Tampus, Mary Grace G.

February
04, 2017
LLB-2

G.R. 211465
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. SHIRLEY CASIO

FACTS OF THE CASE:

International Justice Mission (IJM), a non-governmental organization,

coordinated with the police in order to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking
in Cebu City. Thus, a team of police operatives was formed with PO1 Luardo and
PO1 Veloso were designated as decoys, pretending to be tour guides looking for
girls to entertain the guests. IJM provided them with marked money, which was
recorded in the police blotter.

The police team went to Queensland Motel and rented Rooms 24 and 25.
These rooms were adjacent to each other. Room 24 was designated for transaction
while Room 25 was for the rest of the police team. While PO1 Luardo and PO1
Veloso proceeded to D. Jakosalem Street in Barangay Kamagayan, Cebu Citys red
light district. Casio noticed them and called their attention by saying, Chicks mo
dong? At that point, PO1 Luardo sent a text message to PSI Ylanan that they found
a prospective subject as Casio brought then with her AAA and BBB, the private
complainants in this case giving assurance to decoys PO1Luardo and PO1 Veloso
that the girls were good in sex.

PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo then convinced Casio to come with them to
Queensland Motel and upon proceeding to Room 24, PO1 Veloso handed the marked
money to her. As Casio started counting the money, PO1 Veloso gave PSI Ylanan a
missed call which was their pre-arranged signal upon arresting Casio. The rest of the
police team then proceeded to Room 24 and arrested Casio while AAA and BBB
were brought to Room 25 and placed in the custody of the representatives from the
IJM and DSWD.

During trial, AAA stated that she knew Casio was a pimp because she would
usually see her pimping girls to customers in Barangay Kamagayan. AAA further
testified that Casio solicited her services for a customer. However, in accused
Casios version, she testified that she works as a laundrywoman and that on the
evening of the entrapment, she only went out to buy supper and that she was
stopped by men on board a blue car and that these two men asked her if she knew
someone named Bingbing. She replied that she only knew Ginging but not
Bingbing. She further alleged that the men informed her that they were actually
looking for Ginging, gave her a piece of paper with a number written on it, and told
her to tell Gingging to bring companions. When accused arrived home, she
contacted Gingging and that Gingging convinced her to come because allegedly,
she would be given money by the two males.

RTC found Casio guilty beyond reasonable doubt holding her accountable for
having consummated the act of trafficking persons for the purpose of letter her
engage in prostitution. Upon appeal, Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of RTC
but modified the fine and awarded moral damages. Hence, this present petition.

ISSUE/S:

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
2. Whether the prosecution was able to prove accuseds guilt beyond
reasonable doubt even though there was no evidence presented to
show that accused has a history of engaging in human trafficking
3. Whether accused was properly convicted of trafficking in persons,
considering that AAA admitted she works as a prostitute.

HELD:

1. Yes, the entrapment operation conducted was valid upon using the objective
test.

There are two tests used to determine whether there was a valid entrapment
operation: Subjective or Origin of Intent Test and Objective Test. In the
subjective test, the focus of the inquiry is on the accuseds 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 accuseds
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. In the objective test, 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.
 The argument of the accused that upon using the subjective test, she was
clearly instigated by the police to commit the offense, that she denied being
a pimp and claimed that she earned her living as a laundrywoman, shall fail.
It was Casio 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 Casio who told them to wait
while she would fetch the girls for their perusal. It only shows that accused
was predisposed to commit the offense because she initiated the transaction
as testified by the police decoys that their attention was called out by Casio
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.

Further, with regard to the lack of prior surveillance, prior surveillance is not a
condition for an entrapment operations validity. 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.
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.

2. Yes, the prosecution was able to prove Casios guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Under RA 10364, 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".

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

3. Yes, Casio is properly convicted of trafficking as knowledge or consent of

minor is not a defense under RA 9208.

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;

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 Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency
Syndrome (AIDS). (Emphasis supplied)

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. 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 Php1,000.00 already consummated the said act.

G.R. NO. 195419

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. LALLI

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On June 3, 2005, Lolita Sagasado Plando, 23 years old, single, was in

Tumaga, Zamboanga City on her way to the house of her grandfather, she
met Ronnie Masion Aringoy and Rachel Aringoy Caete and asked Lolita if she
was interested to work in Malaysia. Lolita was interested so she gave her
cellphone number to Ronnie.

Lolita received a text message from Ronnie Aringoy inviting her to go

to the latter's house. She inquired what job is available in Malaysia. Ronnie
told her that she will work as a restaurant entertainer and all that was needed
is a passport. She will be paid 500 Malaysian ringgits which is equivalent to
P7,000.00 pesos in Philippine currency. Lolita told Ronnie that she does not
have a passport. Ronnie said that they will look for a passport so she could
leave immediately. Lolita informed him that her younger sister, Marife Plando,
has a passport. Ronnie chided her for not telling him immediately. He told
Lolita that she will leave for Malaysia on June 6, 2005 and they will go to
Hadja Jarma Lalli who will bring her to Malaysia. Lolita then secured a
passport by using her sister Marifes passport. After doing so, they proceeded
to the house of Lalli whom Ronnie introduced to Lolita. Lolita as well noticed
that there were other girls in Lallis house who were: Honey, 20 years old,
Michele, 19 years old, and another woman who is 28 years old. They were
then told to prepare as they were to leave the next day for Malaysia on board
M/V Mary Joy.
 When they reached Malaysia, they were brought to a certain restaurant
where they were introduced to a Chinese Malay called Boss. It was also in
that restaurant where they met a Filipino woman who told them that the
place they were to be transported to is a prostitution den and the women
there are used as prostitutes. Lolita and her companions went back to the
hotel and told Hadja Jarma Lalli and Nestor that they do not like to work as
prostitutes to no avail.

Lolita Plando was forced to work as entertainer at Pipen Club. She

started working at 8:30 in the evening of June 14, 2005. She was given the
number 60 which was pinned on her. Every night, a customer used her. She
had at least one customer or more a night, and at most, she had around five
customers a night. They all had sexual intercourse with her. Finally on July 9,
2005, Lolita was able to contact by cellphone at about 10:00 o'clock in the
morning her sister Janet Plando who is staying at Sipangkot Felda ....Janet is
married to Said Abubakar, an Indonesian national who is working as a driver
in the factory. ...Lolita told Janet that she is in Labuan, Malaysia and beg Janet
to save her because she was sold as a prostitute. She was then rescued by
the husband of her sister and stayed at her sisters house until July 22, 2005
on such date they planned on sending Lolita back home.
Upon Lolitas arrival she went directly and confronted the sister of
Ronnie Aringoy but Ronnie merely denied his involvement in what happened
to her. Lolita was advised to file a complaint with the police regarding her
ordeal in Malaysia. On August 2, 2005, at past 9:00 o'clock in the morning,
Lolita Plando went to Zamboanga Police Office at Gov. Lim Avenue to file her
complaint.

RTC rendered a decision finding accused Lalli and Ronnie Aringoy guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of trafficking in persons and of the
crime of illegal recruitment. Upon appeal by the accused, CA however
affirmed in toto the RTC decision. Hence, this present petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Lalli and co-accused Ronnie Aringoy committed the

crime of trafficking in persons and illegal recruitment.

HELD:

Yes, Lalli and co-accused Ronnie are guilty of committing the crime of
trafficking in persons and illegal recruitment.
Section 3 (a) of Republic Act No. 9208 (RA 9208), otherwise known as the
Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, defines Trafficking in Persons, as
follows:

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.

Section 4 of RA 9208 enumerates the prohibited acts of Trafficking in Persons,

one of which is:

(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.

The crime of Trafficking in Persons is qualified when committed by a

syndicate, as provided in Section 6 (c) of RA 9208:

(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.

In this case, the testimony of Aringoy's niece, Rachel, that Lolita had been
travelling to Malaysia to work in bars cannot be given credence. Lolita did not
even have a passport to go to Malaysia and had to use her sister's passport
when Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos first recruited her. It is questionable how
she could have been travelling to Malaysia previously without a passport, as
Rachel claims. Moreover, even if it is true that Lolita had been travelling to
Malaysia to work in bars, the crime of Trafficking in Persons can exist even
with the victim's consent or knowledge under Section 3 (a) of RA 9208.

Trafficking in Persons under Sections 3 (a) and 4 of RA 9208 is not only limited
to transportation of victims, but also includes the act of recruitment of victims
for trafficking. In this case, since it has been sufficiently proven beyond
reasonable doubt, as discussed in Criminal Case No. 21930, that all the three
accused (Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos) conspired and confederated with
one another to illegally recruit Lolita to become a prostitute in Malaysia, it
follows that they are also guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Qualified Trafficking in Persons committed by a syndicate under RA 9208
because the crime of recruitment for prostitution also constitutes trafficking.

As to the commission of the crime of illegal recruitment, the trial court, as

affirmed by the appellate court, found Lalli, Aringoy and Relampagos to have
conspired and confederated with one another in illegally recruiting Lolita and
others.

Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 (RA 8042) defines illegal recruitment, as
follows:

[I]llegal recruitment shall mean any act of canvassing, enlisting,

contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers and
includes referring,contact services, promising or advertising for
employment abroad, whether for profit or not, when undertaken
by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority contemplated under
Article 13(f) of Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended, otherwise
known as the Labor Code of the Philippines.

xxx xxx xxx

Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or in large scale
shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage.
xxx xxx xxx
Illegal recruitment 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 clear that a person or entity engaged in recruitment and placement

activities without the requisite authority from the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE), whether for profit or not, is engaged in illegal
recruitment. 39 The Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA),
an agency under DOLE created by Executive Order No. 797 to take over the
duties of the Overseas Employment Development Board, issues the authority
to recruit under the Labor Code. The commission of illegal recruitment by
three or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another is
deemed committed by a syndicate and constitutes economic sabotage, 40 for
which the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P500,000
but not more than P1,000,000 shall be imposed.

In People v. Gallo, the Court enumerated the elements of syndicated illegal

recruitment, to wit:
(1) the offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of
"recruitment and placement" defined under Article 13(b), or any of the
prohibited practices enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code;
(2) he has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to
lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; and
(3) the illegal recruitment is committed by a group of three (3) or more
persons conspiring or confederating with one another.

Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code of the Philippines defines recruitment and
placement as "any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting,
utilizing, hiring or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract
services, promising or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, whether
for profit or not, provided, that any person or entity which, in any manner,
offers or promises for a fee, employment to two or more persons shall be
deemed engaged in recruitment and placement."

Clearly, given the broad definition of recruitment and placement, even the
mere act of referring someone for placement abroad can be considered
recruitment. Such act of referral, in connivance with someone without the
requisite authority or POEA license, constitutes illegal recruitment. In its
simplest terms, illegal recruitment is committed by persons who, without
authority from the government, give the impression that they have the power
to send workers abroad for employment purposes.

In this case, Lolita would not have been able to go to Malaysia if not for the
concerted efforts of Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos. First, it was Aringoy who
knew Lolita, since Aringoy was a neighbor of Lolita's grandfather. It was
Aringoy who referred Lolita to Lalli, a fact clearly admitted by Aringoy.
Second, Lolita would not have been able to go to Malaysia if Lalli had not
purchased Lolita's boat ticket to Malaysia. This fact can be deduced from the
testimony of the ticketing clerk of Aleson Shipping Lines, owner of the vessel
M/V Mary Joy 2 plying Zamboanga City to Sandakan, Malaysia route and of
M/V Kristel Jane 3. Nora testified in open court that "Hadja Jarma Lalli bought
passenger tickets for her travel to Sandakan, not only for herself but also for
other women passengers." Lalli's claim that she only goes to Malaysia to visit
her daughter and son-in-law does not explain the fact why she bought the
boat tickets of the other women passengers going to Malaysia. In fact, it
appears strange that Lalli visited Malaysia nine (9) times in a span of one
year and three months (March 2004 to June 2005) just to visit her daughter
and son-in-law. In Malaysia, it was Relampagos who introduced Lolita and her
companions to a Chinese Malay called "Boss" as their first employer.

It is clear that through the concerted efforts of Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos,
Lolita was recruited and deployed to Malaysia to work as a prostitute. Such
conspiracy among Aringoy, Lalli and Relampagos could be deduced from the
manner in which the crime was perpetrated each of the accused played a
pivotal role in perpetrating the crime of illegal recruitment, and evinced a
joint common purpose and design, concerted action and community of
interest.