Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

People v Lalli

Gr no. 195491
On June 4, 2005, aA was invited by Ronnie and Rachel Aringoy to work in Malaysia
as restaurant entertainer. She was told that all she needs is a passport and she will
be paid 7,000 pesos in Philippine currency.
On June 5, Ronnie went to see A and asked if the latter has a passport. Having no
necessary documents and a passport, A mentioned to Ronnie that she will borrow
her sisters passport. Ronnie introduced to Lalli who processed her papers and later
on set to go to Malaysia together with Lalli.
Upon arrival in Malaysia in the morning on June 7, 2005, A and her companions were
brought to the restaurant which turned out to be a prostitution den. They told Lalli
that they dont want to work as prostitutes. They were later on forced to transfer to
a Pipen club owned by a Chinese Malay . A was then forced to work as an
entertainer and forced to have sexual intercourse with the customers.
WON Lalli and her co-accused are guilty of syndicate illegal recruitment
Yes. Trafficking in Persons under section 3 (a) and 4(a) of RA 9208 is not only limited
to transportation of victims but includes the act of recruitment of victims for
trafficking. In this case, since it has been sufficiently proven that all three accused
conspired and confederated with one another to illegally recruit AAA to become a
prostitute in Malaysia, it follows that they are also guilty of the crime of Qualified
trafficking in persons committed by a syndicate under RA 9208 because the crime
of recruitment for prostitution also constitutes trafficking.
G.R. No. 211465, December 03, 2014, SECOND DIVISION, (Leonen, J.)
Trafficking in persons can still be committed even if the victim gives consent.
International Justice Mission (IJM) coordinated with the police in order to entrap
persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City. A team of police operatives were
designated as decoys, pretending to be tour guides looking for girls to entertain
their guests. The team went to Queensland Motel and rented Rooms 24 and 25.
These rooms were adjacent to each other. Room 24 was designated for the
transaction while Room 25 was for the rest of the police team. The team proceeded
to D. Jakosalem Street in Barangay Kamagayan, Cebu Citys red light district. Shirley
Casio noticed them and called their attention by saying Chicks mo dong? (Do you
like girls, guys?). The police operatives told Casio that they have a guests waiting in
the hotel. After a few minutes, accused returned with AAA and BBB The team
convinced Casio to come with them to Queensland Motel and was soon arrested by
police operatives. The trial court found Casio guilty of violating R.A. 9208, otherwise
known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003. Casio argues that there was
no valid entrapment. Instead, she was instigated into committing the crime. The

police did not conduct prior surveillance and did not even know who their subject
was. She denied being a pimp and asserted that she was a laundrywoman. In
addition, AAA admitted that she worked as a prostitute. Thus, it was her decision to
display herself to solicit customers.

ISSUES: 1. Is Casio liable under of R.A. 9208?

There is a valid entrapment .There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses
and schemes to ensure the apprehension of the criminal while in the actual
commission of the crime. There is instigation when the accused is induced to
commit the crime. The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the
criminal intent. In entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the
criminal. The idea and the resolve to commit the crime come from him. In
instigation, the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to
the accused that adopts the idea and carries it into execution .
Vinson Young V PEOPLE
G.R. NO. 213910
On separate dates, members of Regional- Anti- Human trafficking task force
conducted surveillance operations at Jaguar KTV bar, Cebu City and observed that
its customers paid 6,000 in exchange for sexual intercourse with the GROs or
10,000 as bar fine if taken out outside the establishments. In the course of their
investigations, they learned that the (a) the petitioners are owners of the bar and
(b) a certain Tico acts as the manager and (c) a certain Ann welcomed customers
and offered them GROs.
O April 9, 2011, in the course of their entrapment operation, The some of the
operatives acting as poseur buyers, handed down marked money to the manager in
exchange for sexual intercourse. The rest of the task force then entered into the bar
upon signal resulting to the arrests of the bar owner, the manager and 146 women
including those under the age of 18.
WON they are guilty of violating RA 9208
Sec. 4 (a) and (e) in relation to section 6 (a) and (c)?
Yes. A punctilious examination reveals that the prosecution has established a prima
facie case against petitioners. As it appears on records, Petitioners hired a group of
women and maintained them under Jaguar KTV bar for the purpose of engaging