Guerrero III, Wilfredo Vivencio, O.

20200110610
1.

The elements of trafficking in persons can be derived from its definition under Section 3 (a)
of Republic Act No. 9208, thus: (1) 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." (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."

In a case, each of the accused is sentenced to suffer the sentence of life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of P 500,000 and each of the accused is ordered to pay the victim, jointly and
severally, a sum of P 500,000 as moral damages and P100,000 as exemplary damages for the
crime of trafficking in persons; and to pay the costs.

2.
Illegal recruitment becomes a crime of economic sabotage if it is either committed by a
syndicate or it is carried out in a large scale, as defined under Article 38 of the Labor Code, as
amended. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a syndicate if and when it is carried out
by a group of 3 or more persons conspiring and or confederating with one another in carrying
out any unlawful transaction, enterprise or scheme defined under PAR A of said Art 38. On
the other hand, illegal recruitment is deemed committed in a large scale, under Art 38, in
relation to Art 13 b of the Labor Code if and when it is committed against three or more
persons individually or as a group.

Under Sec 7 of RA 8042, the penalty for illegal recruitment, which is tantamount to economic
sabotage is life imprisonment and a fine ranging from 500K to 1 million. Also, under Sec 6 of
RA 10022, Amending Sec 7 of RA 8042, the penalty for illegal recruitment tantamount to
economic sabotage is life imprisonment and a fine ranging from 2M to 5M.

3.
The Supreme Court specifically declared that it does not constitute double jeopardy. The two
crimes are penalized by different laws and they have different set of elements. Estafa is a
malum per se while illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum.
4.
a) No. The accused cannot interpose the defense that she did not collect any placement fee
from any of the victim. Under Article 13 b of the Labor Code, illegal recruitment undertaken
by a non-licensee or non-holder of authority means any act of transporting, hiring, enlisting,
canvassing, referral, including services promising, advertising and contracting workers
locally or abroad whether for profit or not.

b) No. Good faith is not a defense. Illegal recruitment is considered a malum prohibitum and
is thus covered by special law, and as a rule, intent is not necessary. Since illegal recruitment
is a malum prohibitum, good faith is not a defense.

5. No. Even if the accused can present a valid license to recruit and authority to operate a
modeling agency, this would not justify her acquittal.

Under Article 38 in relation to Article 13 b of the Labor Code as amended, an individual or

entity, who is a holder of a license or authority is guilty of illegal recruitment when he
performs any of the acts prohibited under Art 34 of the Code or those under Sec 6 of RA 8042
or Sec 5 of RA 10022.

Here the prohibited practice committed by Margarita Pia Horseback under Art 34 of the
Labor Code is engaging in the recruitment or replacement of workers in jobs harmful to
public health or morality. Here, the recruitment of young female teenage models to work as
entertainers and tour guides for rich matrons and gays and the replacement of children for the
purposes of taking out their kidneys can be considered as jobs harmful to public health or
morality.

6.
If I were the lawyer of the accused, the defense that I would interpose to save her from
conviction or lower her penalty is that Ms. Horseback indeed has job orders from Tokyo and
Bangkok. I would also raise the defense that she could no longer be held liable because the
relationship with the foreign employer has already lapsed.