Entrapment or instigation

R.A. 9208 punishes “Qualified Trafficking of Persons” or the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage, by any means or under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship. This is illustrated in this case of Jason. Also explained here is the difference between entrapment which is an acceptable means of catching the accused and instigation, which can be used by the accused as a defense.

Jason is a known human trafficker who acquires girls through secret manipulation especially using the internet. Among his minor victims in his prostitution activities are Bea, her younger sister Carla, Annalyn and Leklek.

Bea was 17 years old when she visited her sister Carla at the house of Ka Indang, the mother of Leklek, Carla’s best friend. There she saw Jason who invited her to come with him in a meeting with some Koreans that evening. So later in the evening at about 8 p.m., Bea went back to the house of Ka Indang to meet Jason. It was then when Jason sold Bea along with Annalyn, Carla and Leklek to his Korean customers for sexual activities. He told the girls that they would receive P5,000 after a “gimik” with the Koreans at a restaurant. He instructed the girls to tell the Koreans that they were 16 years of age as this was their customers’ preferred age. When the group arrived at the restaurant, Jason talked to a Korean and then introduced the girls to him. The Korean handed the money to Jason and while he was counting it, the NBI agents arrived at the scene and arrested Jason while a social worker brought the girls to the NBI for their statements.

The raid was conducted following a prior investigation of agents of the International Justice Mission (IJM), a non-profit organization based in USA that renders legal services. Its agents here gathered data on human trafficking after learning that Jason was selling minors for prostitution. Jason was introduced by a confidential informant to NBI agents Patrick and Eric who posed as a travel agency employee having Korean friends. They agreed to meet at a restaurant where Eric introduced Jason to Patrick who introduced himself as a Korean studying English in Manila. Then they agreed to meet again as Patrick and Eric asked for assistance from the police who agreed to conduct the entrapment operation that resulted in the arrest and charging of Jason for violation of R.A. 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.

At the trial the four girls testified and narrated to the court the various sexual activities and acts of prostitution they underwent at Jason’s instigation. For his defense Jason denied dealing in sexual trade. He claimed that he was self employed and was caught only upon instigation of Eric and Patrick.

But the RTC still convicted Jason of violating Section 6, R.A. 9208 and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and pay a fine of P2 million. This ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). So Jason still appealed to the Supreme Court (SC) contending that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt and that he was only instigated by the NBI agents to commit the crime.

The SC however, still affirmed the ruling of the CA. The SC said that the Information sufficiently alleged the recruitment and transportation of minor victims for sexual activities and exploitation with the offender taking advantage of the vulnerability of the young girls through guarantee of good time and financial gains. Jason’s guilt is pursuant to Section 6, of R.A. 9208 as it was committed in a large scale because it has more than three victims below 18 years of age. The presence of the elements of the crime was established by the prosecution witnesses who testified during the trial especially the victims themselves who told their respective ages and narrated how they were lured by Jason with the help of Aling Indang to participate in his illicit sex trade. The NBI agents and the Police themselves personally witnessed Jason’s unlawful activity as they conducted the entrapment operation. The supposed inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies pertained to minor details that could not, in any case, negate Jason’s unlawful activity and violation of R.A. 9208.

Jason was not instigated to commit the crime but was merely entrapped because he has been engaged in illicit activities leading young women into prostitution and the police merely employed means for his capture. Entrapment is an acceptable means to capture a wrongdoer. It is different from instigation which is a means by which the accused is lured into the commission of the offense in order to prosecute him. On the other hand, entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping and capturing a lawbreaker. Here the criminal intent or the design to commit the offense originates in the mind of the accused. The law enforcement officers merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing ruses and schemes. Instigation is a trap for the unwary innocent while entrapment is a trap for the unwary criminal. So the decision of the CA is affirmed with the modification that the victims are entitled to moral damages of P500,000 and exemplary damages of P100,000 each (People vs. Hirang, G.R. 223528, January 11, 2017)

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]