G.R. No.

211721

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.
WILLINGTON RODRIGUEZ y HERMOSA, Accused-Appellant

DECISION

MARTIRES, J.:

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

THE FACTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused WILLINGTON RODRIGUEZ y

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

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

The trial court explicitly said:

The acts of the accused in offering sex to PO1 Escober, calling the three [3] pick-up girls so that he
could choose from them and receiving money therefor are clearly acts of human trafficking or
trafficking in persons defined and penalized under Sec. 10 [c] of R.A. No. 9208.

Accused denied the charge[s] by testifying that he was in front of McDonalds Restaurant in Quezon
A venue selling cigarettes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Arguments of the Accused

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

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

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

The Assailed CA Decision

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

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

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

A: No, sir.

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

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

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

OUR RULING

The appeal is meritorious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

xxxx

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

xxxx

(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed
by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with
one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons,
individually or as a group;

Section 3(a)29 provides the elements of trafficking in persons: (1) the ruj of recruitment,
transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipts of persons with or without the victim's consent or
knowledge, within or across national borders; (2) the means used which include "threat or use of
force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking
advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to
achieve the consent of a person having control over another; and (3) the purpose of trafficking is
exploitation which includes "exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual
exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs."30
A careful review of the records shows that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of these
elements beyond reasonable doubt, nor did we find the second and third elements proven by the
prosecution.

A review of emerging jurisprudence on human trafficking readily shows that a successful

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

The case before us differs from the Casio case where more than one (1) credible witness, the minor
victims, were presented in court by the prosecution, and allowed to testify on the circumstances on
how they were recruited by the accused and later offered for sex in exchange for money.
Significantly, the testimony of PO1 Escober in the case before us lacks the material details to
convince us that Rodriguez had committed human trafficking.

In the instant case, only PO1 Escober testified as to the actual unfolding of circumstances which led
him to believe that Rodriguez was committing human trafficking. On cross-examination, PO1
Escober testified that:

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

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

Q: To whom was this offered?

A: To me, sir.

xxxx

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A: Yes, sir.33 (italics supplied)

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

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

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

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

three women is not fatal to the prosecution." Their testimonies that they were sexually exploited
against their will through force, threat or other means of coercion are material to the cause of the
prosecution. These women would be in the best position to say that Rodriguez had recruited or used
these women by giving them payments or benefits in exchange for sexual exploitation. To rely solely
on the testimony of PO1 Escober as basis for convicting Rodriguez would run riot against logic and
reason, and against the law. To sustain this whimsical reasoning would encourage anyone to accuse
a person of "trafficking in persons" or of any other crime, without presenting the material testimony of
the alleged victim. Given that PO1 Escober's testimony is missing on material details, the
prosecution should have presented in court at least one of the three (3) women that indeed they
were sexually exploited or recruited by the accused for prostitution as alleged in the information.
Even a neophyte police officer of the lowest rank would be stupefied why PO1 Escober and the two
(2) other police officers allegedly with him failed to get the statements of the alleged victims while
they were under police custody after the entrapment operation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SO ORDERED.

SAMUEL R. MARTIRES
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

(On Official Leave)

ALEXANDER G. GESMUNDO*
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decisionhad been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation,
I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice

Footnotes

*
On Official Leave.

1
Rollo, pp. 2-8.

2
Records, p. 1.

3
Id. at 16.

4
Id. at 4.

5
Id. at 5.

6
TSN, 20 February 2007, p.4.

7
Id.

8
TSN, 28 April 2010, p. 7-9.

9
Id. at 3.

10
Id.

11
TSN, 17 May 2011, p. 4.

12
Id.

13
Id. at 5.

14
Records, pp. 175-178.

15
Id. at 178.
16
Id.at177.

17
Id. at 178.

18
Id.

19
Id.

20
CA rollo, p. 44.

21
Id.

22
Id. at 46.

23
Id.

24
Id.

25
Id. at 100-101.

Boac v. People, 591 Phil. 508, 521-522 (2008), citing People v. Ganguso, 330 Phil. 324,
26

335 (1995).

27
Id. at 522.

28
People v. Calma, 356 Phil. 945, 974-975 (1998).

29
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 or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation,
forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs. NOTE: This
definition is the original definition, considering that the crime was committed prior to the
enactment of R.A. No. 10364.

30
People v. Casio, 749 Phil. 458, 472-473 (2014).

See People v. Hirang, G.R. No. 223528, 11 January 2017; Young v. People, G.R. No.
31

213910, 3 February 2016, 783 SCRA 286; People v. Casio, supra note 30.

32
Id.

33
TSN, 28 April 2010, pp. 8-9.

34
Ubales v. People, 491 Phil. 238, 257-258 (2008). See also Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576,
593 (2008).
 35
Rabanal v. People, 518 Phil. 734, 748 (2006), citing Rivera v. People, 501 Phil. 37, 49
(2006), further citing People v. Manalad, 436 PhiL 37 (2002).

36
Kummer v. People, 717 Phil. 670, 679 (2013).

37
See People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 210798, 14 September 2016.

38
People v. Aspiras, 427 Phil. 27, 41 (2002).

39
People v. Baulite, 419 Phil. 191, 198-199 (2001).

 Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 211465 December 3, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE :PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
SHIRLEY A. CASIO, Accused-appellant.

DECISION

LEONEN, J.:

"Chicks mo dong?"1

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

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

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

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

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

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

On May 2, 2008, International Justice Mission (IJM),5 a nongovernmental organization, coordinated

with the police in order to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City.6

Chief PSI George Ylanan, SPO1 Felomino Mendaros, SPO1 Fe Altubar, PO1 Albert Luardo, and
PO1 Roy Carlo Veloso composed the team of police operatives.7 PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso were
designated as decoys, pretending to be tour guides looking for girls to entertain their guests.8 IJM
provided them with marked money, which was recorded in the police blotter.9
The team went to Queensland Motel and rented Rooms 24 and 25. These rooms were adjacent to
each other. Room 24 was designated for the transaction while Room 25 was for the rest of the police
team.10

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

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

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

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

Accused: Naa, hulat kay magkuha ko. (Yes, just wait and I’ll get them.)12

At that point, PO1 Luardo sent a text message to PSI Ylanan that they found a prospective subject.13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Version of the accused

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

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

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

....

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

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

SO ORDERED[.]32

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

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

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

SO ORDERED.34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments of accused

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

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

Arguments of the plaintiff-appellee

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

We affirm accused Shirley A. Casio’s conviction.

I.

Background of Republic Act No. 9208

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

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

In the Trafficking Protocol, human trafficking is defined as:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

....

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Luisa Ejercito Estrada explained:

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

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

II.

Elements of trafficking in persons

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

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

(2) The means used which include "threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion,
abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the
vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over another; and

(3) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes "exploitation or the prostitution of
others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the
removal or sale of organs."63

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

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

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

"(a) Trafficking in Persons – refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering,
transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s
consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat, or use of force, or other
forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of
the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which
includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual
exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.

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

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

(1) The act of "recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer,
maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or
knowledge, within or across national borders;"

(2) The means used include "by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion,
abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the
vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over another person"
 (3) The purpose of trafficking includes "the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other
forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or
sale of organs" (Emphasis supplied)

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

III.

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

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

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

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

receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national
borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud,
deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the persons,
or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having
control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes ata minimum, the
exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or
services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.

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

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

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

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

a. To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or receive a person by any means,

including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or
apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor,
slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;72

Republic Act No. 9208 further enumerates the instances when the crime of trafficking in persons is
qualified.
SEC. 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons.— The following are considered as qualified trafficking: a.
When the trafficked person is a child;

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

c. When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed

committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or
confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against
three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group;

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

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

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

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

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

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

....

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

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

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

The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the offense of
trafficking in persons, qualified by the fact that one of the victims was a child. As held by the trial
court:
[T]he act of "sexual intercourse" need not have been consummated for the mere "transaction" i.e.
that ‘solicitation’ for sex and the handing over of the "bust money" of Php.1,000.00 already
consummated the said act.75

IV.

Validity of the entrapment operation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accused contends that using the subjective test, she was clearly instigated by the police to commit
the offense. She denied being a pimp and claimed that she earned her living as a laundrywoman.
On this argument, we agree with the finding of the Court of Appeals:

[I]t was the accused-appellant who commenced the transaction with PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso by
calling their attention on whether they wanted girls for that evening, and when the officers
responded, it was the accused-appellant who told them to wait while she would fetch the girls for
their perusal.82

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V.

Imposition of fine and award of damages

The Court of Appeals properly imposed the amount of 2,000,000.00. Section 10 (b) of Republic Act
No. 9208 provides that:
SEC. 10. Penalties and Sanctions.— The following penalties and sanctions are hereby established
for the offenses enumerated in this Act:

....

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

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

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

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

(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;

(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;

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

(4) Adultery or concubinage;

(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;

(6) Illegal search;

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

(8) Malicious prosecution;

(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;

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

....

The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous case to the crimes of
seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. In fact, it is worse. To be trafficked as a
prostitute without one’s consent and to be sexually violated four to five times a day by different
strangers is horrendous and atrocious. There is no doubt that Lolita experienced physical suffering,
mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and
social humiliation when she was trafficked as a prostitute in Malaysia. Since the crime of Trafficking
in Persons was aggravated, being committed by a syndicate, the award of exemplary damages is
likewise justified.91
Human trafficking indicts the society that tolerates the kind of poverty and its accompanying
desperation that compels our women to endure indignities. It reflects the weaknesses of that society
even as it convicts those who deviantly thrive in such hopelessness. We should continue to strive for
the best of our world, where our choices of human intimacies are real choices, and not the last resort
taken just to survive. Human intimacies enhance our best and closest relationships. It serves as a
foundation for two human beings to face life’s joys and challenges while continually growing together
with many shared experiences. The quality of our human relationships defines the world that we
create also for others.

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

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

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

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

The award of damages is likewise MODIFIED as follows:

Accused is ordered to pay each of the private complainants:

(1) ₱500,000.00 as moral damages; and

(2) ₱100,000.00 as exemplary damages.

SO ORDERED.

MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.*

Associate Justice Associate Justice
 JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the· conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached iri consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes

* Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1888 dated November 28, 2014.

1
Rollo, p. 4. The English translation for this is, "Do you like girls, guys?" "Chicks" is a
colloquial term for girls in Cebuano.

2
An Act to Institute Policies to Eliminate Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and
Children, Establishing the Necessary Institutional Mechanismsfor the Protection and Support
of Trafficked Persons, Providing Penalties for its Violations, and for Other Purposes.

3
Note that the offense was committed on May 2, 2008, prior to the enactment of Rep. Act
No. 10364, which amended Rep. Act No. 9208. Thus, the provisions of Rep. Act No. 9208
cited in this case are the original provisions.

4
CA rollo, p. 8. Although the information states, "3rd day of May 2008," the record of the
case shows that the offense was committed on May 2, 2008.

5
International Justice Mission, Get To Know Us <https://www.ijm.org/get-to-know-us>
(visited November 26, 2014). International Justice Mission or IJM is a United States-based
human rights organization, founded in 1997, which aims to "protect the poor from violence."
International Justice Mission, Where We Work <https://www.ijm.org/where-we-work> (visited
November 26, 2014). At present, IJM has partner offices in Canada, United Kingdom,
Netherlands, and Germany. IJM also has field offices in Latin America,India, Africa,
Southeast Asia including the Philippines.

6
Rollo, p. 4.
7
Id. at 6.

8
Id. at 4.

9
Id.

10
Id.

11
Id.

12
Id. at 4–5.

13
Id. at 5.

14
Id.

15
Id.

16
Id.

17
Id.

18
Id.

19
Id.

20
CA rollo, p. 9.

21
Id. at 10.

22
Id.

23
Rollo, p. 6.

24
CA rollo, pp. 10–11.

25
Id. at 11.

26
Id. at 10.

27
Id. at 12.

28
Id.

29
Id.

30
Rollo, p. 6.

31
CA rollo, pp. 9–13.
32
Id. at 13.

Rollo, pp. 3–13. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos
33

and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Maria Elisa Sempio
Diy of the Nineteenth Division.

34
Id. at 13.

35
Id. at 14.

36
Id. at 16–17.

37
Id. at 1.

38
Id. at 19–20.

39
Id. at 19.

40
Id. at 30–32. The manifestation was dated July 14, 2014.

41
Id. at 22–24. The manifestation was dated July 14, 2014.

42
Id. at 21.

43
CA rollo, p. 33.

44
Id. at 37.

45
Id.

46
Id. at 32.

47
Id. at 33.

48
Id. at 36–37.

49
Id. at 37.

50
Id. at 72–73.

51
Id. at 74–75.

52
Id. at 75–76.

53
Id. at 72.

United Nations Human Rights, Protocol to Prevent, "Suppress and Punish Trafficking in
54

Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention
against Transnational Organized Crime"
<http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ProtocolTraffickingInPersons.aspx>
(visited November 26, 2014).

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, "United Nations Convention against
55

Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto"

<http://www.unodc.org/unodc/treaties/CTOC/> (visited November 26, 2014).

United Nations Treaty Collection

56

<https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY& mtdsg_no=XVIII-12-
&chapter=18&lang=en> (visited: November 26, 2014).

57
Sponsorship speech of Senator Loren Legarda, delivered on December 10, 2002. Record
of the Senate, Volume II, No. 42, Twelfth Congress, Second Regular Session, October 15–
December 18, 2002, p. 617; Record of the Senate, Volume III, No. 62, February 12, 2003, p.
383.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, "Signatories to the United Nations Convention
58

against Transnational Crime and its Protocols"

<http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CTOC/signatures.html> (visited November 27,
2014).

59
Sponsorship speech of Senator Loren Legarda, delivered on December 10, 2002. Record
of the Senate, Volume II, No. 42, Twelfth Congress, Second Regular Session, October 15–
December 18, 2002, p. 617.

Record of the Senate, Volume II, No. 42, Twelfth Congress Second Regular Session,
60

October 15–December 18, 2002, p. 614–616.

Record of the Senate, Volume III, No. 60, Twelfth Congress, Second Regular Session,
61

January 13–June 5, 2003, p. 364.

Record of the Senate, Volume III, No. 60, Twelfth Congress, Second Regular Session,
62

January 13–June 5, 2003, p. 364.

63
Rep. Act No. 9208 (2003), sec. 3(a). Note that thisdefinition is the original definition,
considering that the crime was committed prior to the enactment of Rep.Act No. 10364. In
the resolution of this case, we use the provisions in Rep. Act No. 9208 prior to its
amendment.

64
An Act Expanding Rep. Act No. 9208 entitled "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 Purposes."

65
Rollo, p. 6.

66
Id. at 5.

67
Id.

68
Id. at 5–6.
69
CA rollo, p. 37.

Considering that Shirley A. Casio committed the offense in 2008, we apply the original
70

definition of "trafficking in persons."

71
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, "Human Trafficking FAQs"

<https://www.unodc.org/unodc/ en/human-trafficking/faqs.html> (visited November

26, 2014).

72
Rep. Act No. 9208, sec. 4 prior to its amendment by Rep. Act No. 10364.

73
Rep. Act No. 9208, sec. 6 prior to its amendment by Rep. Act No. 10364.

74
This definition was maintained in Rep. Act No. 10364.

75
CA rollo, p. 13.

76
361 Phil. 595 (1999) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].

77
Id. at 611–612.

78
CA rollo, pp. 35–36.

79
Id. at 36–37.

80
528 Phil. 740 (2006) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division].

81
Id. at 751, citing Araneta v. Court of Appeals, 226 Phil. 437, 444 (1986) [Per J. Gutierrez,
Jr., Second Division]; See also People v. Quiaoit, Jr., 555 Phil. 441, 449 (2007) [Per J.
Chico-Nazario, Third Division]; People v. Cortez, 611 Phil. 360 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr.,
Third Division]; People v. Tapere, G.R. No. 178065, February 20, 2013, 691 SCRA 347,
358–359 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

82
Rollo, pp. 9–10.

83
Id. at 5.

84
CA rollo, p. 12.

85
Rollo, p. 11.

86
Id. at 10.

G.R. No. 174097, July 21, 2010, 625 SCRA 220 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First
87

Division].

88
Id. at 239.

89
Rollo, p. 13.
 90
G.R. No. 195419, October 12, 2011, 659 SCRA 105 [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].

91
Id. at 126.

92
An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines (2006)

Sec. 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 states:

"Sec.3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose

sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be
eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, as amended."