PEOPLE V. SHIRLEY CASIO DECEMBER 3, 2014
BEVERLY MANALILI @ BEBANG SEPTEMBER 14, 2016
Ponente: Justice Leonen
On May 2008, the International Justice Mission coordinated with police to entrap people engaged in
human trafficking in Cebu. The police operatives went undercover, pretending to be tour guides looking
for girls to entertain their guests. They rented rooms at a motel. They were approached by the accused,
Shirley Casio (Casio), who asked them if they wanted girls. When they said yes, she left to go get them.
She returned with 2 girls. They handed over the marked money to the accused. While she was counting
the money, the police operatives miss called the rest of their team as a signal. Casio was arrested and
accused of human trafficking.
One of the girls who the accused brought, AAA, testified that she was acquainted with a Gee Ann when
she was working in a disco club. Gee Ann provided her with customers. Eventually, Gee Ann brought her
to Barangay Kamagayan because there were more customers there. She says that the incident in the
case at hand was the first time she was pimped by Casio. Worth noting is that AAA was a minor at the
time Casio peddled her services.
Casio denied the allegations. Casio says that she was induced by the police. She says that they gave her
their number and told her to bring Gingging and to tell her to bring companions in exchange for money.
She says that there was no valid entrapment, and that she was instigated to commit the crime. She
denied being a pimp and asserted that she was a laundry woman. Also, she says that AAA admitted
engaging in prostitution even before the incident. She therefore concludes that AAA was predisposed to
having sex with customers for money.
However, the court said that Casio’s argument is invalid.
Under RA 1036, the elements of trafficking in persons are:
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 nation borders”.
2. The means used include “by means of threat, or by 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, servitutde, or the
removal or sale of organs”.
Casio was also positively identified by the witnesses, and trafficking can still be committed even if the
victim gives consent. And as to the entrapment, the Court held that there was a valid entrapment. She
was the one who approached the police, not the other way around. She was the one who asked them if
they wanted girls. Therefore, there was no inducement on the part of the police.
Guilty. Life imprisonment and P2M.
PEOPLE V.
Ponente: Justice Perez
AAA ran away from home after finding out she was adopted and after being scolded by her mother.
AAA’s friends told her mother that she was staying at the On Tap Videoke Bar, working as a Guest
Relations Officer. Her mother sought assistance from the Channel 2 TV program “XXX” to regain custody
over AAA. Together, they lodged a complaint with the Southern Police District (SPD) Headquarters of
Taguig City against On Tap Videoke Bar and a task force was created to rescue AAA. After the operation,
AAA was taken to SPD headquarters, together with the accused, Bebang, and 5 others who were
without the necessary Mayor’s and Health Permits. Bebang was charged with a violation of RA 7610,
and the 5 were charged with working without Mayor’s/Health Permit. The Office of the City Prosecutor
charged Bebang with human trafficking instead of RA 7610 because she “recruited and exploited AAA, a
13-year old minor, to work as a GRO in her bar by taking advantage of her vulnerability as a child.”
She filed for bail, since the evidence of guilt was not strong. And the mother of AAA executed an
Affidavit of Desistance when she found out that AAA was merely allowed to stay at the videoke bar
after she ran away from home.
The petition for bail was granted, but in view of the lack of circumstances to support the Affidavit of
Desistance, the same was not appreciated.
On the basis of circumstantial evidence, Bebang was found guilty of Qualified Trafficking in Persons
under Sec 6 of RA 9208. The CA affirmed this decision.
However, the SC said that the circumstantial evidence is not enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
The elements of trafficking in persons are:
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 nation borders”.
2. The means used include “by means of threat, or by 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, servitutde, or the
removal or sale of organs”.
Given that the person allegedly trafficked in the case at bar is a child, we may do away with discussions
on whether or not the second element was actually proven. For the first element, the prosecution
insists that by merely being the registered owner, the accused necessarily committed the act of
recruiting, maintaining or harboring AAA. This contention is misplaced. Being the registered owner per
se does not make one criminally liable for the acts of trafficking committed in the establishment. The
prosecution likewise failed to prove the third element – that the recruiting, maintaining, or harboring of
persons is for the purpose of exploitation. AAA was seen by the prosecution witness at the videoke bar
only on the day the rescue operation was conducted. That AAA was exploited could not be proven by
her mere presence at the videoke bar during the rescue operation.
The appellate court anchored the conviction on the following evidence:
 AAA was at the On Tap Videoke when the police and the crew of the TV program
conducted its rescue operation
 AAA was wearing sexy attire at the time of the rescue.
Circumstantial evidence is deemed sufficient for conviction only if:
1. There is more than one circumstance
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are provesn
3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt
Decision is REVERSED.
Bebang is ACQUITTED.