Sometime on 3 June 2005, the defendants recruited L.P., a 23 year old, single woman from Zamboanga City, promising her employment as a restaurant entertainer. She was told she would earn MYR500 (Malaysian Ringgits) (USD160).
On 6 June 2006 she left the port of Zamboanga City for Sandakan, Malaysia. She was brought to a restaurant in Labuan, Malaysia, and it became apparent it was actually a “prostitution den”. Prostitutes were paid MYR300 (Malaysian Ringgits) for short services of which MYR50 went to the entertainer, and MYR500 for over night service of which MYR100 went to the entertainer.
L.P. worked at Piper Club from 14 June to 8 July 2005. She was forced to have sexual intercourse with at least one customer a night and at most she had around five customers a night. She was often beaten by the “boss” as well as by the customers she was forced to have sex with. On 9 July 2005 she was able to contact her brother-in-law, an Indonesian national, who helped her escape and brought her back to Zamboanga City.
On 2 August 2005 L.P. filed a complaint to the police.
MalaysiaPhilippines1st Instance:
Court: Regional Trial Court
Location: Zamboanga City
Date of decision: 29 November 2005
Reference: CRIM. CASE NO. 21908
2nd Instance:
Court: Court of Appeals
Location: Cagayan de Oro
Date of decision: 26 February 2010
3rd Instance:
Court: Supreme Court, Division 2
Location: Manila
Date of decision: 12 October 2011
Reference: People of the Philippines vs. Hadja Jarma Lalli y Purish et al., G.R. No. 195419, 29 November 2005.
The trial court did not find credible the denials of the accused over the “candid, positive and convincing testimony of complainant”. The accused, likewise, tried to prove that L.P. was a Guest Relations Officer (GRO) in the Philippines with four children fathered by four different men. However, the trial court found these allegations irrelevant and immaterial to the criminal prosecution. The trial court did not pronounce the liability of the defendant N.R. because jurisdiction was not acquired over his person.
The first instance court held that Hadja Jarma Lalli y Purih and Ronnie Aringoy v Masion were guilty of trafficking in persons and illegal recruitment. They were sentenced to life imprisonment, fined PHP2,500,000 and ordered to pay the complainant’s costs and PHP50,000 as moral damages and PHP50,000 as exemplary damages.
The trial court did not find credible the denials of the accused over the “candid, positive and convincing testimony of complainant”. The accused, likewise, tried to prove that L.P. was a Guest Relations Officer (GRO) in the Philippines with four children fathered by four different men. However, the trial court found these allegations irrelevant and immaterial to the criminal prosecution. The trial court did not pronounce the liability of the defendant N.R. because jurisdiction was not acquired over his person.
The first instance court held that Hadja Jarma Lalli y Purih and Ronnie Aringoy v Masion were guilty of trafficking in persons and illegal recruitment. They were sentenced to life imprisonment, fined PHP2,500,000 and ordered to pay the complainant’s costs and PHP50,000 as moral damages and PHP50,000 as exemplary damages.
The trial court did not find credible the denials of the accused over the “candid, positive and convincing testimony of complainant”. The accused, likewise, tried to prove that L.P. was a Guest Relations Officer (GRO) in the Philippines with four children fathered by four different men. However, the trial court found these allegations irrelevant and immaterial to the criminal prosecution. The trial court did not pronounce the liability of the defendant N.R. because jurisdiction was not acquired over his person.
The first instance court held that Hadja Jarma Lalli y Purih and Ronnie Aringoy v Masion were guilty of trafficking in persons and illegal recruitment. They were sentenced to life imprisonment, fined PHP2,500,000 and ordered to pay the complainant’s costs and PHP50,000 as moral damages and PHP50,000 as exemplary damages.
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 known as the “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”
Sections 4(a) and 6(c) of Republic Act No. 9208 known as the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003”
Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit any of the following acts:
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, 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, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The following are considered as qualified trafficking:
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group;
2nd instance:
Court: Court of Appeals
Location: Cagayan de Oro
Date of decision: 26 February 2010
On 26 February 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the first instance decision and found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of ‘illegal recruitment’ and ‘trafficking in persons’.
3rd instance:
Court: Supreme Court, Division 2
Location: Manila
Date of decision: 12 October 2011
The only issue in this appeal was whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming in toto the first instance appeal. The Supreme Court held that:
“The Court gives weight and respect to the trial court’s findings in criminal prosecution because the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses in person and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. For this reason, the Court adopts the findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals, there being no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower courts.”
It was submitted by the accused that the two charges constituted double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that:
“When an act or acts violate two or more different laws and constitute two different offenses, a prosecution under one will not bar a prosecution under the other. The constitutional right against double jeopardy only applies to risk of punishment twice for the same offense, 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 different offenses.”
The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions. However, the Court decided to increase the payment of damages payable to the victim in relation to the trafficking in persons charge. The Court raised the amount payable from PHP50,000 to PHP500,000 for moral damages and PHP50,000 to PHP100,000 for exemplary damages. The increase in damages was justified on the following basis:
“The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous case to the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. In fact, it is worse. To be trafficked as a prostitute without one’s consent and to be sexually violated four to five times a day by different strangers is horrendous and atrocious. There is no doubt that Lolita experienced physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and social humiliation when she was trafficked as a prostitute in Malaysia. Since the crime of Trafficking in Persons was aggravated, being committed by a syndicate, the award of exemplary damages is likewise justified.”
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 known as the “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”
Sections 4(a) and 6(c) of Republic Act No. 9208 known as the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003”
Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical, to commit any of the following acts:
(a) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor, provide, 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, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The following are considered as qualified trafficking:
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group;
2nd instance:
Court: Court of Appeals
Location: Cagayan de Oro
Date of decision: 26 February 2010
On 26 February 2010, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the first instance decision and found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of ‘illegal recruitment’ and ‘trafficking in persons’.
3rd instance:
Court: Supreme Court, Division 2
Location: Manila
Date of decision: 12 October 2011
The only issue in this appeal was whether the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming in toto the first instance appeal. The Supreme Court held that:
“The Court gives weight and respect to the trial court’s findings in criminal prosecution because the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses in person and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. For this reason, the Court adopts the findings of fact of the trial court, as affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals, there being no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower courts.”
It was submitted by the accused that the two charges constituted double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that:
“When an act or acts violate two or more different laws and constitute two different offenses, a prosecution under one will not bar a prosecution under the other. The constitutional right against double jeopardy only applies to risk of punishment twice for the same offense, 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 different offenses.”
The Court ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions. However, the Court decided to increase the payment of damages payable to the victim in relation to the trafficking in persons charge. The Court raised the amount payable from PHP50,000 to PHP500,000 for moral damages and PHP50,000 to PHP100,000 for exemplary damages. The increase in damages was justified on the following basis:
“The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous case to the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. In fact, it is worse. To be trafficked as a prostitute without one’s consent and to be sexually violated four to five times a day by different strangers is horrendous and atrocious. There is no doubt that Lolita experienced physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and social humiliation when she was trafficked as a prostitute in Malaysia. Since the crime of Trafficking in Persons was aggravated, being committed by a syndicate, the award of exemplary damages is likewise justified.”
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8042 known as the “Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995”
Sections 4(a) and 6(c) of Republic Act No. 9208 known as the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003”
Supreme Court
3rd Instance: People of the Philippines vs. Hadja Jarma Lalli y Purish et al., G.R. No. 195419, 29 November 2005.
Comments
Ronnie Aringo, one of the Filipino traffickers was apprehended by the police, upon the complaint filed by the victim, and upon the instruction of the investigator to the victim to call the accused that she likewise recruited two other women who are willing to go and work in Malaysia, which prompted the accused to meet her which led the police to invite him for investigation. While, the other accused, Hadja Lalli, was invited from her residence by the police who was then accompanied by the victim and the other co-accused, Ronnie Aringo.