Dear PAO,
My neighbor’s child was rescued from an alleged human trafficker. At the police station, the suspect argued that the child voluntarily agreed to be trafficked in exchange for a large sum of money for the child’s parents. The suspect further claimed that he did not threaten, force, nor coerce the child to go with him. Is this a valid defense?
Lys
Dear Lys,
No, absence of threat, force or coercion is not indispensable to secure a conviction for child trafficking.
Foremost, Section 3(a) of Republic Act 10364, otherwise known as the “Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012,” defines what constitutes human trafficking, to wit:
“(a) Trafficking in persons — refers to the 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 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.
The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes shall also be considered as ‘trafficking in persons’ even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.”
Hence, threat, force or coercion are not the only exclusive modes of trafficking a person. The suspect may also employ fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the victim, or giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over the victim.
In fact, the Supreme Court was confronted with a similar scenario in People vs. Villaria and Maghirang, GR 259133, Dec. 4, 2023; Ponente: Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, where it ruled that:
“The absence of threat, force or coercion is immaterial and irrelevant. Under Section 3(a) of Republic Act 9208, as amended, the crime is still considered trafficking if it involves “the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation” even if the means employed is not within those set forth in the law. At any rate, accused-appellants evidently took advantage of the victims’ youth and needed to earn money to obtain their consent.”
Thus, the gravamen of child trafficking is the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation. The law concludes its consummation even without threat, force or coercion.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net.
