In catching a suspect, the police can validly resort to entrapment like in a buy bust operation. Sometimes however, the means used is no longer an entrapment but an instigation which may result in the acquittal of an accused. But when is there entrapment and when is there instigation? This case of Sheila explains the difference between the two methods.
Sheila is a resident of a Barangay in a Visayan City which is reputed to be its red light district. She is well known for pimping girls to customers. One of the girls who used to see her pimping girls is Daisy who is just 17 years old.
Daisy used to work as a house helper in another city nearby to help her father but later on transferred to the same city to look for her long time friend Ginny who is working in a disco club. She stayed with her cousin in the city then later on transferred to a boarding house until she finally located her friend Ginny. Upon Ginny’s invitation, Daisy also worked in said Club because she needed money in order to help her father. For a few weeks, Ginny provided customers to Daisy who was paid P200 to have sex with them plus an additional P500.00 as tip.
Later on, Ginny brought Daisy to the same barangay where Shiela resided telling her that there were more customers in that area. At that time a non-governmental organization (NGO) was conducting an operation to entrap persons in human trafficking with the help of the City Police. Thus a team of five police operatives was formed to assist the NGO. The team went to a motel and rented Rooms 12 and 13 which were adjacent to each other. Room 12 was designated for the transaction while Room 13 was the place where the other police operatives stayed. Then with PO1 Dario and PO1 Santos acting as decoys, pretending to be tour guides looking for girls and with marked money provided by the NGO, the team went to a street of the red light district where Sheila noticed them and called their attention by saying “Chicks mo dong” (Do you like girls, guys?).
After a few minutes of conversation between Sheila and the two policemen who told her that the girls must be young because they have guests waiting at the hotel, Sheila told them to wait and she will get the girls. After the police decoys alerted their chief, Sheila returned with Daisy and another 17-year-old girl Lani. Sheila assured the policemen that the two girls were “good at sex” and told the policemen that their services would cost P500.00 each.
So PO1 Dario and Santos convinced Sheila to go with them at the motel and upon proceeding to Rm 24, gave her the marked money. As Sheila counted the money, the rest of the team proceeded to Rm 12, arrested Sheila and informed her of her constitutional rights. They confiscated the marked money as Daisy and Lani were brought to Rm 13 and placed in the custody of the NGO and the DSWD.
Sheila was charged with violation of R.A. 9208, Section 4 (a) qualified by Section 6 (a) otherwise known as the “Anti Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003” for hiring and/or recruiting the minors Daisy and Lani for purposes of prostitution and sexual exploitation by acting as their procurer for different customers for money, profit or any other consideration.”
At the trial Daisy and the police operatives testified reiterating the above events. For her part, Sheila denied being a pimp and asserted that she worked as a laundry woman and was only buying supper when she was stopped by two men on board a blue car who instigated her into committing the crime. In fact according to Sheila, Daisy admitted that she worked as a prostitute, so it was her decision to display herself to solicit customers.
But the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found her guilty beyond reasonable as charged and sentenced her to suffer imprisonment of twenty years and pay a fine of P1,000,000.00 This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) which even increased the penalty to life imprisonment and imposed an additional P150,000 moral damages.
On further appeal to the Supreme Court (SC), said decisions were affirmed even increasing the moral damages to P500,000 and imposing exemplary damages of P100,000.
The SC ruled that Shiela performed all the elements in the commission of trafficking in persons when she peddled Daisy and Lani and offered their services to the police decoys in exchange for money. The offense was also qualified because the trafficked persons were minors as they were below 18 years old. Even if the minor victim gives her consent, such consent is not given out of her own free will. The act of sexual intercourse need not have been consummated for the mere solicitation for sex and the handing over of the bust money of P1,000 already consummated the act.
There is no instigation by the police here because it was Shiela who commenced the transaction with PO1 Dario and Santos by calling their attention on whether they wanted girls for that evening, and when the officers responded, it was Shiela who told them to wait as she would fetch the girls. In instigation, the law officers conceive the commission of the crime and suggest to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution. So there was a valid entrapment here the idea and the resolve to commit the crime comes from Shiela (People vs.Casio, G.R. 211465, December 3, 2014).
E-mail: attyjosesison@gmail.com
(The Philippine Star) | Updated
No comments:
Post a Comment