CONSOLIDATED MOTION

FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION

OF PROBABLE CAUSE
AND
TO SUSPEND ISSUANCE
OF WARRANTS OF ARREST

Accused ANDREW S. LABAO, by counsel, respectfully states:

1. The Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP), in its resolutions, held

as follows:

a) The dispositive portion of the Joint Resolution in NPS DOCK Nos.

11G-00401, 11G-00403 & 11H-00457, prepared by Deputy Provincial
Prosecutor Juditho J. Agan, reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is hereby

recommended that Informations for violation of Section 4 (a), in
relation to Section 3 (a), qualified under Section 6 (c) and (g) with
respect to the complaint of Wetina P. Romano, all of Republic Act
No. 9208 be filed against respondent Andrew S. Labao in the
Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental. Thus, one Information shall
be filed with respect to the complainants in NPS Docket No. 11G-
00401, except with respect to complainant Wetina P. Romano
wherein another Information shall be filed against the same
respondent. A third Information shall be filed with respect to the
complainants in NPS Docket No. 11G-00403 also against respondent
Andrew S. Labao. And a fourth Information shall be filed with
respect to the complainants in NPS Docket No. 11-H00457 still
against respondent Andrew S. Labao. xxx”

b) The dispositive portion of the Resolution in NPS DOCK No. 11G-

00405, prepared by Associate Provincial Prosecutor Joseph R. Cortes,
reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered and considering that the

crime is committed in a large scale, it is recommended that an
information for the crime of QUALIFIED TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS
against Andrew Labao be filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Bais City. xxx”

c) The dispositive portion of the Joint Resolution in NPS DOCK. No.

11G-00404, prepared by Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Eugene D. Salon,

1
 reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, let therefore an

information for the crime of Violation of Section 4 (a) of republic
Act 9208 be immediately filed against respondent Andrew Labao
with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, Bais City, which has
jurisdiction over the case.”

2. Based on the foregoing, accused is charged with several counts of

violation of Republic Act 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act,
particularly Sections 4 (a) thereof, which provides:

“Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be unlawful for

any person, natural or juridical, to commit any of the following acts:

(a) 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;” (underlining supplied)

Pertinently, Section 3 (a) of RA 9208 defines “Trafficking in Persons” in

the following manner:

“Section 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act:

(a) 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 person, 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.” (underlining supplied)

Hence, “Trafficking in Persons” has the following essential elements:

a) There is recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or

receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge;

b) 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; and

2
 c) For the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage.

3. Despite the finding of probable cause against him after the preliminary
investigation, accused respectfully invokes the Court’s authority to
“immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause” (Section 6 [a], Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure).

4. All the complaints in these cases were referred to by the Chief of

Police of Ayungon Police Station, Ayungon, Negros Oriental. Attached to all the
referral letters is the Joint Affidavit dated August 25, 2011 of several officers of
the Philippine National Police (PNP). The Joint Affidavit, in turn, incorporates
the following documents:

“a. Letter request of Michael D San Pedro, liaison officer PESCA

Maharlika Marine Resources Incorporated requesting the Department of
Labor (DOLE), Negros Oriental for inspection and verification of Andrew
Labao’s group and further requested the issuance of clearance of Pa-aling
fishworkers. (Hereto attached the machine copy of the request letter of
Michael D San Pedro marked as ANNEX “A”)

b. Certification letter, certifying that PESCA Maharlika Marine

Resources Incorporated (Master Fisherman Andrew Labao) fishermen-
recruits were verified and found to be employable age. (Hereto attached
machine copy of the letter from the DOLE 7, Cebu City duly signed by
Chief, LEO Atty. Jose B. Ogang, CPA marked as ANNEX “B”).

c. Certification from the Department of Agriculture, Bureau of

Fishers and Aquatic Resources, Diliman, Quezon City, informing Maestro
Andrew Labao on board F/V Unity Neptune owned by Pesca Maharlika
Marine Resources, Incorporated that their applications for Paaling
Fishworkers License is under process. (Hereto attached the machine copy
of the certification signed by FRO1 Peter M. Cadapan, BFAR inspector
marked as ANNEX “C”)”

The Joint Affidavit and the documents enumerated above are attached to
this Motion as Annexes “1” to “4.”

Hence, no less than the police officers who signed the Joint Affidavit,
Annex “1,” confirm that the subject fishing expeditions had gone through the
regular government regulations, processes and inspections. In fact, Regie
Cuizon, Israel Hermino, Joel Marino, Henry Balbon, Julito Deguit, and Wilboy

3
Deguit, the complainants in NPS Docket No. 11H-00457, admitted that the fishing
expedition proceeded only after the checking conducted by the Department of
Labor and Employment (DOLE), the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
(BFAR), and the Philippine Coast Guard (PGC). Said complainants admitted in
their Joint Affidavit, Annex “5,” that:

“8. Last July 15, 2010 at around 9:00 pm, we departed Calag-
calag, Ayungon, Negros Oriental on board a fishing vessel bound for Sitio
Capaclan, Sibulan, Negros Oriental for the final checking to be conducted
by the Department of Labor and Employment (Dole), Bureau of Fisheries
and Aquatic Resources and Philippine Coast Guard based in Tandayag,
Amian, Negros Oriental;

9. After the said checking, we proceeded to Palawan for a ten (10)

months fishing expedition;” (underlining supplied)

Clearly, there is no human trafficking to speak of; otherwise, the fishing

expeditions would not have gone through the regular government inspections, as
the police officers and complainants themselves admitted. This also shows that
there is a legal fishing operation, not a syndicate to exploit complainants.

5. As to the means of the supposed trafficking in persons, the OPP held

that accused recruited complainants by taking advantage of their vulnerability
and by enticement (see Agan Joint Resolution, p. 8; Cortes Resolution, p. 5;
Salon Resolution, p. 5).

The finding of recruitment by taking advantage of vulnerability and

enticement is baseless. Merely giving cash advances between P3,000 to P4,000
is not taking advantage of complainants’ supposed vulnerability or enticement.
Felix Gudio and Jovan Romano, members of the fishing expedition and
complainants in NPS Docket No. 11G-00402, admitted in their Joint Affidavit,
Annex “6,” that “said amount will be deducted from our income within the
period of ten (10) months” (par. 2). Other members of the fishing crew in the
persons of Nestor Dagle, Rennier Bulahan, Roche Rusiana, Bantolome Dagodog
and Wennie Deguit, complainants in NPS Docket No. 11G-00405, also admitted
in their Joint Affidavit, Annex “7,” that the advances “will be paid later through
services rendered” (par. 4). In fact, the OPP itself found that “the amount they
received will be deducted from their salaries during the expedition” (Salon
Resolution, p. 5). How can the mere giving of cash advances then be considered
as taking advantage of the vulnerability of persons or enticement when there

4
was an understanding that they will be deducted from complainants’ salaries? In
any case, there is no allegation, much less proof, that complainants were forced
or compelled to receive the cash advances prior to the fishing expeditions. And
there is also no allegation, much less proof, that complainants were prevented
from refusing to accept the cash advances and from joining the fishing
expedition. At most, the release of cash advances was a way of helping
complainants to sustain their families while they were away. This is surely not a
crime.

6. As to the purpose of the supposed trafficking in persons, the OPP held

that complainants were subjected to “forced labor and slavery” or “labor
exploitation” (see Agan Resolution, p. 8; Cortes Resolution, p. 5; Salon
Resolution, p. 6) and “debt bondage” (Agan Resolution, p. 8).

Section 3 of RA 9208 defines “forced labor and slavery” and “debt

bondage” as follows:

“(d) Forced Labor and Slavery - refer to the extraction of work or

services from any person by means of enticement, violence, intimidation
or threat, use of force or coercion, including deprivation of freedom,
abuse of authority or moral ascendancy, debt-bondage or deception.”

“(g) Debt Bondage - refers to the pledging by the debtor of his/her

personal services or labor or those of a person under his/her control as
security or payment for a debt, when the length and nature of services is
not clearly defined or when the value of the services as reasonably
assessed is not applied toward the liquidation of the debt.”

The finding of forced labor and slavery is baseless. Indisputably, accused

hired the services of complainants to join in fishing expeditions. These fishing
operations are legal and aboveboard and had passed through government rules
and regulations and procedures, as the police investigators and complainants
admitted. The supposed enticement of extending cash advances before
complainants joined the fishing operations could hardly be considered as
“enticement” as a means to extract work or services to constitute “forced labor
and slavery,” as defined under Section 3 (d) of RA 9208. Notably, there is even
no credible proof that complainants were forced to accept the work or that they
were prevented from leaving their work. The discussions below will further show
that the finding of forced labor and slavery is not only baseless but false.

5
 The finding of debt bondage is also baseless. The definition of debt
bondage under Section 3 (g) of RA 9208 requires three (3) elements, namely: a)
there is a debtor, b) the debtor, as security or payment of his debt, pledges his
personal services or the services of a person under his control, and c) the length
and nature of services is not clearly defined or the value of the services is not
applied toward the liquidation of the debt (see Agan Resolution, p. 6).

As discussed earlier, the cash advances are merely advances, which, as

complainants admitted, will be deducted from their monthly income from the
fishing expedition. This is an accepted business practice, which employees may
avail at their option and convenience. If merely giving cash advances is a crime,
employers extending cash advances only to assist their employees are at the
constant risk of being incarcerated. Definitely, RA 9208 does intend this
situation to happen.

Debt bondage, as defined under RA9208, requires that complainants

should have pledged their services as “security or payment” for their cash
advances. But, again, there is no allegation, much less proof, of this. What
complainants claim is that the cash advances made it difficult for them to
resign, thus:

a) Randy Acebes and Rafee Deguit, complainants in NPS Docket No. 11G-
00401, state in their Joint Affidavit, Annex “8,” that “[t]he grant of cash
advances xxx made it difficult for us to resign from our work xxx” (par. 4);

b) Anaden Pastor, complainant in NPS Docket No. 11G-00401, states in his

Affidavit, Annex “9,” that “[t]he cash advances xxx deprived us the liberty to
resign from our work xxx” (par. 1); and

c) Pely Barrera, Jose Charito Bulahan, Regie Bahandi, Joel Devero and
Gelbert Bahandi, complainants in NPS Docket No. 11G-00403, state in their Joint
Affidavit, Annex “10,” that “[t[he cash advances placed us in a debt bondage
situation which deprives us the liberty to resign xxx” (par. 2).

But, in uniformly saying that the cash advances made it difficult for them
to resign, complainants are merely speculating as none of them ever alleged,
much less proved, that they wanted and actually tried to resign but were

6
prevented from doing so. Likewise, none of the complainants alleged, much less
proved, that they were forced to work after receiving the cash advances.
Instead, some complainants admitted having joined accused in his several fishing
expeditions. Felix Gudio and Jovan Romano, complainants in NPS Docket No.
11G-00402 admitted in their Joint Affidavit, Annex “6,” that they have been
“working in Royal Fishing Corporation for more or less five (5) years” (par. 2).
Also, Pery Barrera, complainant in NPS Docket No. 11G-00403 admitted that she
“joined the fishing expedition for three (3) consecutive trips” (Joint Affidavit,
par. 3, Annex “10”). These admissions, hence, undisputed facts, belie human
trafficking against accused.

The following undisputed facts, which the OPP did not consider, further
belie the charge of human trafficking:

a) Randy Acebes and Rafee Deguit, complainants in NSP Docket No. 11G-
00401 admitted in their Joint Affidavit, Annex “8,” that “some of us took loans
from Maestro Andrew Labao which we sent to our respective families via cuarta
padala every after forty five (45) days of fishing” (par. 7);

b) Pely Barrera, Jose Charito Bulahan, Regie Bahandi, Joel Devero and
Gelbert Bahandi, complainants in NPS Docket No. 11G-00403, admitted in their
Joint Affidavit, Annex “10,” that they “were given chances of having a sideline,
by drying some remaining fish, once it was already dried “MAESTRO” ANDREW
LABAO will be the one to buy at thirty pesos (Php 30.00) per kilo” (par. 5); and

c) Nestor Dagle, Rennier Bulahan, Roche Rusiana, Bantolome Dagodog

and Wennie Deguit, complainants in NPS Docket No. 11G-00402, also admitted in
their Joint Affidavit, Annex “7,” that “[a]fter several days on fishing expedition
in high seas or near international waters, our fishing boat will anchor in one of
the islands of Palawan to spend holidays, then back” (par. 7).

Complainants’ above admissions are clear proof that that they were under
no compulsion, threat, intimidation or violence to join and stay in the fishing
expeditions, thereby belying the charge of violation of RA 9208.

Debt bondage, as defined under RA 9208, also requires that the length
and nature of services is not clearly defined or the value of the services is not
applied toward the liquidation of the debt.

7
 The record shows that the length and nature of services is clearly defined,
thus:

a) Nestor Dagle, Rennier Bulahan, Roche Rusiana, Bantolome Dagodog

and Wennie Deguit, complainants in NPS Docket No. 11G-00405, also admitted in
their Joint Affidavit, Annex “7,” admitted that they “worked as cooks and
Pescadores for ten (10) months in the fishing boat under maestro ANDREW
LABAO’S direct control and supervision xxx” (par. 6);

b) Joel Rusiana, Josie Rusiana, Ricardo Rio, Prudencio Anadon, Jopepl

dela Torre, Jerry Cadorna, Ignacio Deguit, Ryan Bahandi, Garven Cadorna, Chito
Deguit, Jelly Bahandi, Alvin Tiango and Jepe Ballovar, complainants in NPS
Docket No. 11G-00406 admitted in their Joint Affidavit, Annex “11,” that
“[a]fter ten (10) months, we returned to Panlaitan, Busuangan, Palawan, then
we went home to Ayungon, Negros Oriental” (par. 7);

c) Regie Cuizon, Israel Hermino, Joel Marino, Henry Balbon, Julito

Deguit, and Wilboy Deguit, the complainants in NPS Docket No. 11H-00457,
admitted in their Joint Affidavit, Annex “5,” that they “proceeded to Palawan
for a ten (10) months fishing expedition” (par. 9).

And after the end of each fishing operation, complainants admitted that
they went home to their families without anybody restraining their movements
or liberty or at least giving any condition for their going home:

a) Felix Gudio and Jovan Romano, complainants in NPS Docket No. 11G-
00402, admitted in their Joint Affidavit, Annex “6,” that they “went home on
board the ship owned by Royal Fishing Corporation and arrived Barangay
Calagcalag, Ayungon Negros Oriental in the morning of May 29, 2011 xxx” (par.
6);

b) Pely Barrera, Jose Charito Bulahan, Regie Bahandi, Joel Devero and
Gelbert Bahandi, complainants in NPS Docket No. 11G-00403, admitted in their
Joint Affidavit, Annex “10,” that “[a]fter the tenth (10th) month, we went home
waiting and expecting a bigger and better income”(par. 9);

c) Dario Faciol, Enjito Cariaga and Benjie Patrimonio, complainants in

NPS Docket No. 11G-00404, admitted in their Joint Affidavit, Annex “12,” that

8
“on May 30, 2011 our contract end and we all went home on board the fishing
vessel for Calagcalag, Ayungon, Negros Oriental” (par. 5); and

d) Joel Rusiana, Josie Rusiana, Ricardo Rio, Prudencio Anadon, Jopepl

dela Torre, Jerry Cadorna, Ignacio Deguit, Ryan Bahandi, Garven Cadorna, Chito
Deguit, Jelly Bahandi, Alvin Tiango and Jepe Ballovar, complainants in NPS
Docket No. 11G-00406 admitted in their Joint Affidavit, Annex “11,” that
“[a]fter ten (10) months, we returned to Panlaitan, Busuangan, Palawan, then
we went home to Ayungon, Negros Oriental” (par. 7).

The record also shows that application of the value of services rendered
to the supposed debts – another element of debt bondage – is missing because
complainants admitted that payment for the cash advances were taken from
their incomes. Pely Barrera, Jose Charito Bulahan, Regie Bahandi, Joel Devero
and Gelbert Bahandi, complainants in NPS Docket No. 11G-00403, admitted in
their Joint Affidavit, Annex “10,” that “ we were informed that we have already
an income and further he (MAESTRO ANDREW) told us that we have already paid
our cash advances” (par. 8).

7. The foregoing shows that the evidence on record clearly fails to

establish probable cause because no less than complainants’ material
admissions, cited above, exonerate accused from the unfounded charges of
human trafficking. Hence, accused prays for the immediate dismissal of the
case, consistent with Section 6 (a) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure:

“Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.

– (a) By the Regional Trial Court. – Within ten (10) days from the
filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate
the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may
immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to
establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a
warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been
arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the
preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was filed
pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. Incase of doubt on the existence of
probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved
by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint of
information.” (underlining supplied)

9
 8. Consequently, pending the resolution of this Motion, accused
respectfully prays for the deferment of the issuance of warrants of arrest.

WHEREFORE, accused respectfully prays as follows:

1. The IMMEDIATE DISMISSAL of the charges as the evidence on record

fails to establish probable cause; and

2. Pending the resolution of his Motion, DEFER the issuance of warrants

of arrest.

He also prays for such other reliefs, just and equitable under the
premises.

________________
Counsel

Notice of Hearing

______________
______________

Please be on notice that accused will submit the foregoing motion to the
Court for its consideration and resolution on _________ at __________.

________________

Copy furnished:

_____________
_____________

10