People of the Philippines v.

Casio
G.R. No. 211465 December 3, 2014

Facts: On May 2, 2008, International Justice Mission (IJM), a nongovernmental organization, coordinated with the
police in order to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City. Chief PSI George Ylanan, SPO1
Felomino Mendaros, SPO1 Fe Altubar, PO1 Albert Luardo, and PO1 Roy Carlo Veloso composed the team of police
operatives, Luardo and Veloso were designated as decoys, pretending to be tour guides looking for girls to
entertain their guests. IJM provided them with marked money, which was recorded in the police blotter. The team
went to Queensland Motel and rented adjacent Rooms 24 and 25. Room 24 was designated for the transaction
while Room 25 was for the rest of the police team. PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso proceeded to D. Jakosalem Street
in Barangay Kamagayan, Cebu City’s red light district where the accused noticed them and called their attention.
Negotiation occured and upon the signal, the accused was arrested and the two minors were taken into custody by
the DSWD officials.

Issue: Whether or not accused is liable for trafficking of persons.

Held: Yes. 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”

The Court of Appeals 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.66 to work as a
prostitute because she needed money. AAA also stated that she agreed Accused took advantage of AAA’s
vulnerability as a child and as one who need money, as proven by the testimonies of the witnesses.

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

“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.”

Accused is further guilty of qualified trafficking. SEC. 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons.— The following are
considered as qualified trafficking: 

1. When the trafficked person is a child; 

2. 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; 
3. 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; 
4. 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; 
5. When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of the military or law
enforcement agencies; 
6. When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies; and 
7. 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).

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JHELSON AGUIRRE, MICHAEL ARRABIT & JEFFERSON PARALEJAS
 G.R. No. 219952, November 20, 2017

TIJAM, J.:

Facts: Accused-appellants and accused Jeffrey Roxas were charged with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under
Republic Act No. (RA) 9208, in relation to violation of RA 7610, for recruiting, transporting, harboring, providing or
receiving, in conspiracy with one another, ten girls, including seven minors, for purposes of prostitution and sexual
exploitation. Private complainants testified that they were convinced by accused-appellants to go swimming and
drinking, and to have sex, with foreigners in exchange for money and/or shabu.

Testifying for their own defense, accused-appellants and Roxas denied the charge. They claimed that they were
each simply invited to a swimming and drinking party.

The RTC convicted accused-appellants of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons and sentenced each of them
to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of ₱2 million, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency.

Issue: Whether or not RTC’s imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine is proper.

Ruling: No, the imposition is not proper. Under paragraph 3, Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code, it provides that
“when the principal penalty imposed is higher than prision correccional, no subsidiary imprisonment shall be
imposed upon the culprit. Since accused-appellants were each sentenced to life imprisonment, the RTC's
imposition of subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine, as affirmed by the CA, is improper.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that prescribed by law, nor with any other
circumstances or incidents than those expressly authorized thereby.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of, which affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants
Jehlson Aguirre, Michael Arabit and Jefferson Paralejas y Pigtain for the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons, as
rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 106.