PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SHIRLEY A. CASIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Casio

The Case

This is a criminal case in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Shirley A. Casio for qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act Number 9208, the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003. Casio was accused of recruiting and peddling two young women, one of them a minor, to police officers posing as customers in Cebu City. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to fix the elements of trafficking in persons, to confirm that the victim's consent or prior involvement in prostitution is not a defense, and to explain when an entrapment operation is valid and when it crosses into instigation.

Procedural History

Casio was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, in Cebu City. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of trafficking in persons under Section 4, paragraph (a), qualified under Section 6, paragraph (a), of Republic Act Number 9208. It sentenced her to twenty years of imprisonment and a fine of one million pesos, and ordered her to pay the costs.

Casio appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of guilt but modified the penalty, imposing life imprisonment and a fine of two million pesos, and ordering her to pay each of the private complainants one hundred fifty thousand pesos as moral damages. Casio then filed a notice of appeal, which the Court of Appeals noted and gave due course. The records were elevated to the Supreme Court, which notified the parties that they could file supplemental briefs. Both the counsel for the accused and the Office of the Solicitor General manifested that they would no longer file supplemental briefs, since all issues had already been discussed in the briefs filed before the Court of Appeals. The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women confirmed that Casio had been confined there since October 27, 2010. The case reached the Supreme Court by ordinary appeal from the Court of Appeals.

Facts

On May 2, 2008, the International Justice Mission, a non-governmental organization, coordinated with the police to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City. A team of police operatives was formed, and two officers, PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso, were designated as decoys, pretending to be tour guides looking for girls to entertain their guests. The team rented two adjacent rooms at the Queensland Motel. Room 24 was designated for the transaction, while Room 25 was for the rest of the police team. The organization provided marked money, which was recorded in the police blotter.

The two decoys proceeded to D. Jakosalem Street in Barangay Kamagayan, Cebu City's red light district. Casio noticed them and called their attention by saying, "Chicks mo dong?" meaning, do you like girls, guys? When the officers asked for young girls because they had guests waiting at the motel, Casio told them to wait and said she would get some. After a few minutes, she returned with AAA and BBB, the private complainants. She assured the officers that the girls were good in sex, and when asked how much their services would cost, she replied, "Tag kinientos," or five hundred pesos each. The officers convinced her to come with them to the motel. Inside Room 24, PO1 Veloso handed the marked money to Casio. As she counted the money, PO1 Veloso gave a pre-arranged missed call to the team leader. The rest of the team rushed into Room 24, arrested Casio, informed her of her constitutional rights, and confiscated the marked money from her. AAA and BBB were brought to Room 25 and placed in the custody of the representatives of the organization and the Department of Social Welfare and Development.

AAA testified that she was born on January 27, 1991, as shown by her certificate of live birth, making her seventeen years old at the time. She narrated that she had worked as a prostitute, that she met Casio in Barangay Kamagayan, and that Casio solicited her services for a customer on May 2, 2008, the first time Casio pimped her. Casio denied the charge. She testified that she worked as a laundrywoman and that on the evening in question, while buying supper, two men in a blue car stopped her and asked about someone named Bingbing. She claimed the men told her to tell Gingging to bring companions, and that Gingging later convinced her to come along because she would be given money.

Issues

• Whether or not 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.
• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt even though no evidence was presented to show that she had a history of engaging in human trafficking.
• Whether or not the accused was properly convicted of trafficking in persons, considering that AAA admitted that she worked as a prostitute.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3, paragraph (a), of Republic Act Number 9208 defines trafficking in persons:

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.

This definition supplies the elements of the crime and makes clear that the victim's consent or knowledge does not excuse the trafficker.

Section 4, paragraph (a), of Republic Act Number 9208 enumerates the act charged against Casio:

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.

This is the specific act of trafficking for which Casio was prosecuted.

Section 6 of Republic Act Number 9208 lists the instances of qualified trafficking, including the following:

When the trafficked person is a child.

This qualifying circumstance raised the penalty because one of the trafficked persons was a minor.

Section 3, paragraph (b), of Republic Act Number 9208 defines a child:

Child refers to a person below eighteen years of age or one who is over eighteen but is unable to fully take care of or protect himself or herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.

This definition establishes that AAA, at seventeen years old, was a child at the time of the offense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the entrapment operation was valid. In entrapment, the criminal intent originates from the accused, and the police merely provide the opportunity to commit the crime. In instigation, the police induce the accused to commit a crime she had no intention of committing. The Court applied the objective test and the subjective test discussed in People versus Doria. Under the subjective test, the focus is on the accused's predisposition to commit the offense, her state of mind and inclination before her initial exposure to government agents. Here, the police did not induce Casio; she herself approached the decoys and offered the girls. The absence of prior surveillance did not invalidate the operation, because the offense was committed in the presence of the officers, making the arrest valid.

On the second issue, the Court held that the prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of evidence of a history of trafficking did not matter, because the offense was consummated on the occasion charged. The trial court held that the act of sexual intercourse need not have been consummated, since the mere transaction, meaning the solicitation for sex and the handing over of the marked money, already consummated the act. The Court quoted the trial court:

The act of sexual intercourse need not have been consummated for the mere transaction, that is, the solicitation for sex and the handing over of the bust money of one thousand pesos already consummated the said act.

On the third issue, the Court held that Casio was properly convicted. The victim's consent is not a defense. As defined under Section 3, paragraph (a), of Republic Act Number 9208, trafficking in persons can still be committed even if the victim gives consent. The victim's consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without such means, a minor's consent is not given out of her own free will. The Court found that Casio performed all the elements of the offense when she peddled AAA and BBB and offered their services to the decoys in exchange for money, and that the offense was qualified because the trafficked persons were minors.

Doctrine

The elements of trafficking in persons under Section 3, paragraph (a), of Republic Act Number 9208 are: first, the act of recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders; second, 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 third, the purpose of exploitation, which includes the exploitation or prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.

The victim's consent or knowledge is not a defense. Trafficking in persons may be committed even if the victim consents, and a minor's consent is never given out of free will. The crime is consummated by the mere transaction of soliciting a person for sex and receiving payment, even without sexual intercourse. Entrapment is valid when the criminal intent originates from the accused and the police merely provide the opportunity; it becomes instigation only when the police induce the accused to commit a crime she had no intention of committing. The offense is qualified when the trafficked person is a child, meaning a person below eighteen years of age.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Shirley A. Casio for qualified trafficking in persons, sustaining the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of two million pesos, and the award of one hundred fifty thousand pesos as moral damages to each of the private complainants.

Remember This

Memorize this line: trafficking in persons is committed even if the victim knows about or consents to the act, and the crime is consummated by the mere solicitation and payment, without need of sexual intercourse. Examiners use this case to test the elements of qualified trafficking under Republic Act Number 9208 and the distinction between a valid entrapment and an invalid instigation.