Trafficking in persons. – “Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, defines the crime of trafficking in persons:
SECTION 3(a) Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act:
- 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 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.
Elements of trafficking of trafficking of persons. – “Jurisprudence enumerated the elements of the crime:
The elements of trafficking in persons can be derived from its definition under Section 3(a) of Republic Act 9208, thus:
- The act of “recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders.”
- The means used which include “threat or use of foce, 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
- The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes “exploitation or the prostitution of other or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.”[1]
Elements of trafficking in persons under the expanded definition of RA 10364, which amended RA 9208. – “On February 6, 2013, the law was amended by Republic Act No. 10354, People v. Casio also enumerated the elements of the crime under the expanded definition:
Under Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of trafficking in persons have been expanded the include the following acts:
- 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[“;]
- 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 the person having control over another person”[;]
- 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[.]”[2]
Testimony of arresting officer and minor victims sufficient to sustain a conviction. – “This Court in People v. Rodriguez acknowledged that as with Casio, the corroborating testimonies of the arresting officer and the minor victims were sufficient to sustain a conviction under the law. In People v. Spouses Ybañez, et. Al. this Court likewise affirmed the conviction of traffickers arrested based on. A surveillance report on the prostitution of minors within the area. In People v. XXX and YYY, this Court held that the exploitation of minors, through either prostution or pornography, is explicitly prohibited under the law., Casio also recognizes that the crime is considered consummated even if no sexual intercourse had taken place since the mere transaction consummates the crime.”[3] (Citations omitted)
“The trafficked victim’s testimony that she was sexually exploited is “material to the cause of the prosecution.”[4]
“The act of trafficking a child is considered as qualified trafficking under Section 6(a) of Republic Act No. 9208.”[5] “
“[6]In addition, Section 6 of RA 9208 provides that the crime is qualified when, inter alia, the trafficked person is a child. The law defines a child as “a person below eighteen (18) years of age or one who is over eighteen (18) but is unable to fully take care of himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.”
“Trafficking in persons is a deplorable crime. The gravamen of the crime of trafficking is ‘the act of recruiting or using, with or without consent, a fellow human being for [inter alia,] sexual exploitation.” As aptly held by the Court in Santiago, Jr. v. People:
Human beings are not chattels whose sexual favors are bought or sold by greedy pimps. Those who profit in this way by recruiting minors are rightfully, by law, labeled as criminals. They should be the subject of aggressive law enforcement, prosecuted, tried, and when proof beyond reasonable doubt exists, punished.”[7] (Citations omitted)
The fact that accused had befriended the two minors in order to recruit them and thereafter pimp them to his clients, and for this purpose was able to take advantage of their minority and coerce them into committing sexual acts with one another, under the pretext that they needed to learn how to perform such acts with fellow males so that they can earn monetary consideration for the same, makes him liable for qualified human trafficking.[8]
“Furthermore, the presence of the trafficker’s clients is not an element of the crime of recruitment or transportation of victims under Sections 3(a) and 4(a) of RA 9208. In the same vein, the law does not require that the victims be transported to or be found in a brothel or a prostitution den for such crime of recruitment or transportation to be committed. In fact, it has been held that the act of sexual intercourse need not have been consummated for recruitment to be said to have taken place. It is sufficient that the accused has lured, enticed[,] or engaged its victims or transported them for the established purpose of exploitation, which includes prostitution, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, and the removal or sale of organs. In this case, the prosecution has satisfactorily established accused-appellants’ recruitment and transportation of private complainants for the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation.”[9]
Entrapment operations. – “In People v. Padua, this court underscored the value of flexibility in police operations:
A prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment of 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.
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 law enforcers.”[10]
“The act of recruiting minors for the purpose of committing a series of robberies reasonably fall under Section 4(a) of RA 9208 in its original form, which reads:
Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. – It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit any of the following acts:
- To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means, including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage; (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Relatedly, Section 3(d) of RA 9208 in its original form defines the term “forced labor and slavery” as “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.”[11]
[1] People v. Tabieros and Infante, G.R. No. 234191, February 1, 2021
[2] People v. Casio, 749 Phil. 458 (2013, cited in People v. Lapena, G.R. No. 238213, February 1, 2021, People v. Tabieros and Infante, G.R. No. 234191, February 1, 2021), People v. Valencia and Simbillo, G.R. No. 234013, June 16, 2021
[3] People v. Ramirez, G.R., No,. 217978, January 30, 2019, cited in People v. Tabieros and Infante, G.R. No. 234191, February 1, 2021, Brozoto v. De Leon, G.R. No. 233420
[4] People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 211721, September 20, 2017, cited in People v. Tabieros and Infante, G.R. No. 234191, February 1, 2021
[5] People v. Lapena, G.R. No. 238213, February 1, 2021
[6] Brozoto v. De Leon, G.R. No, 233420, April 28, 2021
[7] Brozoto v. People, G.R. No. 233420, April 28, 2021
[8] People v. Estonilo, G.R. No. 248694, October 14, 2020
[9] People v. Aguirre, 820 Phil. 1085 (2017), cited in People v., Estonilo, G.R. No. 248694, October 14, 2020
[10] People v. Casio, 749 Phil. 458, cited in People v. Valencia and Simbillo, G.R. No. 234013, June 16, 2021
[11] Arambulo v. People, G.R. No. 241834, July 24, 2019