI Ylanan a missed call. This was their pre-arranged signal.
The rest of the team proceeded to Room 24, arrested accused, and informed her of her constitutional rights. The
police confiscated the marked money from accused.18 Meanwhile, AAA and BBB "were brought to Room 25 and
placed in the custody of the representatives from the IJM and the DSWD."19

During trial, AAA testified that she was born on January 27, 1991. This statement was supported by a copy of her
certificate of live birth.20

AAA narrated that in 2007, she worked as a house helper in Mandaue City. In March 2008 she stopped working as
a house helper and transferred to Cebu City. She stayed with her cousin, but she subsequently moved to a boarding
house. It was there where she met her friend, Gee Ann. AAA knew that Gee Ann worked in a disco club. When Gee
Ann found out that AAA was no longer a virgin, she offered AAA work. AAA agreed because she needed the money
in order to helpher father. AAA recalled that she had sex with her first customer. She was paid ₱200.00 and given
an additional ₱500.00 as tip. For the first few weeks, Gee Ann provided customers for AAA. Eventually, Gee Ann
brought her to Barangay Kamagayan, telling her that there were more customers in that area.21

AAA stated that she knew accused was a pimp because AAA would usually see her pimping girls to customers in
Barangay Kamagayan.22 AAA further testified that on May 2, 2008, accused solicited her services for a customer.
That was the first time that she was pimped by accused.23 Accused brought her, BBB, and a certain Jocelyn to
Queensland Motel.24

AAA testified that Jocelyn stayed inthe taxi, while she and BBB went to Room 24. It was in Room 24 where the
customer paid Shirley. The police rushed in and toldAAA and BBB to go to the other room. AAA was then met by the
Department of Social Welfare and Development personnel who informed her that she was rescued and not
arrested.25

AAA described that her job as a prostitute required her to display herself, along with other girls, between 7 p.m. to 8
p.m. She received ₱400.00 for every customer who selected her.26

The prosecution also presented the police operatives during trial. PSI Ylanan, SPO1 Mendaros, and SPO1 Altubar
testified that after PO1 Veloso had made the missed call to PSI Ylanan, they "rushed to Room 24 and arrested the
accused."27 SPO1 Altubar retrieved the marked money worth ₱1,000.00 from accused’s right hand "and upon
instruction from PCINSP Ylanan recorded the same at the ‘police blotter prior operation’. . . ."28

The trial court noted that AAA requested assistance from the IJM "in conducting the operation against the
accused."29

Version of the accused

In defense, accused testified thatshe worked as a laundry woman. On the evening of May 2, 2008, she went out to
buy supper. While walking, she was stopped by two men on board a blue car. The two men asked her if she knew
someone named Bingbing. She replied that she only knew Gingging but not Bingbing. The men informed her that
they were actually looking for Gingging, gave her a piece of paper witha number written on it, and told her to tell
Gingging to bring companions. When accused arrived home, she contacted Gingging. Gingging convinced her to
come because allegedly, she would be given money by the two males.30 Ruling of the trial court

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 in Cebu City found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and held31 that:

Accused had consummated the act of trafficking of person[s] . . . as defined under paragraph (a), Section 3 of R.A.
9208 for the purpose of letting her engage in prostitution asdefined under paragraph [c] of the same Section; the act
of "sexual intercourse" need not have been consummated for the mere "transaction" i.e. the ‘solicitation’ for sex and
the handing over of the "bust money" of Php1,000.00 already consummated the said act.

....
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused, SHIRLEY A. CASIO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of trafficking in
persons under paragraph (a), Section 4 as qualified under paragraph (a), Section 6 of R.A. 9208 and sentenced to
suffer imprisonment of TWENTY (20) YEARS and to pay a fine of ONE MILLION (Php1,000,000.00).

Finally, accused is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.

SO ORDERED[.]32

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court but modified the fine and awarded moral damages. The
dispositive portion of the decision33 reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision
dated 10 August 2010 promulgated by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 in Cebu City in Crim. Case No. CBU-
83122 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. The accused-appellant is accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty
of life imprisonment and a fine of Php2,000,000 and is ordered to pay each of the private complainants Php150,000
as moral damages.

SO ORDERED.34

Accused filed a notice of appeal35 on August 28, 2013, which the Court of Appeals noted and gavedue course in its
resolution36 dated January 6, 2014. The case records of CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 01490 were received by this court on
March 17, 2014.37

In the resolution38 dated April 29, 2014, this court resolved to notify the parties that they may file their respective
supplemental briefs within 30 days from notice. This court also required the Superintendent of the Correctional
Institution for Women to confirm the confinement of accused.39

Counsel for accused40 and the Office of the Solicitor General41 filed their respective manifestations, stating that they
would no longer file supplemental briefs considering that all issues had been discussed in the appellant’s brief and
appellee’s brief filed before the Court of Appeals. Through a letter42 dated June 17, 2014, Superintendent IV Rachel
D. Ruelo confirmed accused’s confinement at the Correctional Institution for Women since October 27, 2010.

The sole issue raised by accused iswhether the prosecution was able to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

However, based on the arguments raised in accused’s brief, the sole issue may be dissected into the following:

(1) Whether the entrapment operation conducted by the police was valid, considering that there was no prior
surveillance and the police did not know the subject of the operation;43

(2) Whether the prosecution was able to prove accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt even though there
was no evidence presented to show that accused has a history of engaging in human trafficking;44 and

(3) Whether accused was properly convicted of trafficking in persons, considering that AAA admitted that
she works as a prostitute.45

Arguments of accused

Accused argues that there was no valid entrapment. Instead, she was instigated into committing the crime.46 The
police did not conduct prior surveillance and did not evenknow who their subject was.47 Neither did the police know
the identities of the alleged victims.

Accused further argues that under the subjective test, she should be acquitted because the prosecution did
notpresent evidence that would prove she had a history of engaging in human trafficking or any other offense. She
denied being a pimp and asserted that she was a laundry woman.48 In addition, AAA admitted that she worked as a
prostitute. Thus, it was her decision to display herself to solicit customers.49

Arguments of the plaintiff-appellee

The Office of the Solicitor General, counsel for plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines, argued that the trial court
did not err in convicting accused because witnesses positively identified her as the person who solicited customers
and received money for AAA and BBB.50 Entrapment operations are valid and have been recognized by
courts.51Likewise, her arrest in flagrante delicto is valid.52 Hence, the trial court was correct in stating that accused
had "fully consummated the act of trafficking of persons. . ."53

We affirm accused Shirley A. Casio’s conviction.


I.

Background of Republic Act No. 9208

The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UN CTOC) was "adopted and opened for
signature, ratification and accession"54 on November 15, 2000. The UN CTOC is supplemented by three protocols:
(1) the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children; (2) the
Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air; and, (3) the Protocol against the Illicit
Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition.55

On December 14, 2000, the Philippines signed the United Nations "Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish
Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children" (Trafficking Protocol).56 This was ratified by the Philippine
Senate on September 30, 2001.57 The Trafficking Protocol’s entry into force was on December 25, 2003.58

In the Trafficking Protocol, human trafficking is defined as:

Article 3 Use of terms For the purposes of this Protocol:

(a) "Trafficking in persons" shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of
persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of
deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or
benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of
exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other
forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the
removal of organs;

(b) The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a)
of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used;

(c) The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation
shall be considered "trafficking in persons" even if this does not involve any of the means set forth in
subparagraph (a) of this article;

(d) "Child" shall mean any person under eighteen years of age.

Senator Loren Legarda, in her sponsorship speech, stated that the "Anti-Trafficking Act will serve as the enabling
law of the country’s commitment to [the] protocol."59

Senator Luisa Ejercito Estrada also delivered a sponsorship speech and described trafficking in persons as follows:

Trafficking in human beings, if only to emphasize the gravity of its hideousness, is tantamount to modern-day
slavery at work. It is a manifestation of one of the most flagrant forms of violence against human beings. Its victims
suffer the brunt of this insidious form of violence. It is exploitation, coercion, deception, abduction, rape, physical,
mental and other forms of abuse, prostitution, forced labor, and indentured servitude.

....

As of this time, we have signed the following: the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination
Against Women; the 1995 Convention on the Rights of the Child; the United Nations Convention on the Protection of
Migrant Workers and their Families; and the United Nations’ Resolution on Trafficking in Women and Girls, among
others.

Moreover, we have also expressed our support for the United Nations’ Convention Against Organized Crime,
including the Trafficking Protocol in October last year.

At first glance, it appears thatwe are very responsive to the problem. So it seems.

Despite these international agreements, we have yet to come up with a law that shall squarely address human
trafficking.60

During the interpellation of Republic Act No. 9208, then numbered as Senate Bill No. 2444, Senator Teresa Aquino-
Oreta asked if there was a necessity for an anti-trafficking law when other laws exist that cover trafficking.61

Senator Luisa Ejercito Estrada explained:

At present, Mr. President, the relevant laws to the trafficking issue are the Revised Penal Code, Republic Act No.
8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act, R[epublic] A[ct] No. 6955 or the Mail-Order Bride Act, and
Republic Act No. 8239 or the Philippine Passport Act. These laws address issues such as illegal recruitment,
prostitution, falsification of public documents and the mail-order bride scheme. These laws do not respond to the
issue of recruiting, harboring or transporting persons resulting in prostitution, forced labor, slavery and slavery-like
practices. They only address to one or some elements of trafficking independent of their results or
consequence.62(Emphasis supplied)

Thus, Republic Act No. 9208 was enacted in order to fully address the issue of human trafficking. Republic Act No.
9208 was passed on May 12, 2003, and approved on May 26, 2003.

II.

Elements of trafficking in persons

The elements of trafficking inpersons can be derived from its definition under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208,
thus:

(1) The actof "recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, or receipt of persons with or without the
victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders."

(2) The means used which include "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 to achieve the consent of a person having control over another; and

(3) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes "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."63

On January 28, 2013,Republic Act No. 1036464 was approved, otherwise known as the "Expanded Anti-Trafficking in
Persons Act of 2012." Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208 was amended by Republic Act No. 10364 as follows:

SEC. 3. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9208 is hereby amended to read as follows:

"SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act:

"(a) Trafficking in Persons – refers to the 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
national borders 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 to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which
includes at a minimum, 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.

"The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation or
when the adoption is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes shall also be considered as
‘trafficking in persons’ even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph. (Emphasis
supplied)

Under Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of trafficking in persons have been expanded to include the following
acts:

(1) 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 national
borders;"

(2) 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 to achieve the consent of a person having control over another
person"

(3) 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" (Emphasis
supplied)

The Court of Appeals found thatAAA and BBB were recruited by accused when their services were peddled to the
police who acted as decoys.65 AAA was a child at the time that accused peddled her services.66 AAA also stated that
she agreed to work as a prostitute because she needed money.67 Accused took advantage of AAA’s vulnerability as
a child and as one who need money, as proven by the testimonies of the witnesses.68

III.
Knowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense under Republic Act No. 9208.

Accused claims that AAA admitted engaging in prostitution even before May 2, 2008. She concludes that AAA was
predisposed to having sex with "customers" for money.69 For liability under our law, this argument is irrelevant. As
defined under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, trafficking in persons can still becommitted even if the victim
gives consent.

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms.— As used in this Act:

a. Trafficking in Persons - refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of


persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders 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 persons, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to
achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which
includes ata minimum, 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.

The recruitment transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be
considered as "trafficking in persons" even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding
paragraph.70 (Emphasis supplied)

The victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by
perpetrators of human trafficking.71 Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor’s
consent is not given outof his or her own free will.

Section 4 of Republic Act No. 9208 enumerates the different acts of trafficking in persons. Accused was charged
under Section 4(a), which states:

SEC. 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons.— It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or judicial, to commit any of the
following acts.

a. To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means, including those done
under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of
prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;72

Republic Act No. 9208 further enumerates the instances when the crime of trafficking in persons is qualified.

SEC. 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons.— The following are considered as qualified trafficking: a. When the
trafficked person is a child;

b. When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the "Inter-Country
Adoption Act of 1995" and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation,forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

c. When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. 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. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or
as a group;

d. When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who exercise authority over the
trafficked person or when the offense is committed by a public officer or employee;

e. When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of the military or law
enforcement agencies;

f. When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies; and

g. When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended party dies, becomes
insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with Human Immunod eficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). (Emphasis supplied)73

Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 9208 defines "child" as:

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms.— As used in this Act:

....
b. Child- refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or one who is over eighteen (18) but isunable to fully
take care of or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a
physical or mental disability or condition.74

Based on the definition of trafficking in persons and the enumeration of acts of trafficking in persons, accused
performed all the elements in the commission of the offense when she peddled AAA and BBB and offered their
services to decoys PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo in exchange for money. The offense was also qualified because
the trafficked persons were minors.

Here, AAA testified as to how accused solicited her services for the customers waiting at Queensland Motel. AAA
also testified that she was only 17 years old when accused peddled her. Her certificate of live birth was presented
as evidence to show that she was born on January 27, 1991.

The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the offense of trafficking in
persons, qualified by the fact that one of the victims was a child. As held by the trial court:

[T]he act of "sexual intercourse" need not have been consummated for the mere "transaction" i.e. that ‘solicitation’
for sex and the handing over of the "bust money" of Php.1,000.00 already consummated the said act.75

IV.

Validity of the entrapment operation

In People v. Doria,76 this court discussed the objective test and the subjective test to determine whether there was a
valid entrapment operation:

. . . American federal courts and a majority of state courts use the "subjective" or "origin of intent" test laid down in
Sorrells v. United States to determine whether entrapment actually occurred. The focus of the inquiry is on the
accused's predisposition to commit the offense charged, his state of mind and inclination before his initial exposure
to government agents. All relevant facts such as the accused's mental and character traits, his past offenses,
activities, his eagerness in committing the crime, his reputation, etc., are considered to assess his state of mind
before the crime. The predisposition test emphasizes the accused's propensity to commit the offense rather than the
officer's misconduct and reflects an attempt to draw a line between a "trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for
the unwary criminal." If the accused was found to have been ready and willing to commit the offense at any
favorable opportunity, the entrapment defense will fail even if a police agent usedan unduly persuasive inducement.

Some states, however, have adopted the "objective" test. . . . Here, the court considers the nature of the police
activity involved and the propriety of police conduct. The inquiry is focused on the inducements used by government
agents, on police conduct, not on the accused and his predisposition to commit the crime.For the goal of the
defense is to deter unlawful police conduct. The test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law enforcement
agent was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing, to commit the
offense; for purposes of this test, it is presumed that a law-abiding person would normally resist the temptation to
commit a crime that is presented by the simple opportunity to act unlawfully. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)77

Accused argued that in our jurisprudence, courts usually apply the objective test in determining the whether there
was an entrapment operation or an instigation.78 However, the use of the objective test should not preclude courts
from also applying the subjective test. She pointed out that:

Applying the "subjective"test it is worth invoking that accusedappellant procures income from being a laundry
woman. The prosecution had not shown any proof evidencing accused-appellant’s history in human trafficking or
engagement in any offense. She is not even familiar to the team who had has [sic] been apprehending human
traffickers for quite some time.79 (Citations omitted)

Accused further argued that the police should have conducted a prior surveillance before the entrapment operation.

Time and again, this court has discussed the difference between entrapment and instigation. In Chang v.
People,80this court explained that:

There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension of the criminal while
in the actual commission of the crime. There is instigation when the accused is induced to commit the crime. The
difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal intent. In entrapment, the mens reaoriginates from
the mind of the criminal. The idea and the resolve to commit the crime comes from him. In instigation, the law officer
conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into
execution.81

Accused contends that using the subjective test, she was clearly instigated by the police to commit the offense. She
denied being a pimp and claimed that she earned her living as a laundrywoman. On this argument, we agree with
the finding of the Court of Appeals:
[I]t was the accused-appellant who commenced the transaction with PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso by calling their
attention on whether they wanted girls for that evening, and when the officers responded, it was the accused-
appellant who told them to wait while she would fetch the girls for their perusal.82

This shows that accused was predisposed to commit the offense because she initiated the transaction. As testified
by PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo, accused called out their attention by saying "Chicks mo dong?" If accused had no
predisposition to commit the offense, then she most likely would not have asked PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo if
they wanted girls.

The entrapment would still be valid using the objective test. The police merely proceeded to D. Jakosalem Street in
Barangay Kamagayan. It was accused who asked them whether they wanted girls. There was no illicit inducement
on the part of the police for the accused to commit the crime.

When accused was arrested, she was informed of her constitutional rights.83 The marked money retrieved from her
was recorded in the police blotter prior to the entrapment operation and was presented in court as evidence.84

On accused’s alibi thatshe was merely out to buy her supper that night, the Court of Appeals noted that accused
never presented Gingging in court. Thus, her alibi was unsubstantiated and cannot be given credence.85

With regard to the lack of prior surveillance, prior surveillance is not a condition for an entrapment operation’s
validity.86 In People v. Padua87 this court underscored the value of flexibility in police operations:

A prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation, the conduct of which
has no rigid or textbook method. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. However the police carry out its entrapment
operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have not been violated in the process, the courts will not pass on
the wisdom thereof. The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for prior
surveillance.88 (Citations omitted)

This flexibility is even more important in cases involving trafficking of persons. The urgency of rescuing the victims
may at times require immediate but deliberate action on the part of the law enforcers.

V.

Imposition of fine and award of damages

The Court of Appeals properly imposed the amount of 2,000,000.00. Section 10 (b) of Republic Act No. 9208
provides that:

SEC. 10. Penalties and Sanctions.— The following penalties and sanctions are hereby established for the offenses
enumerated in this Act:

....

c. Any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Section 6 shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a
fine of not less than Two million pesos (₱2,000,000.00) but not more than Five million pesos (₱5,000,000.00);

However, we modify by raising the award of moral damages from ₱150,000.0089 to ₱500,000.00. We also award
exemplary damages in the amount of ₱100,000.00. These amounts are in accordance with the ruling in People v.
Lalli90 where this court held that:

The payment of ₱500,000 as moral damages and ₱100,000 as exemplary damages for the crime of Trafficking in
Persons as a Prostitute finds basis in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, which states:

Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;

(4) Adultery or concubinage;

(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;

(6) Illegal search;


(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;

(8) Malicious prosecution;

(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;

(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.

....

The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous case to the crimes of seduction,
abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. In fact, it is worse. To be trafficked as a prostitute without one’s consent
and to be sexually violated four to five times a day by different strangers is horrendous and atrocious. There is no
doubt that Lolita experienced physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
wounded feelings, moral shock, and social humiliation when she was trafficked as a prostitute in Malaysia. Since the
crime of Trafficking in Persons was aggravated, being committed by a syndicate, the award of exemplary damages
is likewise justified.91

Human trafficking indicts the society that tolerates the kind of poverty and its accompanying desperation that
compels our women to endure indignities. It reflects the weaknesses of that society even as it convicts those who
deviantly thrive in such hopelessness. We should continue to strive for the best of our world, where our choices of
human intimacies are real choices, and not the last resort taken just to survive. Human intimacies enhance our best
and closest relationships. It serves as a foundation for two human beings to face life’s joys and challenges while
continually growing together with many shared experiences. The quality of our human relationships defines the
world that we create also for others.

Regardless of the willingness of AAA and BBB, therefore, to be trafficked, we affirm the text and spirit of our laws.
Minors should spend their adolescence moulding their character in environments free of the vilest motives and the
worse of other human beings. The evidence and the law compel us to affirm the conviction of accused in this case.

But this is not all that we have done. By fulfilling our duties, we also express the hope that our people and our
government unite against everything inhuman. We contribute to a commitment to finally stamp out slavery and
human trafficking.

There are more AAA's and BBBs out there. They, too, deserve to be rescued. They, too, need to be shown that in
spite of what their lives have been, there is still much good in our world.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 27, 2013, finding
accused Shirley A. Casio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4(a), qualified by Section 6(a) of
Republic Act No. 9208, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱2,000,000.00,
with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103 (Indeterminate
Sentence Law) in accordance with Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346.92

The award of damages is likewise MODIFIED as follows:

Accused is ordered to pay each of the private complainants:

(1) ₱500,000.00 as moral damages; and

(2) ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.
14. G.R. No. 211721

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee


vs.
WILLINGTON RODRIGUEZ y HERMOSA, Accused-Appellant

DECISION

MARTIRES, J.:

We resolve Willington Rodriguez y Hermosa's (Rodriguez) appeal assailing the 5 December 2013 Decision1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05335. The CA affirmed Rodriguez's conviction for qualified trafficking
in persons, in violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9208, otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of
2003.

THE FACTS

Rodriguez was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 81 of Quezon City (RTC), in an information which
reads:

That on or about the 8th day of August 2006, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously recruit, transport, harbor, provide, introduce or match for money for the
purpose of prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation, the following trafficked persons, namely ELSINE (sic)
DELA CRUZ y BEATRIZ, ASHLEY MADRIGAL y RAMOS and JOSEPHINE CRUZ y ROMAN.

The offense was committed in large scale as it was committed against three (3) or more trafficked persons,
individually or as a group.2

During his arraignment, Rodriguez pleaded not guilty.3 The evidence for the prosecution is anchored solely on the
testimony of Police Officer I Raymond Escober (PO1 Escober), on the joint sworn affidavit of the arresting officers
dated 9 August 2006,4 and on a photocopy of the pre-marked ~500.00 bill.5

According to his testimony, at around 11 :00 P.M. on 8 August 2006, PO1 Escober was at the police station
preparing for the police operation called Oplan Bugaw for the purpose of eliminating prostitution on Quezon Avenue
in Quezon City.6 PO1 Escober, designated to pose as customer, was accompanied by P02 Reynaldo Bereber (P02
Bereber) as his backup, and Police Inspector Pruli James D. Lopez (P/lnsp. Lopez).7

While parking their vehicles at the target area, PO1 Escober was flagged down by Rodriguez who allegedly offered
the sexual services of three (3) pickup girls.8 PO1 Escober readily gave Rodriguez the pre-marked ₱500.00 bill as
payment.9 This signaled his backup to enter the scene and aid in the arrest. PO1 Escober then retrieved the pre-
marked bill.10

Thereafter, the officers brought Rodriguez and the three (3) pickup girls to the police station.

In his defense, Rodriguez denied that he had offered a girl for sexual purposes to PO1 Escober.11 He said that he
was only selling cigarettes on Quezon Avenue when he was arrested by the police officers.12 He only found out that
he was being accused of human trafficking after he was brought to the City Hall.13

The Ruling of the Trial Court

In its 18 October 2011 Decision,14 the RTC found Rodriguez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of large-scale
trafficking. The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused WILLINGTON RODRIGUEZ y HERMOSA guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the offense as charged [Violation of Republic Act 9208 committed in a large scale] and
is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱2,000,000.00.15

The trial court held that Rodriguez's acts of offering sex to PO1 Escober, calling the three (3) pickup girls for him to
choose from, and receiving money are clearly acts of human trafficking.16 It gave more weight to the positive
testimony of POl Escober over Rodriguez's unsubstantiated denial.17 Likewise, the trial court noted that PO1
Escober had no improper motive to falsely testify against the accused.18 Finally, it held that absent ill motive, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of duty must prevail.19

The trial court explicitly said:

The acts of the accused in offering sex to PO1 Escober, calling the three [3] pick-up girls so that he could choose
from them and receiving money therefor are clearly acts of human trafficking or trafficking in persons defined and
penalized under Sec. 10 [c] of R.A. No. 9208.
Accused denied the charge[s] by testifying that he was in front of McDonalds Restaurant in Quezon A venue selling
cigarettes.

Where there is positive identification of the accused as the perpetrators of the crime, their defense of denial and alibi
cannot be sustained.

Denial and alibi, unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are self-serving and hardly deserve greater
evidentiary weight than the declaration of witnesses on affirmative defenses. (citations omitted)

Accused likewise testified that while he was selling cigarettes, PO1 Escober grabbed him and together with his
fellow police officer[s], they brought him to Police Station 2 where he was investigated and subsequently charged
contrary to the testimony of PO1 Escober that it was the accused who flagged the vehicle they were riding in and
offered sex.

There is no improper motive that could be imputed to PO 1 Escober that he would falsely testify against the
accused. The absence of evidence as to an improper motive entitles PO1 Escober's testimony to full faith and
credit.

The testimony of police officers carried with it the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.

In the absence of ill motive, the presumption of regularity in the performance of the policeman's official duty must
prevail. (citations omitted)

The Arguments of the Accused

On appeal, Rodriguez anchored his defense on the failure of the prosecution to present any evidence that would
establish that he recruited, transported, or transferred the alleged three (3) women for the purpose of
prostitution.20These women, in fact, were not presented in court and neither did they execute any sworn statement.21

Rodriguez also faulted the prosecution for not presenting the original marked money despite the fact that it was in
P/Insp. Lopez's possession.22 In addition, the prosecution did not present any evidence of the alleged request from
the barangay officials to get rid of prostitutes in the area.23

Finally, Rodriguez maintained that the testimony of PO1 Escober was not corroborated by any of his companions
who allegedly took part in the operations.24

The Assailed CA Decision

Unmoved, the CA affirmed the trial court's decision and gave great weight to its factual findings. It likewise found no
merit in the arguments raised by Rodriguez, to wit:

The non-presentation of the three women is not fatal to the prosecution. Unlike in illegal recruitment cases, where
the victim will part money against the recruiter, [w]e cannot expect the three women to give something to herein
accused-appellant. On the contrary, it may be accused-appellant who would have to give them their proportionate
share for every successful transaction. Thus, they cannot be expected to take an active part in the case, since they
are relatively not adversely affected. In other words, testifying or executing an affidavit against accused-appellant
would be of no value to them. Accused-appellant himself admitted the presence of three women when he was being
cross-examined, viz:

Q: [PROS. TORRALBA]: Did he also grab the three (3) women whom you introduced to him?

A: No, sir.

With respect to the non-presentation of the request of the barangay officials, the same is not a material element of
the offense. Neither should the police operation depend on it. To think otherwise would open the floodgates of
abuse as law enforcers will only move if there are requests from the people. They will become passive instead of
becoming proactive.

The non-presentation of the original of the marked money does not weaken the case, nor destroy the presumption
of regularity of performance of duty. For one, it is also impossible that the crime of human trafficking be committed
even without the money being paid, as when the potential customer did not proceed with the transaction or was not
able to choose from among the girls presented to him. Secondly, POl Escober is categorical in his testimony that he
prepared the same and had it initialed with "R" and "E" at the forehead of Ninoy Aquino [on the ₱500 peso bill], the
letters being the initials of his name.

POl Escober positively identified accused-appellant. Neither could accused-appellant impute ill-motive against him.
All that he could offer is his denial which is not corroborated by any other testimonial evidence. Following our
"unbending" jurisprudence, such positive identification prevails over denial and is in fact sufficient for
conviction.25(citations omitted)

OUR RULING

The appeal is meritorious.

It is a basic rule that the conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense but on the strength
of the prosecution. This is premised on the constitutional presumption that the accused is innocent unless his guilt is
proven beyond reasonable doubt. This standard is demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution which
protects the accused from conviction except upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to
constitute the crime he is charged with.26

Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not, of course, mean such degree of proof as, excluding the possibility of error,
to produce absolute certainty.

Only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. In other
words, the conscience must be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged.27 Reasonable doubt
does not refer to any doubt or a mere possible doubt because everything in human experience is subject to possible
doubt. Rather, it is that state of the case which, after a comparison of all the evidence, does not lead the judge to
have in his mind a moral certainty of the truth of the charge. Where there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the
accused, there must be an acquittal. 28

Rodriguez was charged and convicted for qualified trafficking in persons under Section 4(a), in relation to Section
6(c), of R.A. No. 9208, which read:

Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit any of
the following acts:

(a) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means, including those done under the
pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

xxxx

Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The following are considered qualified trafficking:

xxxx

(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. 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. It is deemed
committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group;

Section 3(a)29 provides the elements of trafficking in persons: (1) the ruj of recruitment, transportation, transfer or
harboring, or receipts of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national
borders; (2) the means used which include "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 to achieve the consent of a person having control over another; and (3)
the purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes "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."30

A careful review of the records shows that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of these elements beyond
reasonable doubt, nor did we find the second and third elements proven by the prosecution.

A review of emerging jurisprudence on human trafficking readily shows that a successful prosecution, to a certain
extent, relies greatly on entrapment operations.31 Thus, just like in any operation that involves capturing the
perpetrator in flagrante delicto, the testimonies of the apprehending officers on what transpired are crucial for a
conviction. In People v. Casio, 32 having similar factual circumstances with the case at hand, the Court upheld the
conviction of the accused for qualified human trafficking. In that case, the accused came up to the police officers
and asked if they were interested in young girls. After receiving a positive response, the accused picked up two (2)
minor girls and presented them to the police officers. Thereafter, they all proceeded to the motel room where the
accused was arrested.

The case before us differs from the Casio case where more than one (1) credible witness, the minor victims, were
presented in court by the prosecution, and allowed to testify on the circumstances on how they were recruited by the
accused and later offered for sex in exchange for money. Significantly, the testimony of PO1 Escober in the case
before us lacks the material details to convince us that Rodriguez had committed human trafficking.
In the instant case, only PO1 Escober testified as to the actual unfolding of circumstances which led him to believe
that Rodriguez was committing human trafficking. On cross-examination, PO1 Escober testified that:

Q: And what was the accused doing at that time when you first saw [him]?

A: He stopped us and he offered us the services of prostitutes.

Q: To whom was this offered?

A: To me, sir.

xxxx

Q: While on board the Toyota Revo, can you tell this [c]ourt how [did] the transaction transpire?

A: When we were flagged down, I opened [the] window of the car and he offered us a woman.

Q: And could you tell this Honorable Court what exactly the accused already told you?

A: "Sir, sir, babae,sir."

Q: And what was your reaction, Mr. Witness?

A: I responded, "Magkano ang ibabayad ko?"

Q: So, it would be correct to state that when the accused [said], "Sir, sir, babae, sir," she was offering to you [a]
woman?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: And because of that interpretation of yours, you asked him again the cost?

A: Yes, sir.33 (italics supplied)

Surprisingly, the circumstances about the initial contact between PO1 Escober and Rodriguez and their negotiations
came out only during crossexamination. PO1 Escober's direct testimony showed the fact that he had in his
possession the pre-marked ₱500.00 bill and that he was able to retrieve it from Rodriguez after the arrest. There
was no mention about how Rodriguez allegedly called on the three (3) pickup girls and offered them for sexual
purposes.

The exchanges between PO1 Escober and Rodriguez would suggest that PO1 Escober already knew what
Rodriguez meant when he said "Sir, sir, babae, sir," and thus assumed that Rodriguez was offering women for sex.
However, his testimony is bare as to the fact that the offer of women was explicitly for sexual purposes. It also
lacked the necessary details on how Rodriguez allegedly called on the pickup girls to display them for PO1 Escober
to choose from.

We must remember that suspicion, no matter how strong, must never sway judgment. It is pivotal in criminal cases
that we evaluate the evidence for the prosecution against the required quantum of evidence in criminal cases. When
there is reasonable doubt, the evidence must be interpreted in favor of the accused. Under the equiPO1se rule, if
the evidence admits two interpretations, one of which is consistent with guilt, and the other with innocence, the
accused must be given the benefit of the doubt and should be acquitted.34

Apart from the deficient testimony of PO1 Escober, the prosecution did not bother to present the testimonies of the
alleged victims. It is grossly erroneous to say that "the non-presentation of the three women is not fatal to the
1âwphi1

prosecution." Their testimonies that they were sexually exploited against their will through force, threat or other
means of coercion are material to the cause of the prosecution. These women would be in the best position to say
that Rodriguez had recruited or used these women by giving them payments or benefits in exchange for sexual
exploitation. To rely solely on the testimony of PO1 Escober as basis for convicting Rodriguez would run riot against
logic and reason, and against the law. To sustain this whimsical reasoning would encourage anyone to accuse a
person of "trafficking in persons" or of any other crime, without presenting the material testimony of the alleged
victim. Given that PO1 Escober's testimony is missing on material details, the prosecution should have presented in
court at least one of the three (3) women that indeed they were sexually exploited or recruited by the accused for
prostitution as alleged in the information. Even a neophyte police officer of the lowest rank would be stupefied why
PO1 Escober and the two (2) other police officers allegedly with him failed to get the statements of the alleged
victims while they were under police custody after the entrapment operation.

Although the finding of guilt based on the testimony of a lone witness is not uncommon, the testimonies of P/Insp.
Lopez and P02 Bereber would have helped the prosecution prove the crime. Corroborative evidence is necessary
when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or that his observation had been
inaccurate.35 Again, PO1 Escober' s lone testimony lacked the material details to establish all the elements of the
crime which the prosecution, unfortunately, only took cognizance of.

The only possible evidence that could explicitly prove the necessary elements of the offense charged would be the
joint sworn affidavit executed by the arresting officers. Even if this document were to be considered, we remain
unconvinced that the three (3) women were offered to PO1 Escober particularly for sexual purposes. Still, it would
fail to convince us that this piece of evidence would not help the prosecution meet the degree of proof required in
criminal cases because a sworn statement cannot be fully relied upon. We are not unmindful that affidavits are
usually abbreviated and inaccurate; oftentimes, an affidavit is incomplete and results in inconsistencies with the
declarant's testimony in court. 36

All said, absent any direct or circumstantial evidence to prove with moral certainty that Rodriguez had offered three
(3) women to PO1 Escober, his appeal warrants an acquittal. The gravamen of the crime of human trafficking is not
so much the offer of a woman or child; it is the act of recruiting or using, with or without consent, a fellow human
being for sexual exploitation. In this case, the prosecution miserably failed to prove this.37

We are reminded that the overriding consideration in criminal cases is not whether the court doubts the innocence of
the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. 38 Where there is reasonable doubt as to the
guilt of the accused, he must be acquitted even though his innocence may be doubted since the constitutional right
to be presumed innocent until proven guilty can only be overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt.39 To
conclude, because of this doubt that lingers in our mind, Rodriguez must be acquitted. Pursuant to Rodriguez's
guaranteed right to be presumed innocent under the Bill of Rights, it is our constitutional duty to free him.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The 5 December 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-
H.C. No. 05335 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, WILLINGTON RODRIGUEZ y HERMOSA is hereby ACQUITTED of the offense charged.
His IMMEDIATE RELEASE from detention is hereby ORDERED, unless he is being held for another lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City for immediate
implementation. The Director shall submit to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of the copy of the Decision,
the action taken thereon.

SO ORDERED.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen