DIGEST OF CASES INVOLVING TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS

R.A. NO. 9208, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 10364

(2014-2016)

1. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SHIRLEY A. CASIO, G.R. NO. 211465,

DECEMBER 3, 2014.

FACTS:

On 2 May 2008, International Justice Mission (IJM) coordinated with the

police in order to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City.
PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso were designated as decoys, pretending to be tour
guides looking for girls to entertain their guests. The team went to Queensland
Motel and rented Rooms 24 and 25; Room 24 was designated for the transaction
while Room 25 was for the rest of the police team.

PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso went to Barangay Kamagayan, Cebu City's
red light district. Shirley Casio (Accused) noticed them and said “Chicks mo
dong?” (Do you like girls, guys?). PO1 Luardo replied “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.) The accused answered “Naa, hulat
kay magkuha ko. (Yes, just wait and I’ll get them.) After a few minutes, the
accused returned with AAA, who was born on 27 January 1991, and BBB. The
accused said that the girls were good in sex.Thereafter, they went to Queensland
Motel; upon proceeding to Room 24, PO1 Veloso handed the P500.00 marked
money. When PO1 Veloso miscalled the police officers in Room 25, the team
arrested accused and informed her of her rights.

Accused Shirley A. Casio was charged for the violation of Republic Act
No. 9208, Section 4(a), qualified by Section 6(a).

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime charged?

RULING: Yes, the accused is guilty of the crime charged.

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;

Section 6 (a) of Republic Act No. 9208 further enumerates that the crime of
trafficking in persons is qualified, when the trafficked person is a child.

The accused performed all the elements in the commission of the offense
which was qualified when she peddled AAA and BBB, who were minors, and
offered their services to decoys PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo in exchange for
money. Here, accused solicited the services of AAA for the customers waiting at
Queensland Motel. AAA also testified that she was born on 27 January 1991
making her 17 years old only. Hence, 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.

PENALITY and/or FINE: Life imprisonment and a fine of ₱2,000,000.00.1

DAMAGES: (1) ₱500,000.00 as moral damages; and (2) ₱100,000.00 as

exemplary damages.2

1 Section 10 (b) of Republic Act No. 9208.

2 Article 2219 of the Civil Code.
2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. BEVERLY VILLANUEVA Y MANALILI
@ BEBANG, G.R. NO. 210798, SEPTEMBER 14, 2016.

FACTS:

On 25 April 2007, AAA ran away from home after finding out that she was
adopted and after being scolded by her mother (private complainant). The
friends of AAA informed private complainant that her daughter, AAA, was
working as a Guest Relations Officer at On Tap Videoke Bar; private
complainant sought assistance from a TV program "XXX" and the Southern
Police District (SPD) Headquarters of Taguig City to regain custody over AAA.
PO1 Sullano accompanied by private complainant was tasked to go inside the
videoke bar to talk to AAA. PO2 Abas and the other police officers were
awaiting the predetermined signal outside. After the operation, AAA was taken
to the SPD headquarters, together with Beverly Villanueva (accused), owner
and manager of the bar, and five (5) employees. Private complainant executed a
complaint-affidavit against On Tap Videoke Bar and AAA was endorsed to the
DSWD-Las Pinas.

Thereafter, Beverly Villanueva was charged with human trafficking under

R.A. 9208, instead of violation of R.A. 7610 for the reason that she supposedly
"recruited and exploited AAA, a 13-year old minor, to work as a GRO in her bar
by taking advantage of her vulnerability as a child."

During trial, PO2 Abas admitted that he was not aware of why AAA was
in the viedoke bar or who had custody over AAA. When asked about the other
details of the investigation and the operation, he failed to give coherent answers
and insisted that his only designation was to secure the GROs and the other
persons in the videoke bar.

On the other hand, the private complainant admitted that she neither saw
AAA drinking, singing, nor smoking. Private complainant further admitted that
AAA confided to her that she (AAA) was neither hired nor recruited as a GRO
at the videoke bar.

ISSUE: Whether the accused is guilty of the crime charged?

RULING: No, the accused is no guilty of the crime charged.

 The elements of trafficking in persons, derived from the expanded
definition found in Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208 as amended by R.A. No. 10364,
are as follows:

(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;" and
(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."

The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child

for the purpose of exploitation shall still be considered "trafficking in persons"
even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the first paragraph of
Sec. 3(a) of R.A. No. 9208.

As regards the first element, the Supreme Court held that being the
registered owner per se does not make one criminally liable for the acts of
trafficking committed in the establishment. What the prosecution should have
done was to prove the act of trafficking by other means, and not by mere
showing that accused was the registered owner.

As regards the third element, the prosecution likewise failed to prove that
the recruiting, maintaining or harboring of persons is for the purpose of
exploitation. AAA was seen by the prosecution witnesses at the videoke bar
only on the day the rescue operation was conducted. That AAA was exploited
could not be proven by her mere presence at the videoke bar during the rescue
operation. The prosecution should have presented evidence as to the nature of
work done by AAA, if any.

PENALITY and/or FINE: Acquittal

DAMAGES: None.
3. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SPOUSES PRIMO C. YBAÑEZ and nila s.
YBAÑEZ, MARIS Q. REYES, and MICHELLE T. HUAT, G.R. No. 220461,
AUGUST 24, 2016.

FACTS:

Angeline Bonete (Bonete), who was still 15 years old, started working as a
Guest Relations Officer (GRO) on May 13, 2006 at Kiray Bar and KTV Club
Restaurant (Kiray), which was owned by the Spouses Ybañez, and where Reyos
and Huat were working as floor managers. On May 14, 2006, a customer
brought her inside the Super VIP room on the second floor of the bar, where
they had sexual intercourse. Before Bonete headed home at 3:00 a.m., accused
Nila had given her ₱300.00 as payment.

On the other hand, Virgie Antonio (Antonio), who was only 16 years old,
ran away from home and started working as a GRO at Kiray on June 18, 2006.
During her orientation, she was told to wear a mini skirt and entertain her
customers as "ka-table." On her third night, a customer brought her to the Super
VIP room after paying ₱1,000.00 to the cashier. Inside the room, they drank beer
and likewise had sexual intercourse. Antonio was also given ₱300.00 for her
work that night. Thereafter, she would have intercourse with her other
customers.

Lastly, Kate Turado (Turado), who was found to be functioning within the
mildly retarded level, worked at Kiray in March 2005 upon accused Nila and
Huat's invitation. She was told that she would earn a commission of ₱300.00 if a
customer would bring her to the Super VIP room, ₱120.00 for the VIP room, and
₱50.00 if she had ladies' drinks on the ground floor. The customer must pay at
the cashier if he wanted to have sex. Accused Nila and Huat would tell them to
agree to have sex even if they did not like the customers. Each time that she was
brought to the Super VIP room, she would get a ₱300.00 commission, with or
without intercourse. Aside from being "tabled" by customers, she was also made
to dance in provocative outfits.

On February 15, 2007, Marfil Baso, a special investigator of the NBI, and
his team had a raid briefing. At around 9:30 p.m., Baso arrived at Kiray with his
team. He and two other NBI agents then entered the bar; Reyos and Huat
offered to transfer them to the Super VIP rooms on the second floor, where, they
were told, they could do whatever they wanted with the girls. But should they
wish to have sex with the girls, they would have to pay more. Baso gave
₱3,000.00 to Reyos and Huat for the use of the two Super VIP rooms.
Immediately thereafter, Baso used his mobile phone to inform their ground
commander, who then announced the raid.

Thereafter, the accused were charged with Qualified Trafficking in

Persons under Section 6(a) and (c), in relation to Sections 4(a) and 3, and
penalized under Section 10(a) and (c) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9208, otherwise
known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused are guilty of the crime charged?

RULING: Yes, the accused are guilty of the crime charged.

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. When the trafficked person is a child, a person below 18 years of age or
one who is over 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, the offense becomes qualified.

The Supreme Court held that the complainants categorically testified that
they were hired as GROs and tasked to entertain customers to the extent of even
having sexual intercourse with them, and being paid commissions for said
services. The bar was likewise designed with a stage where the GROs were
made to dance in provocative outfits. It had a VIP room where the customers
could caress and grope the girls, and a Super VIP room where they could
completely satisfy their lust. Even if the claims regarding the rules prohibiting
flirting and lascivious conduct between the GROs and the customers were true,
the same would still not absolve accused-appellants from any liability. Said
rules were merely posted as meaningless warnings and were never really
intended to be implemented, as evidenced by the fact that said prohibited acts
had actually been committed, tolerated, and perpetuated at Kiray.
 Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the crime is qualified because
Bonete and Antonio are minors while Turado, although no longer a minor, has
mild retardation and is incapable of protecting herself.

PENALTY and/or FINE: Life imprisonment, and a fine of ₱2,000,000.003 and the
costs, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of
the Decision until fully paid.

DAMAGES: None.

3 Section 10 (b) of Republic Act No. 9208.