PAGES Philippine Report on the Prosecution of Trafficking in Persons Cases 2003-2013 28 February 2014

8/18/2019 PAGES Philippine Report on the Prosecution of Trafficking in Persons Cases 2003-2013 28 February 2014

1/104

PHILIPPINE REPORT ON THE

PROSECUTION OF TRAFFICKING IN

PERSONS CASES: 2003-2013

www.humanwrongs.org

http://www.iacat.net

© 2013 Inter-Agency Council Against Tra! cking (IACAT)

Department of Justice, Republic of the Philippines

1

http://www.iacat.net/


2/104

acknowledgments

This independent report was commissioned by the Inter-Agency Council Against Tra"cking of the

Department of Justice and the International Justice Mission with partial funding from the Kingdom

of Netherlands.

Author and Team Lead: Atty. Althea Acas Parreño, Sed Lex Professional Partnership Co.

Field Research: Kirsten Jade S. Diaz (Lead), Ivan Mark C. Galura, Jennifer Sarah O. Santos, Jaedick

S. De Leon, Angeline Mae S. Mata, Paolo B. Garcia, Rezcel A. Fajardo

Statistical Analysis: Francis Paul U. Baclay (Lead), Kirsten Jade S. Diaz

Additional Research: Mark Isaak S. Garrido, Nicholas C. Santizo, Jason R. Grospe

Administrative Support: Rachel C. Bucoy, Kirsten Jade S. Diaz

* The title and headings of this report are in blue in honor of the Blue Heart Campaign Against

Human Tra! cking of the United Nations O! ce on Drugs and Crime

The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policies or

views of the Inter-Agency Council Against Tra! cking (IACAT) and International Justice Mission (IJM).

Reference to IACAT and IJM does not imply endorsement by either of the accuracy of the informationcontained herein or of the views expressed.

2


3/104

PHILIPPINE REPORT ON THE PROSECUTION OF

TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS CASES: 2003-2013 1

executive summary 4

key findings 6

introduction 14

purpose 15

scope and limitations 15

definitions 16database indicators 24

statistical report 27

number of filed trafficking charges and identified trafficked

victims by administrative region 28

identified trafficked victims 30

types and spread of trafficking 36

suspected trafficker 38

criminal justice response 41

legal framework 50

the anti-trafficking act of 2003, as amended 51

other domestic laws used to fight trafficking in persons 52

international declarations, agreements, and conventions 59

way forward 64

annex 73

anti-trafficking in persons act of 2003 88

3


4/104

executive summary

4


5/104

One of the continuing problems in the fight against tra"cking is the dearth of

evidence-based research upon which policy-making and policy-execution may

depend.

This is a problem not only in the Philippines but also in other countries. The 2012

United Nations O! ce on Drugs and Crimes Report on Global Report in Tra! cking in

Persons stated that “after the adoption of the Tra"cking in Persons Protocol in

2000, the number of studies on human tra"cking has boomed. Unfortunately,

because of the uneven quality of these studies they have not always contributed to

increase the knowledge on tra"cking. Based on a comprehensive literature review

carried out in 2008, out of 2,388 publications, only 741 met a basic level of scientific

rigour and most of them did not use a solid methodology.”

Governmental anti-tra"cking e$orts are often evaluated against three main points

— prevention, prosecution and protection. The so-called 3Ps are based on the

framework established by the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and

Punish Tra! cking in Persons, especially Women and Children, which the Philippines

ratified in 28 May 2002.

This report focuses on the 2nd P (prosecution) and attempts to close the gap in

knowledge about the Philippine criminal justice response to tra"cking in persons

cases.

It provides a comprehensive database of filed tra"cking charges and identifiedtra"cked victims based on case records filed with the o"ces of the prosecutors

and trial courts across the Philippines.

Statistical analysis is then made of the data gathered covering a ten year period —

from the enactment of the Anti-Tra"cking in Persons Act of 2003, and its

amendatory law, the Expanded Anti-Tra"cking in Persons Act of 2012, up to 2013 . 1

Action points to address challenges borne out of the statistics gathered are

presented.

A presentation of the legal framework in the fight against tra"cking in persons is

also included as well as case summaries of tra"cking cases which have been

decided by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

5

The audit of cases was done over a six-month period, from June 2013 to November 2013.1


6/104

key findings

over a 10 year period, there are 04.54 identified trafficked

victims for every 100,000 persons in the Philippines

The number of identified tra"cked victims vary significantly across administrative

regions, provinces and cities. The data gathered reflects variations in population,

location and size of economy, among others. To narrow these di$erences in the

interpretation of data, we used the demographic scale of per 100,000 persons — on

a national, regional, provincial and city level — of all victims recorded over a 10 year

period.

There were 4188 identified tra"cking victims in the 2294 charges of tra"cking filed

at the prosecutor’s o"ces across the Philippines over the 10 year period covered by

this report.

the cities of pasay, manila, muntinlupa, mandaue and

zamboanga are top destination and transit points

Tra"cking cases are almost always filed in the place of rescue. The places of rescue

are either the destination or transit points. Data gathered show that the cities of

Pasay, Manila, Muntinlupa, Mandaue and Zamboanga are the top transit and

destination points of tra"cking in persons.

6

National, 04.54

number of identified tra!cking victims per 100,000 persons

Pasay, 24.69



7/104

pasay city has 5/12 times the number of identified trafficked

victims compared to the national average

7

Pasay, 23.93


Zamboanga City,10.66


Manila, 20.09


Muntinlupa, 14.27


Mandaue, 11.17


National, 04.54



8/104

women are 5 times more likely to be trafficked than men

while girls are 10 times more likely to be trafficked than

boys

With 85% of identified tra"cked

victims being women and girls,

tra"cking in the Philippines may be

considered as a form of gender-basedviolence.

adults are 3 times more

likely to be trafficked

than children

8

children

26%

adults

74%

women

56%

men 12%

girls

29%

boys

3%


9/104

9 in 10 filed trafficking charges involve sexual exploitation

Sexual tra"cking, or

tra"cking for the

purpose of sexual

exploitation,

prostitution or

pornography, remain

to be the most

prevalent type of

tra"cking comprising

91% of all tra"cking

charges.

not one person has been charged with the offense of use of

trafficked persons

9

5.43%

90.62%

3.74%

0.22%

types of tra!cking

Labor Tra"cking

Sexual Tra"cking

Organ Tra"cking

Use of Children for Armed

Conflicts

Sec.4a: Recruitment,Transport and Transfer

50%

Sec.4e: Keep or Hire forPornography/Prostitution

41%

Sec.5: Acts that promoteTra"cking in Persons

5%

Sec.4g: Removal andSale of Organs

4%

Sec.4f: Adoption orFacilitating Adoption

0%

Sec.4c: O#ering orContracting Marriage

0%

Sec.4h: ChildEngagement in Armed

Activities

0%

Other 0%


10/104

traffickers

are

commonly

charged

with

trafficking

1 or 2

victims

cases commonly

charge 1 or 2

accused

it takes average of 3 years and 3 months from filing of

complaint to convict a trafficker

Based on cases that have resulted in conviction by the trial courts, the criminal

justice response to tra"cking cases is relatively fast compared to the average

duration in other criminal cases.

10

accusedoperating in

large scale 20%

accused notoperating in

large scale

80%

cases with 3 or

more accused

22%

cases with less

than 3 accused

78%


11/104

This may be attributed to the fact tra"cking in persons cases are treated as a

special class within the criminal justice system — with an Anti-Tra"cking in Persons

Task Force created by the Department of Justice and a directive from the O"ce of

the Court Administrator to the trial courts to hear and decide tra"cking in persons

cases within 180 days from arraignment.

investigating prosecutors found probable cause in 89% of

the charges filed

investigating prosecutors

found probable cause in

89% of the charges filed.

Nonetheless, there are

still dismissals based onlack of interest to

prosecute, which

account for 8% of the

charges brought before

the prosecutor.

11

34%

19%

47%

Number of days of

preliminary investigation

or inquest: 417 days

Number of days fromissuance of resolution to

arraignment: 229 days

Number of days from

arraignment to decision:

565 days

9% 2%

89%

Dismissed based on lack of interestto Prosecute

Resolution Issued in Favor of Accused

Resolution Issued In Favor ofComplainant


12/104

51% of charges at the trial court level do not reach trial ordo not finish trial

Despite the high rate of prosecution favorable to the complainant, 51% of charges at

the trial court level do not reach trial or do not finish trial. This is because 10% of

charges at the trial court level have outstanding warrants of arrest, 20.19% are

archived, .22% are provisionally dismissed and another 19% are dismissed.

For the purposes of this report, trial court level charges are those which are no

longer at the preliminary investigation or inquest stage and the information is already

filed in court.

74% of of concluded trials result in conviction

As used in this report concluded

trials are those where the

prosecution and defense presented

evidence and a full trial was held.

These do not include dismissals

due of lack of interest to prosecute

or dismissals due to failure or

refusal of the main witness, usually

the victim, to attend.

12

On Appeal to SC, 0.05%

Dismissed, 19.80%

Provisionally Dismissed, 0.22%

Archived, 20.35%

Guilty - of the Lesser O"

ense, 0.81%

Guilty - of the O"ense Charged, 6.40%

Acquitted, 2.60%

Submitted for Decision, 0.81%

Trial, 33.26%

Outstanding Warrant of Arrest, 10.58%

Pre-Trial, 2.88%

Arraignment of All Accused, 1.84%

Arraignment of Some of the Accused, 0.38%

Acquittal

27%

Conviction

73%


13/104

there are 3 times the number of convictions under the

Aquino Administration compared to the Arroyo

Administration

These convictions include those where tra"ckers were found guilty of a

lesser charge.

2010 philippine conviction rate: .023 per 100,000 persons—————————————————————————————————————————————

2010 global conviction rate: .154 per 100,000 persons

13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Aquino Administration-96 convictions

Arroyo Administration-37 convictions


14/104

introduction

14


15/104

purpose

This report seeks to address the gap in knowledge in Philippine anti-tra"cking

e$orts by providing a comprehensive database and statistical analysis of the

Philippine criminal justice response to tra"cking in persons.

Governmental anti-tra"cking e$orts are often evaluated according to the so-called

3Ps — Prevention, Prosecution and Protection. This 3P framework is set out in the

United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Tra"cking in Persons

especially Women and Children. This report has specific focus on the 2nd P —

Prosecution. It covers a ten year period from the enactment of the Tra"cking in

Persons Act of 2003, and its amendatory law, the Expanded Anti-Tra"cking in

Persons Act of 2012, through 2013.

It is hoped these statistics will inform productive debate, policy making and policy

execution in the fight against tra"cking in persons.

scope and limitations

This report covers cases filed from 2003 to 2013 with the O"ces of the Prosecutor2

and the Regional Trial Courts using the list of cases provided by the Inter-Agency

Council Against Tra"

cking as a starting point.

Photographs of case files were taken and information directly gathered from case

files were then entered into a database. This database was the basis of the

statistical analysis contained in Part III of this report.

In the majority of cases, the research team was granted access to the case files and

allowed to review them. Where access to case files was not granted either by the3

the O"ce of the Prosecutor or the trial courts the team interviewed the personnel

who had custody of the file. Select case information would be given, usually

excluding identifying victim information. Cases which have outstanding warrants of

arrest, provisionally dismissed, archived and dismissed are often stored o$-site and

full case records are seldom available for review.

Thus, depending on the available data, the universe for each of the data sets

change and these are clearly indicated in the Statistical Report to avoid any

misapprehension of data.

15

The audit of cases started in June 2013 and continued until November 2013.2

The Secretary of Justice released a circular requesting prosecutors to allow members of the research team to3

access case files with the various O"ces of the Prosecutors. This was also presented to Regional Trial Courts.


16/104

Specifically excluded in this report are police and Department of Social Welfare and

Development data on reported incidents of tra"cking. Also excluded are instances

of tra"cking which have not undergone preliminary investigation, inquest or trial.

definitions

Acts that Promote Tra"cking in Persons

Covers the following acts:

(a) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used any house,

building or establishment for the purpose of promoting tra"cking in

persons;

(b) To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued, tampered or fake

counseling certificates, registration stickers, overseas employment

certificates or other certificates of any government agency which issues

these certificates, decals and such other markers as proof of compliance

with government regulatory and pre-departure requirements for the purpose

of promoting tra"cking in persons;

(c) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute, or cause the

advertisement, publication, printing, broadcasting or distribution by any

means, including the use of information technology and the internet, of any

brochure, flyer, or any propaganda material that promotes tra"cking in

persons;

(d) To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or fraud for purposes of

facilitating the acquisition of clearances and necessary exit documents from

government agencies that are mandated to provide pre-departure

registration and services for departing persons for the purpose of promoting

tra"cking in persons;

(e) To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry of persons from/to the

country at international and local airports, territorial boundaries and

seaports who are in possession of unissued, tampered or fraudulent travel

documents for the purpose of promoting tra"cking in persons;”

(f) To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the passport, travel documents, or

personal documents or belongings of tra"cked persons in furtherance of

tra"cking or to prevent them from leaving the country or seeking redress

from the government or appropriate agencies;

16


17/104

(g) To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise, or make use of, the

labor or services of a person held to a condition of involuntary servitude,

forced labor, or slavery.

(h) To tamper with, destroy, or cause the destruction of evidence, or to

influence or attempt to influence witnesses, in an investigation or

prosecution of a case under this Act;

(i) To destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate or possess, or attempt to destroy,

conceal, remove, confiscate or possess, any actual or purported passport

or other travel, immigration or working permit or document, or any other

actual or purported government identification, of any person in order to

prevent or restrict, or attempt to prevent or restrict, without lawful authority,

the person’s liberty to move or travel in order to maintain the labor or

services of that person;

(j) To utilize his or her o"ce to impede the investigation, prosecution or

execution of lawful orders in a case under this Act. [Sec. 5 of the Anti-

Tra"cking in Persons Act]

Acts of Tra"cking in Persons

% &Covers the following acts committed by any person, natural or juridical:

% (a) To recruit, obtain, hire, provide, o$er, transport, transfer, maintain,harbor, or receive a person by any means, including those done under the

pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship,

for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, or sexual exploitation;

% (b) To introduce or match for money, profit, or material, economic or

other consideration, any person or, as provided for under Republic Act No.

6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign national, for marriage for the purpose

of acquiring, buying, o$ering, selling or trading him/her to engage in

prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,

involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

% (c) To o$er or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of

acquiring, buying, o$ering, selling, or trading them to engage in prostitution,

pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor or slavery, involuntary

servitude or debt bondage;

% (d) To undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting of

tourism packages or activities for the purpose of utilizing and o$ering

persons for prostitution, pornography or sexual exploitation;

17


18/104

% (e) To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or

pornography;

% (f) To adopt persons by any form of consideration for exploitative

purposes or to facilitate the same for purposes of prostitution, pornography,

sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt

bondage;

% (g) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the purpose of

prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,

involuntary servitude or debt bondage;

% (h) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport, transfer, obtain, harbor, maintain,

provide, o$er, receive or abduct a person, by means of threat or use of force,

fraud, deceit, violence, coercion, or intimidation for the purpose of removal or

sale of organs of said person;

% (i) To recruit, transport, obtain, transfer, harbor, maintain, o$er, hire,

provide, receive or adopt a child to engage in armed activities in the

Philippines or abroad;

% (j) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, obtain, maintain, o$er, hire,

provide or receive a person by means defined in Section 3 of this Act for

purposes of forced labor, slavery, debt bondage and involuntary servitude,

including a scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause the person either:

% (1) To believe that if the person did not perform such labor or

services, he or she or another person would su$er serious harm or

physical restraint; or

% (2) To abuse or threaten the use of law or the legal processes;

and

% (k) To recruit, transport, harbor, obtain, transfer, maintain, hire, o$er,

provide, adopt or receive a child for purposes of exploitation or trading them,

including but not limited to, the act of baring and/or selling a child for any

consideration or for barter for purposes of exploitation. Tra"cking forpurposes of exploitation of children shall include:

% (1) All forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, involuntary

servitude, debt bondage and forced labor, including recruitment of

children for use in armed conflict;

% (2) The use, procuring or o$ering of a child for prostitution, for

the production of pornography, or for pornographic performances;

% (3) The use, procuring or o$ering of a child for the production

and tra"cking of drugs; and

18


19/104

% (4) The use, procuring or o$ering of a child for illegal activities or

work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried

out, is likely to harm their health, safety or morals; and

% (l) To organize or direct other persons to commit the o$enses defined

as acts of tra"cking under this Act. [Section 4 of the Anti-Tra"cking in

Persons Act.

Adults

% Refer to males and females who are aged 18 years old and above.

Anti-Child Abuse Act

% Refers to Rep. Act No. 7610, or the Special Protection of Children

against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act of 1992, as% amended by Rep. Act No. 9231 (2003).

Anti-Child Pornography Act

% Refers to Rep. Act No. 9775 (2009) or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of

2009.

Anti-Mail Order Bride Act

Refers to Rep. Act No. 6955 (1990) titled An Act to Declare Unlawful the

% Practice of Matching Filipino Women for Marriage to Foreign Nationals on a

% Mail Order Basis and Other Similar Practices, Including the Advertisement,

% Publication, Printing or Distribution of Brochures, Fliers and Other

% Propaganda %Materials in Furtherance Thereof and Providing Penalty

% Therefore

Anti-Tra"cking in Persons Act

Rep. Act No. 9208 or the Anti-Tra! cking in Persons Act of 2003, asamended by Rep. Act No. 10368 or the Expanded Anti-Tra"cking in

Persons Act of 2012.

Batas Kasambahay

Refers to Rep. Act No. 10361 (2013) or The Domestic Worker’s Act or “Batas

Kasambahay ”

19


20/104

Boys

% Refer to males aged below 18 years old.

Child Engagement in Armed Conflicts

Covers the following acts: “to recruit, transport, obtain, transfer, harbor,

maintain, o$er, hire, provide, receive or adopt a child to engage in armed

activities in the Philippines or abroad.” [Sec. 4(i) of the Anti-Tra"cking in

Persons Act]

Children

% Refer to males and females who are aged below 18 years old.

Concluded Trials

% Concluded trials are those where the prosecution and defense presented

% evidence and a full trial was held. These do not include dismissals due of

% lack of interest to prosecute or dismissals due to failure or refusal of the main

% witness, usually the victim, to attend.

Debt Bondage

Refers to the pledging by the debtor of his/her personal services or labor orthose of a person under his/her control as security or payment for a debt,

when the length and nature of services is not clearly defined or when the

value of the services as reasonably assessed is not applied toward the

liquidation of the debt.

Dismissed Cases

Cases which do not finish trial because of any of the following factors:

violation of the Speedy Trial Act, non-appearance of witnesses or

complainants, lack of interest of the complainants to prosecute, or filing of

A "davits of Desistance by the complainants. 4

Filed Tra"cking Charges

Refer to all charges captured in this report which have been at the

prosecutor’s level for preliminary investigation or inquest, including those

20

Refer to cases dismissed prior to the 2012 amendment of the Anti-Tra"cking Act. The amended Act prohibits4

dismissals based on a"davits of desistance.


21/104

which have been moved through the criminal justice process i.e. preliminary

investigation or inquest, arraignment, trial and appeal. % %

Forced Labor and Slavery

Refers to the extraction of work or services from any person by means of

enticement, violence, intimidation or threat, use of force or coercion,

including deprivation of freedom, abuse of authority or moral ascendancy,

debt-bondage or deception.

Girls

% Refer to females aged below 18 years old.

Identified tra"

cked victims

% Identified tra"cked victims are those who are persons identified as victims

% of tra"cking in cases filed before the prosecutor’s o"ce and trial courts.

Inter-Agency Council Against Tra"cking (IACAT)

% A council created under Sec. 20 of the Anti-Tra"cking in Persons Act

Inter-Country Adoption Act

% Refers to Rep. Act No. 8043 (1995) or the Inter-Country Adoption Act

Involuntary Servitude

Refers to a condition of enforced, compulsory service induced by means of

any scheme, plan or pattern, intended to cause a person to believe that, if

the person did not enter into or continue in such condition, that person or

another person would su$er serious harm or other forms of abuse or physical

restraint, or the abuse or threatened abuse of the legal process.

Labor Tra"cking

Covers acts of tra"cking defined in Section 4 of the Anti Tra"cking Act for

the purposes of forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage.

Large Scale Tra"cking

% Tra"cking is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3)

%or more persons, individually or as a group. [Sec. 6 (c) of the Anti-Tra

"cking

% in Persons Act]

21


22/104

Men

% Refer to males aged 18 years old and above.

Migrant Workers Act

% Refers to Rep. Act No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos

Act of 1995, as amended by Rep. Act No. 10022 (2009).

O"ce of the Court Prosecutor (OCP)

% Refers to the o"ces of the State Prosecutor, Provincial Prosecutor and City

% Prosecutors created under the Prosecution Service Act.

Organ Tra"cking

Covers the following acts: to recruit, hire, adopt, transport, transfer, obtain,

harbor, maintain, provide, o$er, receive or abduct a person, by means of

threat or use of force, fraud, deceit, violence, coercion, or intimidation for

the purpose of removal or sale of organs of said person.

Pornography

Refers to any representation, through publication, exhibition,

cinematography, indecent shows, information technology, or by whatevermeans, of a person engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or

any representation of the sexual parts of a person for primarily sexual

purposes.

Prosecution Service Act

% Refers to Rep. Act No. 10071 or the Prosecution Service Act of 2010.

Prosecutor Level Charges

% Prosecutor Level Charges are those which have been filed before the O"ces

% of the Prosecutor - state, regional, provincial and city. It includes those which

% are undergoing preliminary investigation, inquest and those which have been

% resolved.

Provisionally Dismissed Cases

Provisionally Dismissed Cases are those which are temporarily dismissed at

the trial court level under Section 8, of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules ofCourt. The said rule allows for a provisional or temporary dismissal when it

22


23/104

is with the express consent of the accused and with notice to the o$ended

party. The provisional dismissal of o$enses punishable by imprisonment not

exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become

permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case having

been revived.&&With respect to o$enses punishable by imprisonment of morethan six (6) years, their provisional dismissal shall become permanent two

(2) years after issuance of the order without the case having been revived.

Prostitution

Refers to any act, transaction, scheme or design involving the use of a

person by another, for sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct in exchange

for money, profit or any other consideration.

Regional Trial Court (RTC)

% Regional Trial Courts exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all criminal

% cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court, tribunal or body. [Sec.

% 20 of the Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, or the Judiciary

% Reorganization Act of 1980]

Sexual Exploitation

Refers to participation by a person in prostitution or the production of

pornographic materials as a result of being subjected to a threat, deception,

coercion, abduction, force, abuse of authority, debt bondage, fraud or

through abuse of a victim's vulnerability.

Sexual Tra"cking

Covers acts of tra"cking defined in Section 4 of the Anti Tra"cking Act for

the purposes of prostitution, pornography, or sexual exploitation.

Suspected Tra"ckers

% Suspected Tra"ckers are those persons, natural or juridical, who have

% tra"cking in persons cases filed against them before the O"ce of the

% Prosecutor and the Regional Trial Courts.

Tra"cking in Persons

Tra"cking in Persons refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing,

o$ering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of

persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across

23


24/104

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

‘tra"cking in persons’ even if it does not involve any of the means set forth

in the preceding paragraph. [Section 3(a) of the Anti-Tra"

cking in Persons Act]

Tra"cking by a Syndicate

% Tra"cking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of

% three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. [Sec.

% 6 (c) of the Anti-Tra"cking %in Persons Act]

Trial Court Level Charges

Trial Court Level Charges are those charges which have undergone

preliminary investigation or inquest and the information has already been

filed in court.

Women

% Refer to females aged 18 years old and above.

database indicators

The following are the database indicators used to gather and unify data:

I.%VICTIM’S INFORMATION

a.% Complete Name of Victim(s)

b.% Gender of Victim(s)

c.% Age of Victim(s)

d.% Address of Victim(s)

II.% ACCUSED’S INFORMATION

24


25/104

a.% Complete Name of Accused

b.% Address of Accused

c.% Number of Accused

d.% Current Status of Accused

III.% STAGES OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OR INQUEST (OCP)

a.% I.S. No. or N.P.S. No. 5

b.% Name of Investigating Prosecutor

c.% Venue of Investigation (where investigation of the case is on-going or

pending)

d.% Section of RA 9208 Charged with

e.% Stage of Preliminary Investigation:

i.% Preliminary Investigation Ongoing

ii.%Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution

iii.%Resolution Issued in Favor of Accused

iv.%Resolution Issued In Favor of Complainant

v.% Dismissed Based on Lack of interest to Prosecute

f.% Petition for Review Filed with DOJ:

i.% No

ii.%Yes – Pending Resolution

iii.%Yes – Resolved in Favor of Accused

iv.%Yes – Resolved in Favor of Complainant

g.% Date of Prosecutors Resolutions

IV.% STAGES OF TRIAL (RTC)

a.% RTC Branch Number

b.% City or Province

c.% Criminal Case Number

d.% Section of RA 9208 Charged with

e.% Classification of tra"cking in persons case

i.% Labor Tra"cking

ii. Sexual Tra"cking

iii.% Organ Tra"cking

vii.%Child Engagement in Armed Activities f.% Name of Handling Private Prosecutor

g.% Name of Handling Public Prosecutor

h.% Presiding Judge

i.% Case Title

j.% Date of Filing of Information

k.% Date of Arraignment

l.% Date of Pre-Trial

m.% Date of Start of Trial

25

These are the docket numbers of the cases pending preliminary investigation or inquest. N.P.S. stands for5

National Prosecution Service, while I.S. stands for Investigation Slip. The latter was used to docket cases at the

preliminary investigation or inquest stage prior to the enactment of the National Prosecution Service Act.


26/104

n.% Date of Resolution

o.% Specific Stage of Trial

i.% Outstanding Warrant of Arrest

ii.% Arraignment of All Accused

iii.% Arraignment of Some of the Accused

iv.%Bench Warrant of Arrest Issued v.% Pre-Trial

vi.%Trial

ix.%Submitted for Decision

x.%Guilty - of the O$ense Charged

xi.%Guilty - of a Lesser O$ense

xii.% Acquitted

xiii.% Archived

xv.%Dismissed

p.% Names of Accused Arraigned

q.%

Names of Accused Not Arraigned

r.% Names of Accused Against Whom Bench Warrant of Arrest Is Issued

Against

26


27/104

statistical report

27


28/104

number of filed tra"cking charges and identified

tra"cked victims by administrative region

Over the 10 year period covered by this report, there were 2294 filed tra"cking

charges with 4188 identified tra"cked victims.

The Philippines is divided into 17 administrative regions. Administrative regions

group provinces and cities for administrative convenience and do not exercise

political power except for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). All6

administrative regions of the Philippines, apart from the National Capital Region

(NCR), are composed of provinces, independent cities (or those not within the

administrative and political control of the the province where it is geographically

located), component cities and municipalities. The NCR has no provinces and is

composed of cities and one municipality, Pateros. Provinces, cities and

municipalities exercise political power. 7

28

Republic Act No. 6734 or the Organic Act of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), This law6

called for a plebiscite in the the proposed areas of ARMM to determine which provinces would form part of the

ARMM. The provinces of Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, Tawi-Tawi and Sulu voted to join the ARMM.

Rep. Act No. 7610 or the Local Government Code of 1991.7

C A R ,

0 %

A R M M ,

1 %

R e g i o n

X I I I , 1 %

R e g i o n

X I I , 1 %

R e g i o n

V I , 2 %

R e g i o n I ,

2 %

R e g i o n

V I I I , 3 %

R e g i o n

X , 3 %

R e g i o n I I ,

3 %

R e g i o n

X I , 3 %

R e g i o n

I V - B ,

4 %

R e g i o n

I X , 4 %

R e g i o n V ,

5 %

R e g i o n

I V - A , 7 %

R e g i o n

I I I , 1 1 %

R e g i o

n V I I , 1

3 %

N C R , 3

5 %

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

No. of Victims

No. of Charges


29/104

Administrative regions are informally divided according to groupings of Philippine

islands: Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao.

In Luzon, NCR has the highest number of identified tra"cked victims and tra"cking

charges. In Visayas, Region VII has the highest number of identified tra"cked

victims and tra"cking charges. In Mindanao, Region IX has the highest number of

identified tra"cked victims and tra"cking charges.

29


30/104

identified tra"cked victims

over a ten year period, there were 04.54 identified trafficked

victims for every 100,000 persons in the Philippines

The number of identified tra"cked victims vary significantly across administrative

regions, provinces and cities. The data gathered reflects variations in population,

location and size of economy, among others. In order to narrow down these

variations across regions, provinces and cities, this report uses the demographic

scale of per 100,000 people on a national, regional, provincial and city level.

Using this demographic scale also provides comparable data to international

reports on tra"cking such as the United Nations O"ce on Drugs and Crime Global

Report on Tra"cking in Persons.

There is 100% information available on the number of identified tra"cked victims ona national, regional, provincial and city level.

30

National, 04.54



31/104

regional rankings:

according to the number of identified trafficked victims

The distribution

of identified

tra"cked victims

per administrative

region over a 10

year period are

represented in

the graphs

herein.

NCR has the

highest number

of identified

tra"cked victims,

with 11.4

identified

tra"cked victims

per 100,000persons. This is 2

1/2 times the

national average

of 4.54 identified

tra"cked victims.

While Region XIII

or the CARAGA

Region, has the

least number of

tra"cking cases

at .54 per

100,000 persons.

31

NCR, 11.74


Region VII, 09.71


Region IX, 08.58


Region II, 05.02


Region IV-B, 04.63


Region VIII, 04.54


Region III, 03.82


Region V, 03.47



32/104

32

Region I, 01.81


Region XI, 03.36


Region X, 02.63


CAR, 02.47


ARMM, 02.33


Region IV-A, 01.75


Region XII, 01.00


Region VI, 00.87


Region XIII, 00.54



33/104

provincial rankings:


The distribution of identified tra"cked victims in the top 5 provinces are represented

in the graphs below. These provinces have o"ces of the provincial prosecutor.Specifically excluded from the provinces are those cities which have their own o"ce

of the city prosecutor. The province of Pampanga has the highest number of

identified tra"cked victims, with 05.08 identified tra"cked victims per 100,000

persons. This is just a little over the national average of 4.54 identified tra"cked

victims.

33

Pampanga, 05.08


Samar, 04.23


Quezon, 03.67


Biliran, 03.09


Bukidnon, 03.08



34/104

city rankings:


These cities are where tra"cking charges are filed and where the greatest number

of identified tra"cked victims are found. As the place where the victim is rescued is

also almost always the place of filing of tra"cking charges, the statistical data show

that the cities of Pasay, Manila, Muntinlupa, Mandaue and Zamboanga are the most

common places where tra"cked victims are rescued in transit or are brought.

34

Manila, 20.09


Pasay, 24.69


Mandaue, 11.17


Zamboanga City,10.53


Muntinlupa, 14.27



35/104

identified trafficking victims

by age and gender

Women and girls comprise 85% oftra"cked victims. On the other hand,

men and boys comprise 15% of

tra"cking victims.

Women are 5 times more likely to be

tra"cked than men while girls are 10

times more likely to be tra"cked than

boys. These trends show that women

and girls are highly targeted bytra"ckers.

However, it is possible that the number of tra"cked children are underreported

because of several laws which overlap with the Anti-Tra"cking Act. There are two

other laws, the Anti Child Abuse Act and the Anti Child Pornography Act, that define

and penalize child abuse and child pornography both of which may also be acts of8 9

sexual tra"cking. Another law that overlaps with the Anti-Tra"cking in Persons Act

is the Inter-Country Adoption Act which defines illegal adoption as adoption for10

35

Rep. Act No. 7610, Sec. 3 (b) states in pertinent part: ”Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether8

habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following:

(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;

(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child

as a human being; xxx

Rep. Act No. 7610, Sec. 5 states in pertinent part: “Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse”&occurs when

children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion orinfluence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be

children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. xxx

Rep. Act No. 7610, Sec. 7 states in pertinent part: “Child tra! cking” occurs when any person engages in the

trading and dealing with children including, but not limited to, the act of buying and selling of a child for money,

or for any other consideration, or barter xxx

Rep. Act No. 9775 (2009), Sec 3 (b) states in pertinent part: ”Child pornography" refers to any representation,9

whether visual, audio, or written combination thereof, by electronic, mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or any

other means, of child engaged or involved in real or simulated explicit sexual activities.

Rep. Act No. 8043 (1995).10

women 56%

men 12%

girls 29%

boys

3%


36/104

exploitative purposes. 80% of identified tra"cking victims have information on age

and gender.

types and spread of tra"cking

trafficking charges by type of exploitation

The following classifications were used in this report Labor Tra"cking, Sexual

Tra"cking, Organ Tra"cking and Use of Children Armed Activities.

9 out of 10 tra"cking charges in the Philippines involve sexual exploitation,

prostitution, or pornography. Often, labor tra"cking charges refer to cases of

domestic service.

Interestingly, while organ tra"cking comprise 4% of the tra"cking cases, almost all

are concentrated in one area — Calauag, Quezon._ In the years 2005 to 2007, 50

people were tra"cked for their organs in Calauag. 18 of the 50 reported cases in

Quezon Province are attributable to the alleged tra"cker “Rico De Jusay” aka “Rico

Jusay” who has an outstanding warrant of arrest.

Prosecution of charges involving labor tra"cking, organ tra"cking and use of

children for armed conflict are relatively rare comprising less than 10% of filed

charges.

36

5.43%

90.62%

3.74%

0.22%

types of tra!cking

Labor Tra"cking

Sexual Tra"cking

Organ Tra"cking

Use of Children for ArmedConflicts


37/104

84% of tra"cking cases, excluding cases that were dismissed in the preliminary

investigation or inquest stages, and trial court level cases, have available data on

the type of exploitation.

ranking of provinces and cities:according to the geographic spread of filed trafficking

charges

37

Manila City, 14.43% Cebu City, Cebu, 5.45%

Pampanga Province, 5.01% Quezon City, 4.62%

Pasay City, 4.10% Zamboanga City, 3.75%

Quezon Province, 3.18% Rizal Province, 2.70%

Davao del Sur Province, 2.40% Lapu-lapu City, Cebu, 2.44%

Bulacan Province, 2.22% Bukidnon Province, 1.74%

Negros Oriental Province, 1.70%

Caloocan City, 1.53% Camarines Sur Province, 1.74%

Isabela Province, 1.74%

Nueva Ecija Province, 1.53% Pasig City, 1.66%

Mandaue City, Cebu, 1.61% Makati City, 1.48%

Samar Province, 1.35% Malabon City, 1.31%

Pangasinan Province, 1.26% Cavite Province, 1.26%

Cagayan Province, 1.18% Sorsogon Province, 1.05%

Muntinlupa Province, 0.96% Las Piñas City, 0.96%

Oriental Mindoro Province, 0.87% Batangas Province, 0.87% Zambales Province, 0.83%

Laguna Province, 0.83% Tarlac Province, 0.78% Paranaque City, 0.70% Leyte Province, 0.78%

South Cotabato Province, 0.74% Marikina City, 0.74%

Albay Province, 0.83% Negros Occidental Province, 0.70%

Mandaluyong City, 0.70% Camarines Norte Province, 0.70%

Palawan Province, 0.61% Davao del Norte Province, 0.70%

Ilocos Norte Province, 0.52% Bataan Province, 0.52%

Valenzuela City, 0.44% Taguig City, 0.48%

Lanao del Norte Province, 0.35% Nueva Vizcaya Province, 0.39%

Agusan del Norte Province, 0.39% Zamboanga del Sur Province, 0.35%

Toledo City, Cebu, 0.35% Iloilo Province, 0.35%

Cotabato City, ARMM, 0.35% La Union Province, 0.31%

Aklan Province, 0.31% Masbate Province, 0.26%

Misamis Oriental Province, 0.22% Ilocos Sur Province, 0.22%

Bohol Province, 0.22% Biliran Province, 0.22%

Tawi-tawi Province, 0.22%

Catanduanes Province, 0.17% Benguet Province, 0.17%

Zamboanga del Norte Province, 0.13% Quirino Province, 0.13%

Misamis Occidental Province, 0.13%

Lucena City, Quezon, 0.13% Compostela Valley Province, 0.13%

Baguio City, 0.13% Zamboanga Sibugay Province, 0.09%

Sarangani Province, 0.09% San Juan City, 0.09%

Occidental Mindoro Province, 0.09% North Cotabato Province, 0.09%

Marinduque Province, 0.09% Gumaca Municipality, Quezon, 0.09%

Eastern Samar Province, 0.09% Aurora Province, 0.09%

Antique Province, 0.09% Kalinga Province, 0.04%

Argao City, Cebu, 0.04%

tra!cking cases by geographic incidence: city or province


38/104

The map above shows the tra"cking hotspots. Areas with the highest number of

tra"cking cases are in red. The size of the red dot indicates the number and

geographic spread of tra"cking cases. Cities that have an O"ce of the City

Prosecutor assigned to it and provinces that have an O"ce of the Provincial

Prosecutor assigned to it are listed here.

suspected tra"cker

charges are usually filed against 1 or 2 traffickers

Under the Anti-Tra"cking in

Persons Act, tra"cking is

deemed committed by a

syndicate if carried out by a

group of three (3) or more

persons conspiring or

confederating with one

another.

99% of cases have data on

the number of tra"ckers.

traffickers are often charged with trafficking 1 or 2 victims

Under the Anti-

Tra"cking in Persons

Act, tra"cking is

deemed committed in

large scale if

committed against

three (3) or more

persons, individually

or as a group.

Among the notable

cases where there was

large scale tra"cking

involved are: in Quezon Province, one suspect tra"cked 18 people for the removal

38

accusedoperating in

large scale 20%

accused not

operating in

large scale

80%

cases with 3 or

more accused

22%

cases with less

than 3 accused

78%


39/104

and sale of their kidneys. In Samar, one person was found guilty of 7 counts of11

tra"cking committed against 7 victims. In Bukidnon, one person was prosecuted12

for 16 counts of tra"cking committed against 16 victims but remains at large. In13

Malabon, one person is being tried for 5 counts of tra"cking committed against 5

victims.

In Pasig and Mandaluyong, one person was charged with 4 counts of14

tra"cking committed against 4 victims. In Quezon, one suspect was charged with15

22 counts of tra"cking committed against 22 victims but remains at large with an

outstanding warrant of arrest. In Biliran, one suspect was charged with 4 counts of16

tra"cking committed against 4 victims. In Quezon City, one suspect is being tried17

for 12 counts of tra"cking committed against 4 victims. 18

93% of tra"cking charges have information on the number of victims.

traffickers are often charged under section 4a and section4e of the anti-trafficking act

Section 4(a)

defines the

following as

acts of

tra"cking “to

recruit, obtain,

hire, provide,o$er,

transport,

transfer,

maintain,

harbor, or

receive a

person by any

means,

39

Sec.4a: Recruitment,Transport and Transfer

50%

Sec.4e: Keep or Hire for

Pornography/Prostitution

41%

Sec.5: Acts that promoteTra"cking in Persons

5%

Sec.4g: Removal andSale of Organs

4%

Sec.4f: Adoption or

Facilitating Adoption 0%

Sec.4c: O#ering orContracting Marriage

0%

Sec.4h: ChildEngagement in Armed

Activities

0%

Other 0%

See Region IV Database11

See Region VIII Database12

See Region X Database13

See National Capital Region Database14


See Region VI Database16

See Region VIII Database17



40/104

including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment or

training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, or sexual

exploitation.” While section 4(e) covers the following acts of tra"cking: “to maintain

or hire a person to engage in prostitution or pornography.” These findings tie with

the data that the most common type of tra"cking is for the purpose of sexualexploitation. Notably, not one case has been filed for the use of tra"cked persons

for prostitution.

Data reflected in this chart are based on charges filed at the trial court. Excluding

those which have been provisionally dismissed, archived and dismissed, 84% of

tra"cking charges has available data on modes or acts of tra"cking.

40


41/104

criminal justice response

Based on concluded cases or cases resolved by the trial courts after a full blown

trial, including cases which resulted in either conviction or acquittal, the criminal

justice response to tra"cking cases is relatively fast compared to the averageduration in criminal cases. This may be attributable to the fact that the19

government has put in place several policies to specifically prosecute and resolve

tra"cking cases. The Department of Justice created an Anti-Tra"cking in Persons

Task Force while the O"ce of the Court Administrator issued a directive to the trial20

courts to hear and decide tra"cking in persons cases within 180 days, or 6 months,

from arraignment. 21

from time of trafficking to conviction or acquittal

Identified tra"cked

victims are rescued

within 7 months

from tra"cking. It

takes 3 years and 5

months from the

time of tra"cking to

resolution of thecase. Time of

tra"cking is sourced

from the dates

indicated in the

information filed with

41

"if an accused were lucky enough and that he or she was accorded the shortest period a process can be19

done in each stage of his or&her case, the length of the whole case of such accused will be terminated in eight

(8) months in Mandaluyong City and ten (10) months in Quezon City. If however the accused were unlucky, if heor she were in Mandaluyong City, his or her case can only be terminated after sixteen (16) years and if he or she

were from Quezon City, the case can only be terminated after eighteen (18) years. These things however have

not yet happened. But all cases are finished between eight (8) months to sixteen (16) years in Mandaluyong City

and between ten (10) months to eighteen (18) years in Quezon City. On the average however, cases are

terminated more or less five (5) years in Mandaluyong City and six (6) years in Quezon City." &Based on a study

conducted by the Humanitarian Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc., How Speedy are Philippine Criminal Cases

Disposed Of? http://primary.hlafphil.org/index.php/library/downloadables/category/1-research (last accessed 13

December 2013)

Department of Justice Order No. 754, s. of 2009 created the task force. Department of Justice Order No. 700,20

s. of 2011, reconstituted the task force.

The Circular dated October 26, 2010 has the following subject: Speedy Disposition of Cases for Violations of21

Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Tra! cking in Persons Act of 2003) or Tra! cking in Persons Cases

16%

27%

14%

43%

Number of days from timeof tra"cking to filing of

complaint : 202 days

Number of days ofpreliminary investigation or

inquest: 338 days



Number of days from


537 days

speed of criminal justice response

from time of tra"cking


42/104

the trial courts. Trial proper, or from arraignment to decision, takes a about a year

and a half.

from time of filing of complaint to conviction or acquittal

Again based on

concluded cases or

cases resolved by

the trial courts after

a full blown trial,

including cases

which resulted ineither conviction or

acquittal, the

criminal justice

response to

tra"cking cases is

relatively fast

compared to the

average duration in

cases, especially so when computed from the time a tra"cking complaint is filedwith the prosecutor. It takes 2 years and 10 months from the time of filing a

complaint with the prosecutor to the resolution of the case.

from time of trafficking to conviction

Looking at the

criminal justice

response onlyfrom cases which

resulted in

convictions, it

takes 3 years and

9 months from the

time of tra"cking

to convict a

tra"cker.

42

32%

17%

51%

Number of days of

preliminary investigation or

inquest: 338 days



Number of days from


537 days

speed of criminal justice response

from time of filing of complaint

10%

31%

17%

42%

Number of days from timeof tra"cking to filing of

complaint : 145 days

Number of days of

preliminary investigation or

inquest: 417 days

Number of days from

issuance of resolution to


Number of days from


565 days


43/104

from time of filing of complaint to conviction

Looking again at

the criminal justice response

only from cases

which resulted in

convictions, it

takes 3 years

and 3 months

from the time of

filing a complaint

with theprosecutor to

convict a

tra"cker.

status of trial court level charges

For purposes of this report, trial court level charges are those which have beed filedbefore the Regional Trial Courts and are no longer undergoing preliminary

investigation or inquest. Since charges on appeal with the Supreme Court comprise

less than one-fourth of a percent and are statistically insignificant, these were also

included the trial court level cases. It includes those where some or all of the the

accused are arraigned, those which are undergoing pre-trial, trial, those which have

been provisionally dismissed, those which have been archived and those which

dispositive orders have been rendered. 22

10.58% of trial court level cases have outstanding warrants of arrest, 20.35% are

archived, .22% are provisionally dismissed and 19.80% have been dismissed. Thus,

51% of filed tra"cking charges do not begin trial, because the accused is at large

and has not been arraigned, or do not finish trial, because the charges are

provisionally dismissed, archived or dismissed, oftentimes because the victim

refuses to testify or has filed an a"davit of desistance . 23

43

Dispositive orders include judgments after a trial on the merits and those dismissed because of lack of22

interest to prosecute.

Prior to the 2012 amendments to the Anti-Tra"cking in Persons Act, a filed A "davit of Desistance was23

considered as a valid ground to dismiss a complaint.

34%

19%

47%

Number of days of

preliminary investigation

or inquest: 417 days

Number of days from

issuance of resolution to


Number of days from


565 days


44/104

Trial courts archive cases based on the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, in

the exercise of its administrative supervision over all trial courts. Criminal cases,

such as tra"cking in persons cases, may only be archived if, after the issuance of

the warrant of arrest, the accused remains at large for six (6) months from the

delivery of the warrant to the proper peace o"cer. 24

The court, motu proprio or upon motion of any party, may likewise archive a criminal

case when proceedings are ordered suspended for an indefinite period because of

the following: a) the accused is su$ering from an unsound mental condition; b)

existence of a valid prejudicial question in a civil case during the pendency of the

criminal case; c) an interlocutory order or incident is elevated to, and is pending

before a higher court, which thereafter, has issued a temporary restraining order or

writ of preliminary injunction; and d) when an accused has jumped bail before

arraignment and cannot be arrested by his bondsmen. 25

However, archiving rules are not uniformly implemented. While a majority of the

cases have outstanding warrants of arrest for more than six (6) months, some

provisionally dismissed cases are also sometimes archived.

44

OCA Circular No. 89-04 dated August 12, 2004 has the following subject: Reiteration of the Guidelines in24

Archiving Cases

Ibid.25

On Appeal to SC, 0.05%

Dismissed, 19.80%

Provisionally Dismissed, 0.22%

Archived, 20.35%

Guilty - of the Lesser O"ense, 0.81%

Guilty - of the O"ense Charged, 6.40%

Acquitted, 2.60%

Submitted for Decision, 0.81%

Trial, 33.26%

Outstanding Warrant of Arrest, 10.58%

Pre-Trial, 2.88%

Arraignment of All Accused, 1.84%

Arraignment of Some of the Accused, 0.38%


45/104

Majority of dismissals at the trial court level are based on A "davits of Desistance.

Prior to the 2012 amendments to the Anti-Tra"cking Act, there was no prohibition

on the use of A "davits of Desistance as a basis to dismiss a case. The26

amendment directs both the public and private prosecutors to oppose and manifest

objections to motions of dismissals.

This amendment was a legislative response27

borne out of numerous cases that have been dismissed based on A "davits of

Desistance.

Nonetheless, when the prosecutor’s case rest solely on the testimony of the victim

and no other evidence is presented or is available to be presented, the case will be

dismissed.

In a 2013 case, a court in the Sixth Judicial Region dismissed the case against the

accused based on the violation of their right to a speedy trial. One year had passed

from the detention of the accused and they have not been arraigned because the

public prosecutors and the complainants failed to appear. 28

On the other hand, less than half a percent are provisionally dismissed. In almost all

instances of provisional dismissal, the cause is the non-appearance of the

complainant or the material witnesses during the presentation of the prosecution’s

case. A particular case in the Seventh Judicial Region was provisionally dismissed

for failure of the material witnesses, the police, to appear. 29

In another case decided in April 2013, a court in the Fifth Judicial Region allowedthe case to be provisionally dismissed primarily due to the settlement of the civil

aspect of the case. 30

45

Section 8.&Initiation and Prosecution of Cases.&– 26

xxx% xxx% xxx

(c)& A! davit of Desistance. –$Cases involving tra"cking in persons should not be dismissed based

on the a"davit of desistance executed by the victims or their parents or legal guardians. Public

and private prosecutors are directed to oppose and manifest objections to motions for dismissal.

Any act involving the means provided in this Act or any attempt thereof for the purpose of securing

an A "davit of Desistance from the complainant shall be punishable under this Act. [As amended

by R.A. 10364]

Ibid.27

People vs. Shin and Botor, Crim Case No. 10583, Sixth Judicial Region, Regional Trial Court, Branch 7,28

Kalibo, Aklan.

People vs. Epe, et al. Criminal Case No. 14728, Seventh Judicial Region, Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, City29

of Tagbilaran

People v. Competente, Criminal Case No. 13653, Fifth Judicial Region, Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Daet,30

Camarines Norte


46/104

The likelihood of provisionally dismissed cases being revived are slim, resulting in

their eventual dismissal. The rule on provisional dismissals is found in Section 8,31

Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court:

SEC.8. Provisional dismissal. — A case shall not be provisionally

dismissed except with the express consent of the accused and with

notice to the o$ended party.

The provisional dismissal of o$enses punishable by imprisonment not

exceeding six (6) years or a fine of any amount, or both, shall become

permanent one (1) year after issuance of the order without the case

having been revived. With respect to o$enses punishable by

imprisonment of more than six (6) years, their provisional dismissal

shall become permanent two (2) years after issuance of the order

without the case having been revived.

Since tra"cking o$enses are penalized with at least 6 years of imprisonment, the

time bar for the revival of the prosecution is 2 years.

On the other hand, 33.26% are on active trial. If the Supreme Court’s guidelines are

followed, these cases should be tried and decided within 180 days or 6 months

from the time of arraignment. Realistically however, the median period for trial,32

using the cases which resulted in either acquittal or conviction, is 565 days or 1 year

and 5 months.

46

A case is provisionally dismissed if the following requirements concur: 1) the prosecution with the express31

conformity of the accused, or the accused, moves for a provisional dismissal ( sin perjuicio ) of his case; or both

the prosecution and the accused move for its provisional dismissal; 2) the o$ended party is notified of the

motion for a provisional dismissal of the case; 3) the court issues an order granting the motion and dismissing

the case provisionally; and 4) the public prosecutor is served with a copy of the order of provisional dismissal of

the case. In People v. Lacson (400 SCRA 293 [2003]), we ruled that there are sine qua non requirements in the

application of the time-bar rule stated in the second paragraph of Section 8 of Rule 117. We also ruled that the

time-bar under the foregoing provision is a special procedural limitation qualifying the right of the State to

prosecute, making the time-bar an essence of the given right or as an inherent part thereof, so that the lapse of

the time-bar operates to extinguish the right of the State to prosecute the accused. [Los Banos vs. Pedro 586

SCRA 303 (2009)]

The Supreme Court, through the O"ce of the Court Administrator, issued OCA Circular No. 151-2010 in the32

exercise of its administrative supervision over all trial courts. The said circular ordered all trial courts to expedite

the disposition of cases involving violations of the Anti-Tra"

cking Act which are mandated to be heardcontinuously with hearing dates being spaced not more than two weeks apart. In addition, newly-ra'ed ones

should be heard and decided within 180 days from arraignment of the accused.


47/104

concluded trials which resulted in conviction vs. acquittal

Of the charges

where a full trial on

the merits were held,

or concluded trials,

133 charges or 76%

resulted in

convictions.

Specifically excluded

here are those whichhave been

provisionally

dismissed, archived

or dismissed without

a full trial. Of the charges which resulted in convictions, 11% resulted in a finding of

guilt of a lesser o$ense than what was charged.

number of convictions under the Aquino Administration

compared to the Arroyo Administration

47

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Aquino Administration-96 convictions

Arroyo Administration-37 convictions

Acquittal

27%

Conviction

73%


48/104

The Aquino administration, in just a little over 3 years oversaw 96 convictions of

tra"cking chargers. However, the Arroyo administration in 8 years only oversaw 37

convictions. By way of comparison, the Aquino administration has 2 1/2 times the

number of convictions than the Arroyo administration.

using the metric set in the 2012 UN global report on

trafficking in persons

The 2012 United Nations O"ce on Drugs and Crimes Global Report on Tra"cking in

Persons states that among the 100 countries which provided information on the

number of convictions for tra"cking in persons for the year 2010 (excluding a

limited number of exceptions), the rate ranged between 0 and 1.6 per 100,000inhabitants. If the distribution of countries is considered according to the conviction

rates the majority of the countries registered conviction rates between 0 and 0.6. A

conviction rate above 1 was registered in very few cases, and the rate rose above

1.6 per 100,000 persons in only two cases. The mean value for the conviction rates

in 2010 among these 100 countries is 0.154 per 100,000 people.

In comparison, the mean value for the conviction rates in 2010 in the Philippines

is .023 per 100,000 persons.

Courts, including the Court of Appeals and the Supreme

Court publish the names of the victims, contrary to Sec. 7 of

the Anti-Trafficking Act.

In all cases filed with the trial courts, names and other identifying information of the

victims are stated. In the two (2) cases on tra"cking decided by the Supreme Court,

48

0.0000 0.0000

0.0105

0.0000

0.0045

0.0068

0.0147

0.0238

0.0282

0.0325

0.0260

0.0000

0.0050

0.0100

0.0150

0.0200

0.0250

0.0300

0.0350

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

number of convictions per 100,000 persons: national

* 100% of tra"cking cases has available data on the number of convictions per region


49/104

one was a decision which stated the full name of the tra"cking victim. The other33

one is a minute resolution which did not mention the name of the minor victims.

However in the same case, the names of the minor victims were explicitly stated in

the Court of Appeals decision. (34

49

See People v. Lalli, G.R. No. 195419, 12 October 2011, 659 SCRA 105 (2011)33

See People v. Ebarat, G.R. No. 203643, 10 April 2013 and People v. Ebarat, CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 0091234


50/104

legal framework

50


51/104

the anti-tra"cking act of 2003, as amended

The Anti-Tra"cking in Persons Act defines tra"cking in persons as covering acts35

of “recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, o$ering, transportation, transfer,

maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent orknowledge” by means of “threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion,36

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.” 37

The purpose of exploitation or type of tra"cking includes “the prostitution of others

or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or

the removal or sale of organs” as well as child engagement in armed activities.38 3Tra"cking may be within or across national borders. 40

In the case of children, tra"cking in persons exist even if it does not involve any of

the means stated above when the act of “recruitment, transportation, transfer,

harboring, adoption or receipt of a child” is for the purpose of exploitation or when

the adoption is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes.” 41

The Anti-Tra"cking Act also separately defines o$enses as acts of tra"cking, acts42

promoting tra"cking, and qualified tra"cking. Attempted acts of tra"cking,43 44 4

accomplice liability and accessory liability are also separately penalized. Use of46 47

51

Republic Act No. 9208 or the Anti-Tra! cking in Persons Act of 2003, as amended by Rep. Act No. 10368 or35

the Expanded Anti-Tra! cking in Persons Act of 2012

Rep. Act No. 9208, as amended, Section 3 (a)36

ibid.37

ibid .38

Rep. Act No. 9208, as amended, Sec. 4 (i)39

ibid.40

ibid.41

Rep. Act No. 9208, as amended, Section 442



Rep. Act No. 9208, as amended, Section 4-A 45

Rep. Act No. 9208, as amended, Section 4-B46

Rep. Act No. 9208, as amended, Section 4-C47


52/104

tra"cked persons for prostitution is now heavily penalized, with the added penalty48

of dismissal from public o"ce and perpetual disqualification to hold o"ce for public

o"cers. Convicted o$enders who are foreigners are also deported after service of

their prison terms.

Notably, when a person is tra"cked for prostitution, the victim is no longer subject

to prosecution for prostitution under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. 4

Further, the amendments to the Act removed the confidentiality of the identity of

persons accused of tra"cking. Public identification of the suspected tra"ckers’

name may serve as a warning to potential victims.

The Anti-Tra"cking Act not only defines criminal acts of tra"cking but also seeks to

implement preventive, protective and rehabilitative programs to ensure the recovery,

rehabilitation and reintegration of tra"cking victims into the mainstream society. 50

other domestic laws used to fight tra"cking in

persons

In the case of People v. Lalli, the Supreme Court ruled that when an act or acts51

violate two or more di$erent laws and constitute two di$erent o$enses, prosecution

under one will not bar a prosecution under the other. The Court explained that the

constitutional right against double jeopardy only applies to the risk of being

punished twice for the same o$ense, or for an act punished by a law and an

ordinance. The prohibition on double jeopardy does not apply to an act or series of

acts constituting di$erent o$enses. Hence, a tra"cker may be charged under the

Anti-Tra"cking Act and any of the following laws:

The Anti-Child Abuse Act

The Anti-Child Abuse Act was enacted in 1992 in consonance with the declared52

policy of the State to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse,

52



Rep. Act No. 9208, as amended, Sections 2 and 1650

People vs. Lalli, 659 SCRA 105 (2011) citing People v. Tac-an, 261 Phil. 728, 746; 182 SCRA 601 (1990).51

Rep. Act No. 7610, or the Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination52

Act of 1992, as amended by Rep. Act No. 9231 (2003).


53/104

neglect, cruelty exploitation and discrimination and other conditions prejudicial to

their development. 53

Relevant to the Anti-Tra"cking Act, “child abuse" is defined as the maltreatment,

whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following: (1)

psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional

maltreatment; (2) any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans

the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being; (3) unreasonable

deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or (4) failure to

immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious

impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or

death. Child prostitution is also defined in the law as “children, whether male or54

female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or

influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lasciviousconduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual

abuse.” 55

Further, the Anti-Child Abuse Act provides that no child shall be engaged in the

worst forms of child labor. “Worst forms of child labor” include all forms of slavery,56

as defined under the Anti-Tra"cking in Persons Act, or practices similar to slavery

such as sale and tra"cking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or

compulsory labor, including recruitment of children for use in armed conflict; the

use, procuring, o$ering or exposing of a child for prostitution, for the production of

pornography or for pornographic performances; or the use, procuring or o$ering of

a

Documents

PAGES Philippine Report on the Prosecution of Trafficking in Persons Cases 2003-2013 28 February 2014