UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS – LEGAZPI

COLLEGE OF LAW
Penaranda Campus
Penaranda St., Legazpi City

Arguments of the Accused

(Legal Techniques and Logic)

JOYCE AMARA B. VOSOTROS, MBA

Submitted by
G.R. No. 211465 December 3, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-apallee
vs.
SHIRLEY A. CASIO, Accused- Appellan,

Arguments of the Accused

The sole issue raised by accused is whether the prosecution was able to prove her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt. However, based on the arguments raised in accused’s brief, the sole issue maybe
dissected into the following:

1) Whether the entrapment operation conducted by the police was valid, considering that there
was no prior surveillance and the police did not know the subject of the operation;
2) Whether the prosecution was able to prove accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt even
though there was no evidence presented to show that accused has a history of engaging in
human trafficking; and
3) Whether accused was properly convicted of trafficking in persons, considering that AAA
admitted that she works as a prostitute.

For the first issue, the court considers the nature of the police activity involved and the propriety of
police conduct. The inquiry is focused on the inducements used by government agents, on police
conduct, not on the accused and his predisposition to commit the crime. For the goal of the defense is
to deter unlawful police conduct. The test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law
enforcement agent was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is ready
and willing, to commit the offense; for purposes of this test, it is presumed that a law-abiding person
would normally resist the temptation to commit a crime that is presented by the simple opportunity to
act unlawfully. The defense contends that there was no valid entrapment. Instead, the accused was
instigated into committing the crime. The police did not conduct prior surveillance and did not even
know who their subject was. Neither did the police know the identities of the alleged victims. The
accused further argues that the in our jurisprudence, courts usually apply the objective test in
determining the whether there was an entrapment operation or an instigation. However, the use of
objective test should not preclude courts from also applying the subjective test. The accused pointed
out that applying the "subjective" test it is worth invoking that accused appellant procures income
from being a laundry woman. The prosecution had not shown any proof evidencing accused-
appellant’s history in human trafficking or engagement in any offense. She is not even familiar to the
team who had has been apprehending human traffickers for quite some time. Accused contends that
using the subjective test, she was clearly instigated by the police to commit the offense. She denied
being a pimp and claimed that she earned her living as a laundrywoman.

We further argue that under subjective test, the accused should be acquitted because the prosecution
did not present evidence that would prove she had a history of engaging in human trafficking or any
other offense. She denied being a pimp and asserted that she was a laundry woman. In addition, AAA
admitted that she world as prostitute. Thus, it was her decision to display herself to solicit customers.

Therefore, I submit, with the given facts and supporting jurisprudence above that the accused is not
guilty of the crime.