Dear PAO,

My wife got involved in some shady transactions where she acted as “bugaw” or pimp for some minors in our city. While I know that this seems deplorable, these minors were actually the ones prodding her to look for clients so that they could get some income. In return, she was promised a meager amount of commission for every client she finds for them. Unfortunately, she was entrapped during an operation and was prosecuted under the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act. She only did this because she had the express permission of the minors. They would have engaged in prostitution even without her. Is this not a defense?

Jaime

Dear Jaime,

Please be informed of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Shirley A. Casio (GR 211465, Dec. 3, 2014, Ponente: Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen), where it was provided that the fact that the victims of trafficking gave their consent is not an acceptable defense:

“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. 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 be committed even if the victim gives consent.” (Emphasis ours)

As stated in the above decision, the fact that the person or victim gave his/her consent, or is predisposed to engage in prostitution, is not a defense against a charge of trafficking in persons. The law against trafficking in persons punishes the mere act of recruiting, transporting, transferring, or harboring, or receiving of persons regardless of the victim’s knowledge or consent, viz:

“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 at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.

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

“The victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor’s consent is not given out of his or her own free will.” (People v. Casio; Emphasis ours)

As can be gleaned from the above discussion, the consent of the victim, or the fact that he/she has been engaging in prostitution, is not a viable defense in cases of trafficking in persons. The law intends to criminalize any and all forms of trafficking in persons via recruitment, transportation, transfer, or harboring, or receipt of persons. This is in order to put a stop to the practice of exploiting persons via human trafficking. Thus, your wife cannot put up such a defense in the trafficking in persons case she is facing.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our application of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]