Dear PAO,

Sergio is my friend, and he was accused of illegal trafficking in persons. He narrated that the victim is a minor neighbor of his who asked him to look for clients interested in escort services. She offered her services for a fee. Allegedly, the victim knew that Sergio was working in a casino, so she assumed he had clients looking for this kind of service. Sergio claimed that he could not be held liable for illegal trafficking because the victim was the one who offered her services, which means that there was consent on the part of the alleged victim. Is he correct?

Wasiwas

Dear Wasiwas,

Pursuant to Section 3(a) of Republic Act (RA) 9208, as amended by Republic Act (RA) 10364, otherwise known as the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012, trafficking in persons is defined as:

“[T]he 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.”

The elements of such crime were enumerated in Palacio v. People of the Philippines, GR 262473, April 12, 2023, where the Supreme Court, speaking through Associate Justice Mario Lopez, said that:

“(1) The act of recruiting, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transporting, transferring, maintaining, harboring, or receiving of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders;

“(2) The means used 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 person;

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

The presence of the elements enumerated above would make the offender liable. It is of no moment that the victim was the one who offered his or her services. In fact, the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in People of the Philippines v. Rodriguez, GR 211721, Sept. 20, 2017, which was penned by Associate Justice Samuel Martires, is explicit:

“xxx 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. xxx”

Applying the decision quoted above to your situation, Sergio is still liable for illegal trafficking in person despite the fact that the victim was the one who offered her services. The presence of the victim’s consent is immaterial, for what is punishable in illegal trafficking in persons is the act of recruiting or using the victim for sexual exploitation, regardless of consent.

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

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

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]