People v Casio- Dec 3,2014
It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against
FACTS: 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:  operations at Jaguar KTV Bar (Jaguar) in Cebu City, and observed that its customers paid P6,000.00
(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;”  "Ann" welcomed customers and offered them GROs.[9]
(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”  paraphernalia, recovery of the marked money from one Jocelyn Balili (Balili),[10] and the rescue of 146
(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:  the minority of EEE and FFF as a qualifying circumstance, not having been substantiated by sufficient
1. When the trafficked person is a child;  certificates... of live birth[24] as additional qualifying circumstance.
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;  knowledge or participated in the recruitment of the 146 women and minors who were rescued at
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.
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).
Vinson Young v People- Feb 3, 2016
FACTS: On separate dates,[8] members of the Regional Anti-Human Trafficking Task Force
(RAHTTF) of the Philippine National Police (PNP), namely, PO2 Lyman N. Arsiia (PO2 Arsua) and
PO2 Napoleon A. Talingting, Jr. (PO2 Talingting, Jr.), among others, conducted... surveillance
in exchange for sexual intercourse with guest relations officers (GROs), or P10,000.00 as "bar fine" if
they were taken out of the establishment. In the course of... their surveillance, they learned that: (a)
petitioners were the owners of Jaguar; (b) a certain "Tico" acted as overall manager; and (c) a certain
On April 9, 2011, in the course of an entrapment operation, PO2 Arsua, PO2 Talingting, Jr., and PO1
Jef Nemenzo (PO1 Nemenzo), acting as poseur customers, handed P15,000.00 worth of marked
money to the "mamasang"/manager of Jaguar in exchange for sexual service. At the... prearranged
signal, the rest of the RAHTTF members raided Jaguar resulting to multiple arrests, seizure of sexual
women and minor children.[11] Later, six (6) of these women - who all worked at Jaguar as GROs,
namely, AAA, BBB, CCC, DDD, EEE, and FFF[12] (AAA Group) - executed affidavits[13] identifying
petitioners, Tico, and Ann as Jaguar's owners.
Accordingly, a criminal complaint for violation of Sections 4 (a) and (e) in relation to Sections 6 (a) and
(c) of RA 9208 was filed against them, before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Cebu City (OCP),
docketed as NPS Docket No. VII-09-INV-IID00605.[14]
In a Resolution[19] dated October 27, 2011, the OCP found probable cause and ordered the indictment
of petitioners, Tico, and Ann for violation of Sections 4 (a) and (e) in relation to Sections 6 (a) and (c) of
RA 9208.
It found that the receipt and subsequent recovery of the marked money from Balili constituted prima
facie evidence that there was a transaction to engage in sexual service for a fee.[20] It also held that
the documentary evidence pertaining to
Jaguar's business operations, as well as the positive identification made by the AAA Group, sufficiently
established petitioners as its owners.
while the OCP ruled that the crime of human trafficking was qualified for being... committed by a
syndicate, or in large scale - carried out by three (3) or more persons - it, however, did not appreciate
and competent evidence... n a Resolution[23] dated April 23, 2012, the OCP modified its previous
ruling and considered the minority of EEE and FFF based on the certified true copies of their
the RTC granted the omnibus motion and dismissed the case for lack of probable cause.[29] It ruled
that the affidavits of the RAHTTF members and the AAA Group failed to show that petitioners had...
Jaguar as sex workers. It also found that the recantations of the AAA Group were fatal to the
prosecution's case, since it effectively cleared petitioners of any knowledge in Jaguar's... operations.
1
the CA found that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case for lack of
probable cause. Consequently, it ordered the reinstatement of the information and remanded the case
to the RTC for... further proceedings.[35] The CA primarily reasoned out that the court a quo failed to
consider the other evidence proffered by the prosecution to support its finding of probable cause, and
that it delved on evidentiary issues in evaluating the... affidavits submitted by the prosecution which are
matters better ventilated during the trial proper than at the preliminary investigation lev
ISSUE: a) whether or not the CA erred in finding grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in
dismissing the criminal case against petitioners for lack of probable cause; and (b) whether or not a
motion for... reconsideration is a prerequisite to filing a certiorari petition.
HELD: The petition is bereft of merit.
Determination of probable cause is either executive or judicial in nature.
The first pertains to the duty of the public prosecutor during preliminary investigation for the purpose of
filing an information in court. At this juncture, the investigating prosecutor evaluates if the facts are
sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has... been committed and that the accused is
probably guilty thereof.[39]
On the other hand, judicial determination of probable cause refers to the prerogative of the judge to
ascertain if a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. At this stage, the judge makes a
preliminary examination of the evidence submitted, and on the strength... thereof, and independent
from the findings of the public prosecutor, determines the necessity of placing the accused under
immediate custody in order liot to frustrate the ends of justice
People v. de Dios- June 6, 2018
FACTS: De Dios was accused of trafficking in persons punishable under Section 4 (a), in relation
to Sections 3 (a) and 6 (a) of R.A. No. 9208, as portion that reads:
That on or about the 29th day of August 2013, in the City of
Marikina, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused EVANGELINE DE DIOS y BARRETO, by means of coercion,
fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of their
vulnerability, for the purpose of exploitation, such as prostitution and other
forms of sexual exploitation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously recruit and harbor, XXX, 3 18 years old, YYY, 23 years old, and
AAA, a minor (16 years old), to engage in or perform sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with different customers upon a monetary consideration,
to the damage and prejudice of the said victims.
That the crime was attended by the qualifying circumstance of
minority, complainant AAA being 16 years of age, and committed in large
scale. 
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Upon arraignment, De Dios pleaded not guilty to the charge. After pre-trial, trial on the
merits ensued. 5
De Dios insists on an acquittal, as she claims that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that she was guilty of the crime of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 3 (a) of R.A.
No. 9208. AAA voluntarily peddled herself near the Marikina bridge for sexual services. De Dios was
regularly seen in the area but only because her house was situated under the bridge. 19 There was no
threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception or abuse of power that was established in the case.
The activities of AAA were never under the monitor or control of De Dios||| (People v. De Dios y
Barreto, G.R. No. 234018, [June 6, 2018])
ISSUE:
HELD:
In this case, the trial and appellate courts gave the same factual findings that
established the foregoing. The prosecution witnesses who testified during the trial included the
minor child AAA, Special Investigator Doriente Durian of the NBI-AHTRAD and Intelligence Agent
Gay of the DOJ-IACAT, whose testimonies matched as to how De Dioscommitted the crime on
the evening of August 29, 2013. AAA, then still a minor, was among the girls offered in the illicit
sexual trade upon the promise of financial gain for their services. The conduct of the entrapment
operation became the culmination of a surveillance operation that was conducted by the NBI-
AHTRAD. It was De Dios who approached and proposed a "gimik" to Gay, and when the latter
pretended to accede to the proposal, De Dios readily accepted prepared marked money as
consideration for the service.
As against the solid evidence presented by the prosecution, only De Dios testified for
her defense. Her denial, however, was uncorroborated and weak. It could not overcome the
weight of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies, especially those given by the investigator of
NBI-AHTRAD and the agent of DOJ-IACAT. Their respective accounts pertained to the discharge
of their official functions presumed under the law to have been regularly performed. They also did
not appear to have any motive to falsely testify against De Dios. 
AAA directly explained the participation of De Dios in her prostitution even prior to the
subject entrapment. De Dios convinced her to join the "gimiks" for the money. She was first lured
to prostitution in May 2012, when De Dios offered her to a male customer and paid her P400.00
for the transaction. Several other transactions transpired thereafter. De Dios would transact with
the customers and then pay AAA each time for her service.
It did not matter that there was no threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception
or abuse of power that was employed by De Dios when she involved AAA in her illicit sexual
trade. AAA was still a minor when she was exposed to prostitution by the prodding, promises and
acts of De Dios. Trafficking in persons may be committed also by means of taking advantage of
the persons' vulnerability as minors, a circumstance that applied to AAA, was sufficiently alleged
in the information and proved during the trial. This element was further achieved through the offer
of financial gain for the illicit services that were provided by AAA to the customers of De Dios.
||| (People v. De Dios y Barreto, G.R. No. 234018, [June 6, 2018])
People v. Pansacala- June 13, 2012
FACTS: The accused were charged as having been engaged in the recruitment and deployment of
workers without having previously obtained from the POEA a license or authority to do so. They
promised employment abroad particularly in Brunei and Malaysia, thus causing and prompting the
persons of BBB and AAA to apply which employment however did not materialize because in truth and
in fact, the promised employment is non-existent, in flagrant violation of the above-mentioned law and
causing damage and prejudice to said complainants. Instead of getting decent jobs, they were forced
to become sex workers to earn money and became prostitutes. The lower court found the accused
guilty of illegal recruitment defined under Section 6 and penalized under Section 7(b) of Republic Act
No. 8042 otherwise known as the ―Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995‖, as
principals by direct participation, committed by a syndicate, against BBB and AAA, and SENTENCES
each of said accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P1,000,000.00
each; to pay each of the above victims P50,000.00 as moral
damages; P300,000.00 as exemplary damages, and to pay the costs. The Court of Appeals affirmed
with modification that the amount of exemplary damages in favor of the victims (private complainants)
to be reduced to P25,000.00 each.
ISSUE: Whether or not the award of damages was proper.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court modified the ruling of the Court of Appeals. It held that Congress
passed R.A. 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act. Such law was approved on 26 May 2003.
Ironically, only a few days after, victims found themselves in a situation that the law had sought to
prevent.
2
In Lalli, the Supreme Court increased the amount of moral and exemplary damages from P50,000 to
P500,000 and from P50,000 to P100,000, respectively, having convicted the accused therein of the
crime of trafficking in persons.
The payment of P500,000 as moral damages and P100,000 as exemplary damages for the crime of
Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute finds basis in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, which states:
Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal
offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
xxx xxx xxx.
The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous case to the crimes of
seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. In fact, it is worse. To be trafficked as a prostitute
without one‘s consent and to be sexually violated four to five times a day by different strangers is
horrendous and atrocious. There is no doubt that Lolita experienced physical suffering, mental
anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and social
humiliation when she was trafficked as a prostitute in
Malaysia. Since the crime of Trafficking in Persons was aggravated, being committed by a syndicate,
the award of exemplary damages is likewise justified.
The Supreme Court found no legal impediment to increasing the award of moral and exemplary
damages in the case at bar. Neither is there any logical reason why we should differentiate between
the victims herein and those in that case, when the circumstances are frighteningly similar. To do so
would be to say that we discriminate one from the other, when all of these women have been the
victims of unscrupulous people who capitalized on the poverty of others. While it is true that accused-
appellant was not tried and convicted of the crime of trafficking in persons, this Court based its award
of damages on the Civil Code, and not on the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, as clearly explained in
Lalli.
Hence the Decision of the Court of Appeals in is affirmed with modifications. Accused-appellant
Bernadette Pansacala a.k.a. ―Neneng Awid‖ is ordered to pay AAA and BBB the sum of P500,000
each as moral damages and P100,000 each as exemplary damages and to pay the costs.

People v Hirang - January 11, 2017

FACTS: Hirang was accused of qualified trafficking by transporting and providing into large scale,
minors for prostitution. The prosecution stated that the minors were invited by Hirang for a good time
and good earning. The NBI had a raid in the ChowKing restaurant where Hirang and some of his
korean friends to whom Hirang was trading the minors, were meeting. Hirang denied being involved in
sexual trade.

ISSUE: Whether or not Hirang committed qualified trafficking

HELD: Yes according to the Sc Hirang committed qualified trafficking based on Sec. 6 of RA 9208.
The law defines trafficking of person as the transportation, receipt or harboring of persons without the
person's consent by the use of force, fraud, coercion, deception, abuse of power or position and taking
advantage of the vulnerabilty of the person. In the case at bar Hirang took advantage of the
vulnerability of the minors through the guarantee of good time and financial gain.