People vs Padica

G.R. No. 102645

April 7, 1993

Facts: Feb 8, 1978- (9AM) accused with brother Leopoldo visited Romeo Padica and asked him
to drive Eddie Boy, another brother, and one of his classmates. First, they went to Samson Tech in
Pasay, then in Sukat they stopped to eat. They then proceeded to Superville Subdivision to fetch
Eddie Boy and Francis Banaga (victim). Leopoldo talked to the two and they all boarded the car.
They then proceeded to Calamba, Laguna. (12 noon) Leopoldo told Padica to enter a sugarcane
plantation and when the car stopped, all of the accused alighted but Banaga refused. He was forced
out, brought to a place inside the plantation, stabbed by Leopoldo Marajas and shot by appellant
with a handgun. Victim fell on the ground, and the three accused went back to the car. Leopoldo
took the wheel from Padica and dropped him off at Muntinlupa, warning him “Pare, steady ka
lang, isang bala ka lang”. Tomas Banaga, father of the victim, received a phone call at 6PM,
demanding P500k for his son’s release. Tomas reported the incident to the Philippine Constabulary
authorities.

Issue: Whether or not the crime of kidnapping for ransom was committed by the accused.

Held: NO. The court is not convinced that the crime of kidnapping for ransom was committed as
charged in both the original and amended informations. Rather the crime committed was murder,
attended by the qualifying circumstances of treachery and/or abuse of superior strength, and not
the complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder as found by the trial court without
objection by either the prosecution or defense. The essential element in the crime of kidnapping
that the victim must have been restrained or deprived of his liberty, or that he was transported
away against his will with the primary or original intent to effect that restraint, is absent in this
case. The malefactors evidently had only murder in their hearts when they invited the trusting
Francis Banaga to go with them to Laguna, and not to confine or detain him for any length of time
or for any other purpose.

ID.; KIDNAPPING; ESSENTIAL ELEMENT THEREOF; CASE AT BAR. — The essential

element in the crime of kidnapping that the victim must have been restrained or deprived of his
liberty, or that he was transported away against his will with the primary or original intent to effect
that restraint, is absent in this case. The malefactors evidently had only murder in their hearts when
they invited the trusting Francis Banaga to go with them to Laguna, and not to confine or detain
him for any length of time or for any other purpose.

It will be observed that under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the circumstance that the
kidnapping is perpetrated for the purpose of ransom raises the imposable penalty to death. It is
essential, however, that the element of deprivation or restraint of liberty of the victim be present.
The fact alone that ransom money is demanded would not per se qualify the act of preventing the
liberty of movement of the victim into the crime of kidnapping, unless the victim is actually
restrained or deprived of his liberty for some appreciable period of time or that such restraint was
the basic intent of the accused. Absent such determinant intent and duration of restraint, the mere
curtailment of freedom of movement would at most constitute coercion.

In addition, Francis Banaga, then already fourteen years of age and a fourth year high school
student, was neither forced nor coerced unlawfully into going along with his killers. He voluntarily
boarded the car and went with the Marajas brothers to Laguna. The victim had every reason to
trust them as they were his neighbors in Gatchalian Subdivision. In fact, one of the brothers,
accused Leonardo Marajas alias "Eddie Boy," was his schoolmate and a playmate.

Addtl Ruling: MURDER; WHERE TAKING OF VICTIM FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER
INCIDENTAL TO BASIC PURPOSE TO KILL CRIME IS MURDER; NOT CONVERTED TO
KIDNAPPING BY DEMAND FOR RANSOM WHERE VICTIM NOT DETAINED OR
DEPRIVED OF LIBERTY. — We have consistently held that where the taking of the victim was
incidental to the basic purpose to kill, the crime is only murder, and this is true even if, before the
killing but for purposes thereof, the victim was taken from one place to another. Thus, where the
evident purpose of taking the victims was to kill them, and from the acts of the accused it cannot
be inferred that the latter's purpose was actually to detain or deprive the victims of their liberty,
the subsequent killing of the victims constitute the crime of murder, hence the crime of kidnapping
does not exist and cannot be considered as a component felony to produce a complex crime of
kidnapping with murder. In fact, as we held in the aforecited case of Masilang, et al., although the
accused had planned to kidnap the victim for ransom but they first killed him and it was only later
that they demanded and obtained the money, such demand for ransom did not convert the crime
into kidnapping since no detention or deprivation of liberty was involved, hence the crime
committed was only murder. That from the beginning of their criminal venture appellant and his
bothers intended to kill the victim can readily be deduced from the manner by which they swiftly
and cold-bloodedly snuffed out his life once they reached the isolated sugarcane plantation in
Calamba, Laguna. Furthermore, there was no evidence whatsoever to show or from which it can
be inferred that from the outset the killers of the victim intended to exchange his freedom for
ransom money. On the contrary, the demand for ransom appears to have arisen and was
consequently made as an afterthought, as it was relayed to the victim's family very much later that
afternoon after a sufficient interval for consultation and deliberation among the felons who had
killed the victim around five hours earlier.
People vs. Ramos
G.R. No. 118570
October 12, 199

Facts: Alicia Abanilla, struggling to break away from the arms of a man known later to be accused-
appellant Benedicto Ramos y Binuya alias Bennie. Mrs. Abanilla was apparently being held
hostage by a man who was demanding ransom for her release. Ramos was able to get P200,000 as
a ransom money and proceeded to strangle Alicia to death. After trial, the court a quo convicted
Ramos of two (2) separate crimes - kidnapping for ransom and murder - instead of the complex
crime charged in the Information. It held that there was no proof that the victim was kidnapped for
the purpose of killing her so as to make the offense a complex crime.

Issue: Whether or not there is complex crime of illegal detention with rape.

Held: No. RA No. 7659 amended Art. 267 of The Revised Penal Code by adding thereto a last
paragraph which provides -

When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is raped, or is subjected to
torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.

This amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the concept of "special complex crime" of
kidnapping with murder or homicide. It effectively eliminated the distinction drawn by the courts
between those cases where the killing of the kidnapped victim was purposely sought by the
accused, and those where the killing of the victim was not deliberately resorted to but was merely
an afterthought. Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course
of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an
afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48,
nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last
paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659.

Obviously, the instant case falls within the purview of the aforequoted provision of Art. 267, as
amended. Although the crime of kidnapping for ransom was already consummated with the mere
demand by the accused for ransom - even before the ransom was delivered - the deprivation of
liberty of the victim persisted and continued to persist until such time that she was killed by
accused-appellant while trying to escape. Hence, the death of the victim may be considered "a
consequence of the kidnapping for ransom."
People vs. Saliente
G.R. No. L-2427
June 28, 1949

Facts: At about 9 o'clock in the evening of November 4, 1946, the defendants came to the house
of Telesfora Alentejo in the barrio of Umating, Abuyog, Leyte, where Telesfora's niece, Juana
Briones, was then staying. Telling Juana that the had come for by her by order of their "chief,"
they asked her to go along with them and when she refused she was threatened by defendant
Montilla with a bolo and by defendant Saliente with a pistol and then taken against her will to the
latter's house in the barrio of Tambis, about two kilometers away. It would appear that the
defendants were accompanied by some soldiers, although these were neither named nor identified.
Once in Saliente's house, defendants let Juana know that what they had told her in private so that
he could persuade her into marrying him. Juana retorted that she did not want to marry anybody.

Juana was kept in Saliente's house for two nights and one day, but no attempt was made against
her honor, thanks to the presence of Saliente's wife. On the third day, Juana was able to persuade
the defendants to take her to the house of her brother, Brigido Enclona, so that they could talk the
matter over with him. There they were joined by Montilla's father who, in behalf of his son, asked
for Juana's hand in marriage. As Juana turned a deaf ear to the proposal, the trio took their
departure, leaving her in the house of her brother.

In the evening of that same day, however, the defendants came back and, complaining that Juana
had fooled them, they forcibly took her downstairs. Montilla then led her away, while Saliente
stayed behind to wait for Enclona, who, was then absent. Meeting Enclona on the road, Juana
warned him that Saliente was lying in wait for him with the intention of doing him harm. On
hearing this, Enclona ran away, while Montilla, on his part, left Juana to herself and went back to
rejoin Saliente.

The defendants Montilla admitted having taken Juana from the house of her aunt, but put up the
defense that this was done with her consent, since they had long been sweethearts and had, on the
day in question, exchanged notes regarding their elopement. On this point he was corroborated by
Agustin Jayma and Leonardo Sillar, who claimed to have seen those notes.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of slight illegal detention.

Held: YES. The crime committed is that of slight illegal detention under the third paragraph of
article 268 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 18, approved on
September 25, 1946, it appearing that the defendants voluntarily released Juana Briones within
three days from the commencement of her detention without having attained the purpose intended
and before the institution of the criminal action against them. The penalty prescribed is prision
mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding P700. As the crime was
committed with the aggravating circumstances of nocturnity and dwelling, not compensated by
any mitigating circumstances, the said penalty should be imposed in its maximum period.

If Juana were really in love with Montilla and had agreed to elope with him, we do not see why
she should refuse to marry him and even try to send him to jail on a false charge. Proof that Juana
had not given her consent is the fact that defendants were obviously expecting resistance, for they
were not only armed but also accompanied by soldiers. The alleged exchange of notes between
Juana and Montilla must be pure fabrication, since it is admitted that these two did not know how
to read and write.

Wherefore, the defendants are declared guilty of slight illegal detention and, in accordance with
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, sentenced each to a penalty of from 2 years, 4 months and 1 day
of prision correccional to 8 years, 8 months and 1 day of prision mayor. They are furthermore
sentenced each to pay a fine of P500. Modified accordingly, the sentenced appealed from is
affirmed, with costs against the appellants.

Asistio vs. San Diego

G.R. No. L-21991
March 31, 1964

Facts: On or about the 26th day of December, 1962, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named
accused, being private individuals with the exception of the accused VICTORINO ARANDA and
LORENZO MENESES who are public officers, conspiring together, with threats to kill the person
of CHUA PAO alias "SO NA", and for the purpose of extorting ransom in the amount of TWENTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) from the said CHUA PAO alias "SO NA" or from his wife did
kidnap, detain and deprive the person of the said CHUA PAO alias "SO NA" of his liberty, to his
damage and prejudice.

The appellants contend thatthe person kidnapped was (a) voluntarily released by his captors; (b)
that he was voluntarily released within 24 hours from the kidnapping; and (c) that no ransom was
actually paid for his release, although ransom had been demanded.

Issue: Whether or not the death penalty prescribed for kidnapping for ransom is not reduced by
the circumstances of voluntary release by the captors and non-attainment of the purpose.

Held: Yes. Slight illegal detention being penalized with reclusion temporal under Article 268, first
paragraph, it is rational that the penalty should be reduced by one degree to prision mayor, where
the special mitigating circumstances, mentioned in paragraph 3 of said article, are present (i.e.,
early voluntary release before indictment and non-attachment of purpose). But why should these
very same circumstances operate to reduce the death penalty (provided for kidnapping for ransom
in Article 267) also to prision mayor, when it would then represent a reduction of not less then
three (3) degrees? What reason is there to hold the same circumstances (early release, etc.) to be
more efficacious in lowering the penalty for serious illegal detention (Art. 267) than in slight
detention for which a lesser penalty (Art. 268) is prescribed?

It is argued that unless the reduction of penalty provided for in the third paragraph of Article 268
is made applicable to kidnapping for ransom under Article 267, the life of the person kidnapped
would be endangered, since his captors would find no reason to release him, as by so doing they
would not benefit from a reduction of penalty. This argument appears to us to be better addressed
to the discretion of the lawmaker that dictates the policies to be followed in repressing lawlessness.
It is certainly a consideration that would not justify the Court's disregard of the evident intent of
the law, as disclosed by the structure and the historical development of Article 267 and 268 of the
Revised Penal Code, heretofore discussed, and which, in our opinion, render it clear beyond doubt
that the third paragraph of Article 268 was not, and could not have been, intended by the lawmaker
to apply in any way to kidnapping or serious illegal detention punishable under Article 267. The
successive increases in the gravity of the penalty for kidnapping for ransom merely evidences the
law's intent to deter such crime from being committed at all.

U.S vs. Fontanilla

G.R. No. 4580
September 7, 1908

Facts: The defendant, Santiago Fontanilla, went to the hamlet of Magatel, where five men were
engaged in tilling a tract of land under the directions of Apolonio de Peralta. A dispute there arose
as to the right of Peralta to cultivate the land, which Peralta claimed to be the property of his
brother, but which the accused insisted belonged to him A fight ensued as a result of which the
accused captured and tied with a rope Peralta and one Emeterio Navalta, after having driven the
rest of the laborers away. He then took his two prisoners to the municipal jail, where he turned
them over to the jailer in charge. The prisoners were held in detention a couple of hours at the jail,
after which they were turned loose by the orders of the municipal president or the justice of the
peace.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of unlawful arrest,

Held: Yes. It does not appear that the persons whom the accused arrested committed any crime
which would justify their arrest without warrant by a peace officer, and the evidence of record
leaves no room for doubt that there was no justification whatever for their arrest by a private
person. The accused was not a peace officer, and was not exercising any public function when he
made the arrest, nor did he have any authority to seize trespassers upon his land and commit them
to the public jail, yet the fact remains that he did apprehend and detain these parties, and turn them
over to the authorities.

The fact that the accused immediately conducted the complaining witness to the municipal jail
takes the offense out of the article for illegal detention and brings it within Art. 269.
Article 483 of the Penal Code provides that any person who, cases permitted by law being
excepted, shall without sufficient reason, apprehend or detain another, in order to turn him over to
the authorities, shall be punished with the penalties of arresto menor and the fine of 325 to 3,250
pesetas, and the offense committed by the accused clearly falls under the provisions of this article.
The trial court was of opinion that the offense committed is that prescribed by article 481, which
provides that any private person who shall lock up or detain another, or in any way deprive him of
his liberty shall be punished with the penalty of prision mayor. We think, however, that the fact
that the accused, after he had apprehended the complaining witnesses, immediately conducted
them to the municipal jail, and thus turned them over to the authorities, takes the offense out of
that article and brings it within the purview of article 483.

The court has the duty to impose the penalty prescribed by law and no other, but in view of all the
circumstances, and the court having authority to exercise its discretion within the limits of the
penalty prescribed, without dividing that penalty into maximum, medium, and minimum degrees,
the court thinks the light penalty prescribed by law should be imposed in its utmost severity.

People vs. Jo
G.R. No. L-69236
August 19, 1986

Facts: On July 26, 1980, at about 9:00 o'clock in the morning, Elisa who had just arrived home
in La Paz, Leyte, from Tacloban City, was informed by her mother that appellant herein Virgilio
Roca, who was Elisa's former townmate and high school classmate, had come to see her on an
important matter and that he (Roca) would be back. Roca revealed that Elisa's husband, accused
Generoso Jo, had hired somebody from Tacloban City to kill Elisa through 'barang' (sorcerer or
witch-craft) and that it would be better for them to find out. Upon the prodding of Roca, Elisa's
mother, Mrs. Guillerma Luya Casal, went with Roca to Tacloban City to investigate the matter.
Elisa, on the other hand, immediately went to her sister, Lourdes C. Sia, in La Paz, and informed
her of the alleged plot to kill her.

The following day, July 27, 1980, at about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, Elisa, her three children
and her mother, went to Tacloban City and proceeded to the house of appellant Virgilio Roca.
Inside the house, they met Felipe Lapitan (the witch-doctor) as well as Virgillo Roca and his wife
Delina Soledad Roca. Lapitan told Elisa that Generoso had hired him to kill her. Helpless and not
knowing what to do, Elisa believed the witch-doctor and consented to submit for treatment.
Lapitan conducted an 'oracion' or strange prayer on her and then let her drink a glass of water
concoction containing some small pieces of paper with writings thereon.

Because of fear for her life, Elisa and her three children stayed in the house of Virgilio Roca in
Tacloban City. On July 30, 1980, after breakfast, Lapitan told Elisa that he is taking her three
children to Daram Samar. Elisa objected and told him he could not bring her children without her.
After an hour, Elisa noticed strange silence in the house. She rushed inside and found her three
children already gone. Virgilio Roca and Felipe Lapitan were also not there anymore.

Unknown to Elisa, while she and her mother were washing clothes at the back of the house of
Virgilio Roca, accused Felipe Lapitan and Virgilio Roca took her three children on a jeep to the
Tacloban Wharf. They stayed in the house of Lapitan for five (5) days. Lapitan's wife and children
were there. Lapitan did not permit Elisa's children to go out of the house. A certain Luzviminda
Lopez was watching Elisa's children. The said children were not well fed. They slept on a mat on
the floor of the house.

On August 4, 1980 at 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon, Elisa left for Tacloban and proceeded to the
Roca's house. When she arrived there, she was happy to see her three (3) children already there.

ROCA contends that he was charged with Kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article
270 of the Revised Penal Code but was convicted of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
under Article 267 (4) [supra] of the same Code.

Issue: Whether or not the crime charged should be Kidnapping and failure to return a minor under
Art. 270 and not Serious Illegal Detention under Art. 267.

Held: While there is variance between the offense charged in the Information and that established
by the evidence, it cannot be denied that the offense as charged, which is Kidnapping and Failure
to Return a Minor under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code, is necessarily included in the
offense proved, which is Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention of a minor under Article 267
(4) of the same code, inasmuch as the essential ingredients of the offense charged constitute or
form a part of those constituting the offense proved. Thus, deliberate failure to restore a minor
under one's custody and kidnapping of a minor who is not in custody both constitute deprivation
of liberty. Consequently, ROCA can be convicted of the offense proved included in that which is
charged. Besides, there is authority to the effect that paragraph 1 of Article 270 might have been
superseded by Article 267, as amended, which punishes as serious illegal detention the kidnapping
of a minor, regardless of the purpose of the detention.

The Solicitor General calls attention to a last consideration. The Trial Court convicted ROCA of
only one (1) crime of Kidnapping and sentenced him to only one (1) reclusion perpetua in the
absence of any modifying circumstances. Actually, three kidnappings were committed as alleged
in the Information and proved during the trial. Accordingly, ROCA should be sentenced for as
many offenses as charged in the Information and proved during the trial or three (3) reclusion
perpetua. It is to be noted that ROCA did not object to the Information charging more than one
offense, so that, he is deemed to have waived the same.

US vs. Peralta
G.R. No. L-3273
July 13, 1907

Facts: The undersigned fiscal accuses Quirino Peralta and Vicente Peralta, now on bail, of the
crime of kidnapping with lesiones leves, defined and punished by article 484 in connection with
article 587 of the Penal Code, committed as follows:

"Esteban Gemefino, a servant, having run away from the house of the above-named Quirino
Peralta and Vicente Peralta, father and son, respectively, on the morning of November 1, 1903, the
latter went to the house of Isabel Geranda, at a place named Naga, within the former town of
Cabancalan, now consolidated with the town of Ilog, in this province, and employing violence
upon the said Isabel Geranda, whom they kicked, breaking one of her right ribs, and seized and
took away with them Cenon Gemefino, a child under 2 years of age, a grandson of the latter. They
took the child to their house and tied it to a wooden pillar, for the purpose of holding it until the
said Esteban Gemefino, an elder brother to said Cenon, should make his appearance or return to
the house of the accused. This act being a violation of the law."

Issue: Whether or not the commission of such acts be classified and implied as Kidnapping and
Failure to Return a Minor under Art. 270 of the RPC.

Held: No. "The abduction of a child, whatever may have been the reasons inducing thereto, is a
crime of unusual gravity by itself, of great perversity on the part of the person who commits it.
Whether it be to cause him injury, and even if it were to do him good, it is always a step which
attacks the holiest and most intimate affections, and the most sacred rights. The law has at all times
and in every country looked upon it with just severity, a and the article under examination finishes
it, as it should be punished, with one of the heaviest penalties which the code inflicts. This is more
than the detention referred to by us in the preceding chapter, a and there would be no justice if it
were not punished more severely.

In view of the foregoing, the culpability of the indicted parties as principals, justly convicted of
the crime of illegal detention, has been fully proven, although they had no manifest intention of
retaining the child permanently, or to cause him to absolutely disappear from the home of his
parents, but simply to keep him until Esteban, the abducted child’s brother, who had run away
from the house of the accused, appeared and returned to their service. For this reason the court
adopts the view taken by Pacheco in his commentaries, and hold that the act committed by the
accused is not included within article 484, but is covered by article 481 of the Penal Code now in
force.

The question at issue is a crime against the liberty and safety of a person, and the complaint states
facts which actually constitute the crime of illegal detention, and not that of abduction of a minor,
as it has been wrongfully termed by the provincial fiscal. In view of the fact that such an error in
the classification does not affect any of the rights which the penal law insures to the accused, and
whereas the court, upon accepting the opinion of the judge who rendered the decision, considers
the offense under a light which, in its opinion, leads to a more exact and proper interpretation of
the law, to the benefit of the accused, because of the fact that the penalty is comparatively lower,
it is proper, as we deem it, that the accused be punished in accordance with the provisions of the
first paragraph of said article 481, in its medium degree, because no mitigating or aggravating
circumstances are present.

Nor can the lesser penalty prescribed in the third paragraph of said article be applied, since it has
not been shown that the accused spontaneously set at liberty the child that they had so cruelly
abducted. The liberation, on the contrary, was ordered by the authorities after proceedings had
been commenced upon the strength of the information filed by his own father.

People vs. Ty
G.R. No. 121519
October 30, 1996

Facts: On November 18, 1987, complainant Johanna Sombong brought her sick daughter
Arabella, then only seven (7) months old, for treatment to the Sir John Medical and Maternity
Clinic located at No. 121 First Avenue, Grace Park, Kalookan City which was owned and operated
by the accused-appellants. Arabella was diagnosed to be suffering bronchitis and diarrhea, thus
complainant was advised to confine the child at the clinic for speedy recovery. About three (3)
days later, Arabella was well and was ready to be discharged but complainant was not around to
take her home. A week later, complainant came back but did not have enough money to pay the
hospital bill in the amount of P300.00. Complainant likewise confided to accused-appellant Dr.
Carmen Ty that no one would take care of the child at home as she was working. She then inquired
about the rate of the nursery and upon being told that the same was P50.00 per day, she decided to
leave her child to the care of the clinic nursery. Consequently, Arabella was transferred from the
ward to the nursery.

Thereafter, hospital bills started to mount and accumulate. It was at this time that accused-appellant
Dr. Ty suggested to the complainant that she hire a yaya for P400.00 instead of the daily nursery
fee of P50.00. Complainant agreed, hence, a yaya was hired. Arabella was then again transferred
from the nursery to the extension of the clinic which served as residence for the hospital staff.

From then on, nothing was heard of the complainant. She neither visited her child nor called to
inquire about her whereabouts. Her estranged husband came to the clinic once but did not get the
child. Efforts to get in touch with the complainant were unsuccessful as she left no address or
telephone number where she can be reached. This development prompted Dr. Ty to notify the
barangay captain of the childs abandonment. Eventually, the hospital staff took turns in taking care
of Arabella.

Sometime in 1989, two (2) years after Arabella was abandoned by complainant, Dr. Fe Mallonga,
a dentist at the clinic, suggested during a hospital staff conference that Arabella be entrusted to a
guardian who could give the child the love and affection, personal attention and caring she badly
needed as she was thin and sickly. The suggestion was favorably considered, hence, Dr. Mallonga
gave the child to her aunt, Lilibeth Neri.

Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty of kidnapping and failure to return a minor.

Held: No. Before a conviction for kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270 of
the Revised Penal Code can be had, two elements must concur, namely: (a) the offender has been
entrusted with the custody of the minor, and (b) the offender deliberately fails to restore said minor
to his parents or guardians. The essential element herein is that the offender is entrusted with the
custody of the minor but what is actually punishable is not the kidnapping of the minor, as the title
of the article seems to indicate, but rather the deliberate failure or refusal of the custodian of the
minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.[11] Said failure or refusal, however, must
not only be deliberate but must also be persistent as to oblige the parents or the guardians of the
child to seek the aid of the courts in order to obtain custody.

The key word therefore of this element is deliberate and Blacks Law Dictionary defines deliberate
as: Deliberate, adj. Well advised; carefully considered; not sudden or rash; circumspect; slow in
determining. Willful rather than merely intentional.

By the use of this word, in describing a crime, the idea is conveyed that the perpetrator weighs the
motives for the act and its consequences, the nature of the crime, or other things connected with
his intentions, with a view to a decision thereon; that he carefully considers all these, and that the
act is not suddenly committed. It implies that the perpetrator must be capable of the exercise of
such mental powers as are called into use by deliberation and the consideration and weighing of
motives and consequences.
In the case at bar, it is evident that there was no deliberate refusal or failure on the part of the
accused-appellants to restore the custody of the complainants child to her. When the accused-
appellant learned that complainant wanted her daughter back after five (5) long years of apparent
wanton neglect, they tried their best to help herein complainant find the child as the latter was no
longer under the clinics care. Accused-appellant Dr. Ty did not have the address of Arabellas
guardians but as soon as she obtained it from Dr. Fe Mallonga who was already working abroad,
she personally went to the guardians residence and informed them that herein complainant wanted
her daughter back.
Republic of the Philippines
Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila

Twelfth Congress
Second Regular Session

Begun held in Metro Manila on Monday, the twenty-second day of July, two thousand two

Republic Act No. 9208 May 26, 2003

AN ACT TO INSTITUTE POLICIES TO ELIMINATE TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

ESPECIALLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN, ESTABLISHING THE NECESSARY
INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION AND SUPPORT OF
TRAFFICKED PERSONS, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATIONS, AND
FOR OTHER

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:

Section 1. Title. This Act shall be known as the "Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003".

Section 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is hereby declared that the State values the dignity of every
human person and guarantees the respect of individual rights. In pursuit of this policy, the State
shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures and development of programs that will
promote human dignity, protect the people from any threat of violence and exploitation,
eliminate trafficking in persons, and mitigate pressures for involuntary migration and servitude
of persons, not only to support trafficked persons but more importantly, to ensure their recovery,
rehabilitation and reintegration into the mainstream of society.

It shall be a State policy to recognize the equal rights and inherent human dignity of women and
men as enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations Convention on the Protection of Migrant
Workers and their Families. United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized
Crime Including its Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially
Women and Children and all other relevant and universally accepted human rights instruments
and other international conventions to which the Philippines is a signatory.

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.

(d) Forced Labor and Slavery - refer to the extraction of work or services from any person by
means of enticement, violence, intimidation or threat, use of force or coercion, including
deprivation of freedom, abuse of authority or moral ascendancy, debt-bondage or deception.

(e) Sex Tourism - refers to a program organized by travel and tourism-related establishments
and individuals which consists of tourism packages or activities, utilizing and offering escort
and sexual services as enticement for tourists. This includes sexual services and practices offered
during rest and recreation periods for members of the military.

(f) Sexual Exploitation - refers to participation by a person in prostitution or the production of

pornographic materials as a result of being subjected to a threat, deception, coercion, abduction,
force, abuse of authority, debt bondage, fraud or through abuse of a victim's vulnerability.

(g) Debt Bondage - refers to the pledging by the debtor of his/her personal services or labor or
those of a person under his/her control as security or payment for a debt, when the length and
nature of services is not clearly defined or when the value of the services as reasonably assessed
is not applied toward the liquidation of the debt.

(h) Pornography - refers to any representation, through publication, exhibition, cinematography,

indecent shows, information technology, or by whatever means, of a person engaged in real or
simulated explicit sexual activities or any representation of the sexual parts of a person for
primarily sexual purposes.

(i) Council - shall mean the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking created under Section 20
of this Act.

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;

(b) To introduce or match for money, profit, or material, economic or other consideration, any
person or, as provided for under Republic Act No. 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign
national, for marriage for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling or trading him/her
to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
(c) To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring, buying,
offering, selling, or trading them to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation,
forced labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

(d) To undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting of tourism packages or activities
for the purpose of utilizing and offering persons for prostitution, pornography or sexual
exploitation;

(e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography;

(f) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the purpose of prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

(g) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a person, by means of threat or use of force, fraud,
deceit, violence, coercion, or intimidation for the purpose of removal or sale of organs of said
person; and

(h) To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in armed activities in the Philippines or
abroad.

Section 5. Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons. - The following acts which promote or
facilitate trafficking in persons, shall be unlawful:

(a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used any house, building or establishment
for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;

(b) To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued, tampered or fake counseling certificates,
registration stickers and certificates of any government agency which issues these certificates
and stickers as proof of compliance with government regulatory and pre-departure requirements
for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;

(c) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute, or cause the advertisement, publication,
printing, broadcasting or distribution by any means, including the use of information technology
and the internet, of any brochure, flyer, or any propaganda material that promotes trafficking in
persons;

(d) To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or fraud for purposes of facilitating the
acquisition of clearances and necessary exit documents from government agencies that are
mandated to provide pre-departure registration and services for departing persons for the
purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;

(e) To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry of persons from/to the country at international
and local airports, territorial boundaries and seaports who are in possession of unissued,
tampered or fraudulent travel documents for the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;

(f) To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport, travel documents, or personal documents or
belongings of trafficked persons in furtherance of trafficking or to prevent them from leaving
the country or seeking redress from the government or appropriate agencies; and

(g) To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise, or make use of, the labor or services of a
person held to a condition of involuntary servitude, forced labor, or slavery.

Section 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 exercises
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 Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)
or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).

Section 6. Confidentiality. - At any stage of the investigation, prosecution and trial of an offense
under this Act, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, court personnel and medical
practitioners, as well as parties to the case, shall recognize the right to privacy of the trafficked
person and the accused. Towards this end, law enforcement officers, prosecutors and judges to
whom the complaint has been referred may, whenever necessary to ensure a fair and impartial
proceeding, and after considering all circumstances for the best interest of the parties, order a
closed-door investigation, prosecution or trial. The name and personal circumstances of the
trafficked person or of the accused, or any other information tending to establish their identities
and such circumstances or information shall not be disclosed to the public.

In cases when prosecution or trial is conducted behind closed-doors, it shall be unlawful for any
editor, publisher, and reporter or columnist in case of printed materials, announcer or producer
in case of television and radio, producer and director of a film in case of the movie industry, or
any person utilizing tri-media facilities or information technology to cause publicity of any case
of trafficking in persons.

Section 8. Prosecution of Cases. - Any person who has personal knowledge of the commission
of any offense under this Act, the trafficked person, the parents, spouse, siblings, children or
legal guardian may file a complaint for trafficking.

Section 9. Venue. - A criminal action arising from violation of this Act shall be filed where the
offense was committed, or where any of its elements occurred, or where the trafficked person
actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense: Provided, That the court where the
criminal action is first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts.

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

(a) Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts enumerated in Section 4 shall suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and a fine of not less than One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00) but not more than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00);

(b) Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts enumerated in Section 5 shall suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of fifteen (15) years and a fine of not less than Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) but not more than One million pesos (P1,000,000.00);
(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 (P5,000,000.00);

(d) Any person who violates Section 7 hereof shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6)
years and a fine of not less than Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) but not more than
One million pesos (P1,000,000.00);

(e) If the offender is a corporation, partnership, association, club, establishment or any juridical
person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president, partner, manager, and/or any
responsible officer who participated in the commission of the crime or who shall have
knowingly permitted or failed to prevent its commission;

(f) The registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and license to operate
of the erring agency, corporation, association, religious group, tour or travel agent, club or
establishment, or any place of entertainment shall be cancelled and revoked permanently. The
owner, president, partner or manager thereof shall not be allowed to operate similar
establishments in a different name;

(g) If the offender is a foreigner, he shall be immediately deported after serving his sentence and
be barred permanently from entering the country;

(h) Any employee or official of government agencies who shall issue or approve the issuance of
travel exit clearances, passports, registration certificates, counseling certificates, marriage
license, and other similar documents to persons, whether juridical or natural, recruitment
agencies, establishments or other individuals or groups, who fail to observe the prescribed
procedures and the requirement as provided for by laws, rules and regulations, shall be held
administratively liable, without prejudice to criminal liability under this Act. The concerned
government official or employee shall, upon conviction, be dismissed from the service and be
barred permanently to hold public office. His/her retirement and other benefits shall likewise be
forfeited; and

(i) Conviction by final judgment of the adopter for any offense under this Act shall result in the
immediate rescission of the decree of adoption.

Section 11. Use of Trafficked Persons. - Any person who buys or engages the services of
trafficked persons for prostitution shall be penalized as follows:

(a) First offense - six (6) months of community service as may be determined by the court and
a fine of Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00); and

(b) Second and subsequent offenses - imprisonment of one (1) year and a fine of One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00).

Section 12. Prescriptive Period. - Trafficking cases under this Act shall prescribe in ten (10)
years: Provided, however, That trafficking cases committed by a syndicate or in a large scale as
defined under Section 6 shall prescribe in twenty (20) years.

The prescriptive period shall commence to run from the day on which the trafficked person is
delivered or released from the conditions of bondage and shall be interrupted by the filing of the
complaint or information and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate
without the accused being convicted or acquitted or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not
imputable to the accused.

Section 13. Exemption from Filing Fees. - When the trafficked person institutes a separate civil
action for the recovery of civil damages, he/she shall be exempt from the payment of filing fees.
Section 14. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds and Instruments Derived from
Trafficking in Persons. - In addition to the penalty imposed for the violation of this Act, the
court shall order the confiscation and forfeiture, in favor of the government, of all the proceeds
and properties derived from the commission of the crime, unless they are the property of a third
person not liable for the unlawful act; Provided, however, That all awards for damages shall be
taken from the personal and separate properties of the offender; Provided, further, That if such
properties are insufficient, the balance shall be taken from the confiscated and forfeited
properties.

When the proceeds, properties and instruments of the offense have been destroyed, diminished
in value or otherwise rendered worthless by any act or omission, directly or indirectly, of the
offender, or it has been concealed, removed, converted or transferred to prevent the same from
being found or to avoid forfeiture or confiscation, the offender shall be ordered to pay the
amount equal to the value of the proceeds, property or instruments of the offense.

Section 15. Trust Fund. - All fines imposed under this Act and the proceeds and properties
forfeited and confiscated pursuant to Section 14 hereof shall accrue to a Trust Fund to be
administered and managed by the Council to be used exclusively for programs that will prevent
acts of trafficking and protect, rehabilitate, reintegrate trafficked persons into the mainstream of
society. Such programs shall include, but not limited to, the following:

(a) Provision for mandatory services set forth in Section 23 of this Act;

(b) Sponsorship of a national research program on trafficking and establishment of a data

collection system for monitoring and evaluation purposes;

(c) Provision of necessary technical and material support services to appropriate government
agencies and non-government organizations (NGOs);

(d) Sponsorship of conferences and seminars to provide venue for consensus building amongst
the public, the academe, government, NGOs and international organizations; and

(e) Promotion of information and education campaign on trafficking.

Section 16. Programs that Address Trafficking in Persons. - The government shall establish and
implement preventive, protective and rehabilitative programs for trafficked persons. For this
purpose, the following agencies are hereby mandated to implement the following programs;

(a) Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) - shall make available its resources and facilities
overseas for trafficked persons regardless of their manner of entry to the receiving country, and
explore means to further enhance its assistance in eliminating trafficking activities through
closer networking with government agencies in the country and overseas, particularly in the
formulation of policies and implementation of relevant programs.

The DFA shall take necessary measures for the efficient implementation of the Machine
Readable Passports to protect the integrity of Philippine passports, visas and other travel
documents to reduce the incidence of trafficking through the use of fraudulent identification
documents.

It shall establish and implement a pre-marriage, on-site and pre-departure counseling program
on intermarriages.

(b) Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) - shall implement rehabilitative
and protective programs for trafficked persons. It shall provide counseling and temporary shelter
to trafficked persons and develop a system for accreditation among NGOs for purposes of
establishing centers and programs for intervention in various levels of the community.
(c) Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) - shall ensure the strict implementation and
compliance with the rules and guidelines relative to the employment of persons locally and
overseas. It shall likewise monitor, document and report cases of trafficking in persons involving
employers and labor recruiters.

(d) Department of Justice (DOJ) - shall ensure the prosecution of persons accused of trafficking
and designate and train special prosecutors who shall handle and prosecute cases of trafficking.
It shall also establish a mechanism for free legal assistance for trafficked persons, in
coordination with the DSWD, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and other NGOs and
volunteer groups.

(e) National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW) - shall actively participate
and coordinate in the formulation and monitoring of policies addressing the issue of trafficking
in persons in coordination with relevant government agencies. It shall likewise advocate for the
inclusion of the issue of trafficking in persons in both its local and international advocacy for
women's issues.

(f) Bureau of Immigration (BI) - shall strictly administer and enforce immigration and alien
administration laws. It shall adopt measures for the apprehension of suspected traffickers both
at the place of arrival and departure and shall ensure compliance by the Filipino fiancés/fiancées
and spouses of foreign nationals with the guidance and counseling requirement as provided for
in this Act.

(g) Philippine National Police (PNP) - shall be the primary law enforcement agency to undertake
surveillance, investigation and arrest of individuals or persons suspected to be engaged in
trafficking. It shall closely coordinate with various law enforcement agencies to secure
concerted efforts for effective investigation and apprehension of suspected traffickers. It shall
also establish a system to receive complaints and calls to assist trafficked persons and conduct
rescue operations.

(h) Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) - shall implement an effective

pre-employment orientation seminars and pre-departure counseling programs to applicants for
overseas employment. It shall likewise formulate a system of providing free legal assistance to
trafficked persons.

(i) Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) - shall institute a systematic
information and prevention campaign and likewise maintain a databank for the effective
monitoring, documentation and prosecution of cases on trafficking in persons.

(j) Local government units (LGUs) - shall monitor and document cases of trafficking in persons
in their areas of jurisdiction, effect the cancellation of licenses of establishments which violate
the provisions of this Act and ensure effective prosecution of such cases. They shall also
undertake an information campaign against trafficking in persons through the establishment of
the Migrants Advisory and Information Network (MAIN) desks in municipalities or provinces
in coordination with DILG, Philippine Information Agency (PIA), Commission on Filipinos
Overseas (CFO), NGOs and other concerned agencies. They shall encourage and support
community based initiatives which address the trafficking in persons.

In implementing this Act, the agencies concerned may seek and enlist the assistance of NGOs,
people's organizations (Pos), civic organizations and other volunteer groups.

Section 17. Legal Protection to Trafficked Persons. - Trafficked persons shall be recognized as
victims of the act or acts of trafficking and as such shall not be penalized for crimes directly
related to the acts of trafficking enumerated in this Act or in obedience to the order made by the
trafficker in relation thereto. In this regard, the consent of a trafficked person to the intended
exploitation set forth in this Act shall be irrelevant.
Section 18. Preferential Entitlement Under the Witness Protection Program. - Any provision of
Republic Act No. 6981 to the contrary notwithstanding, any trafficked person shall be entitled
to the witness protection program provided therein.

Section 19. Trafficked Persons Who are Foreign Nationals. - Subject to the guidelines issued by
the Council, trafficked persons in the Philippines who are nationals of a foreign country shall
also be entitled to appropriate protection, assistance and services available to trafficked persons
under this Act: Provided, That they shall be permitted continued presence in the Philippines for
a length of time prescribed by the Council as necessary to effect the prosecution of offenders.

Section 20. Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking. - There is hereby established an Inter-
Agency Council Against Trafficking, to be composed of the Secretary of the Department of
Justice as Chairperson and the Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development
as Co-Chairperson and shall have the following as members:

(a) Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs;

(b) Secretary, Department of Labor and Employment;

(c) Administrator, Philippine Overseas Employment Administration;

(d) Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration;

(e) Director-General, Philippine National Police;

(f) Chairperson, National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women; and

(g) Three (3) representatives from NGOs, who shall be composed of one (1) representative each
from among the sectors representing women, overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) and children,
with a proven record of involvement in the prevention and suppression of trafficking in persons.
These representatives shall be nominated by the government agency representatives of the
Council, for appointment by the President for a term of three (3) years.

The members of the Council may designate their permanent representatives who shall have a
rank not lower than an assistant secretary or its equivalent to meetings, and shall receive
emoluments as may be determined by the Council in accordance with existing budget and
accounting, rules and regulations.

Section 21. Functions of the Council. - The Council shall have the following powers and
functions:

(a) Formulate a comprehensive and integrated program to prevent and suppress the trafficking
in persons;

(b) Promulgate rules and regulations as may be necessary for the effective implementation of
this Act;

(c) Monitor and oversee the strict implementation of this Act;

(d) Coordinate the programs and projects of the various member agencies to effectively address
the issues and problems attendant to trafficking in persons;

(e) Coordinate the conduct of massive information dissemination and campaign on the existence
of the law and the various issues and problems attendant to trafficking through the LGUs,
concerned agencies, and NGOs;
(f) Direct other agencies to immediately respond to the problems brought to their attention and
report to the Council on action taken;

(g) Assist in filing of cases against individuals, agencies, institutions or establishments that
violate the provisions of this Act;

(h) Formulate a program for the reintegration of trafficked persons in cooperation with DOLE,
DSWD, Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), Commission on
Higher Education (CHED), LGUs and NGOs;

(i) Secure from any department, bureau, office, agency, or instrumentality of the government or
from NGOs and other civic organizations such assistance as may be needed to effectively
implement this Act;

(j) Complement the shared government information system for migration established under
Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the "Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act
of 1995" with data on cases of trafficking in persons, and ensure that the proper agencies conduct
a continuing research and study on the patterns and scheme of trafficking in persons which shall
form the basis for policy formulation and program direction;

(k) Develop the mechanism to ensure the timely, coordinated, and effective response to cases of
trafficking in persons;

(l) Recommend measures to enhance cooperative efforts and mutual assistance among foreign
countries through bilateral and/or multilateral arrangements to prevent and suppress
international trafficking in persons;

(m) Coordinate with the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC),

Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), and other NGOs in monitoring the promotion of
advertisement of trafficking in the internet;

(n) Adopt measures and policies to protect the rights and needs of trafficked persons who are
foreign nationals in the Philippines;

(o) Initiate training programs in identifying and providing the necessary intervention or
assistance to trafficked persons; and

(p) Exercise all the powers and perform such other functions necessary to attain the purposes
and objectives of this Act.

Section 22. Secretariat to the Council. - The Department of Justice shall establish the necessary
Secretariat for the Council.

Section 23. Mandatory Services to Trafficked Persons. - To ensure recovery, rehabilitation and
reintegration into the mainstream of society, concerned government agencies shall make
available the following services to trafficked persons:

(a) Emergency shelter or appropriate housing;

(b) Counseling;

(c) Free legal services which shall include information about the victims' rights and the
procedure for filing complaints, claiming compensation and such other legal remedies available
to them, in a language understood by the trafficked person;

(d) Medical or psychological services;

(e) Livelihood and skills training; and

(f) Educational assistance to a trafficked child.

Sustained supervision and follow through mechanism that will track the progress of recovery,
rehabilitation and reintegration of the trafficked persons shall be adopted and carried out.

Section 24. Other Services for Trafficked Persons. -

(a) Legal Assistance. - Trafficked persons shall be considered under the category "Overseas
Filipino in Distress" and may avail of the legal assistance created by Republic Act No. 8042,
subject to the guidelines as provided by law.

(b) Overseas Filipino Resource Centers. - The services available to overseas Filipinos as
provided for by Republic Act No. 8042 shall also be extended to trafficked persons regardless
of their immigration status in the host country.

(c) The Country Team Approach. - The country team approach under Executive Order No. 74
of 1993, shall be the operational scheme under which Philippine embassies abroad shall provide
protection to trafficked persons insofar as the promotion of their welfare, dignity and
fundamental rights are concerned.

Section 25. Repatriation of Trafficked Persons. - The DFA, in coordination with DOLE and
other appropriate agencies, shall have the primary responsibility for the repatriation of trafficked
persons, regardless of whether they are documented or undocumented.

If, however, the repatriation of the trafficked persons shall expose the victims to greater risks,
the DFA shall make representation with the host government for the extension of appropriate
residency permits and protection, as may be legally permissible in the host country.

Section 26. Extradition. - The DOJ, in consultation with DFA, shall endeavor to include offenses
of trafficking in persons among extraditable offenses.

Section 27. Reporting Requirements. - The Council shall submit to the President of the
Philippines and to Congress an annual report of the policies, programs and activities relative to
the implementation of this Act.

Section 28. Funding. - The heads of the departments and agencies concerned shall immediately
include in their programs and issue such rules and regulations to implement the provisions of
this Act, the funding of which shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act.

Section 29. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The Council shall promulgate the necessary
implementing rules and regulations within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of this Act.

Section 30. Non-restriction of Freedom of Speech and of Association, Religion and the Right to
Travel. - Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as a restriction of the freedom of speech and of
association, religion and the right to travel for purposes not contrary to law as guaranteed by the
Constitution.

Section 31. Separability Clause. - If, for any reason, any section or provision of this Act is held
unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions hereof shall not be affected thereby.

Section 32. Repealing clause. - All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders and rules and
regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly: Provided, That this Act shall not in any way amend or repeal the provision
of Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act".
Section 33. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from the date of its complete
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.