TL;DR

In People v. Amurao, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Esmeraldo Amurao for trafficking in persons, affirming that his apprehension was the result of a valid entrapment operation, not instigation. The Court clarified that when law enforcement agents merely create opportunities for a predisposed offender to commit a crime, it is entrapment, which is legally permissible. This ruling reinforces the legality of entrapment operations in combating human trafficking and emphasizes that individuals already engaged in criminal activities cannot evade justice by claiming inducement when caught through legitimate law enforcement tactics.

Luring the Pimp: When Anti-Trafficking Operations Entrap, Not Instigate

The case of People of the Philippines v. Esmeraldo “Jay” Amurao (G.R. No. 229514) revolves around the crucial distinction between entrapment and instigation in law enforcement operations, specifically within the context of human trafficking. Accused-appellant Amurao appealed his conviction for trafficking in persons, arguing that he was instigated by National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents into committing the crime. This case provided the Supreme Court an opportunity to reiterate the established jurisprudence on entrapment and instigation, and to affirm the conviction based on the factual findings of the lower courts.

The factual backdrop involves an NBI operation prompted by a report from the International Justice Mission (IJM) about Amurao’s involvement in prostituting women, some of whom were minors, in Angeles City. NBI agents, acting as poseur-buyers, approached Amurao inquiring about procuring women for prostitution. Amurao readily offered to provide girls, including minors, for a fee. Subsequently, an entrapment operation was conducted where Amurao and his co-accused, Valencia, were arrested after presenting six women, some minors, to the agents in exchange for marked money. Amurao argued instigation, claiming the NBI agents induced him to commit the crime he had no prior intention of committing.

The Supreme Court, however, sided with the prosecution, firmly distinguishing entrapment from instigation. The Court cited established legal precedents defining instigation as the act of law enforcement officers inducing a person to commit a crime they would not otherwise commit, making the officers co-principals and leading to acquittal. In contrast, entrapment is defined as employing means to trap a lawbreaker who already has criminal intent, where law enforcement merely facilitates apprehension. In entrapment, the criminal intent originates from the accused, and therefore, it does not bar prosecution and conviction.

The Supreme Court referenced People v. Hirang, emphasizing that instigation is a “trap for the unwary innocent” while entrapment is a “trap for the unwary criminal.” Applying this distinction to Amurao’s case, the Court found no evidence of instigation. Instead, the evidence pointed towards a valid entrapment operation. The testimonies of the victims and the NBI agents clearly indicated that Amurao was already engaged in the illicit activity of recruiting women for prostitution. The NBI agents merely posed as customers, providing him an opportunity to carry out his pre-existing criminal intent. The Court highlighted testimony from one victim stating Amurao had approached her for sex work previously, reinforcing his predisposition.

The decision meticulously laid out the elements of Trafficking in Persons as defined under Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003). Section 3(a) of RA 9208 defines Trafficking in Persons as:

…the recruitment, transportation, transfer or 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 persons, 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.

Section 4(a) specifies that it is unlawful to “recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or receive a person… for the purpose of prostitution…”. Section 6(a) further qualifies trafficking as Qualified Trafficking when the trafficked person is a child (under 18 years of age).

The Court found that all elements of both simple and qualified trafficking were proven beyond reasonable doubt. Amurao’s acts of recruiting AAA (for simple trafficking) and minors BBB and CCC (for qualified trafficking), for the purpose of prostitution, were clearly established through witness testimonies and Amurao’s own admissions. The minority of BBB and CCC was substantiated by birth certificates. The court affirmed the penalties imposed by the lower courts, which were in line with Section 10 of RA 9208, prescribing 20 years imprisonment and a fine for simple trafficking, and life imprisonment and a higher fine for qualified trafficking.

Regarding damages, the Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ modification, awarding moral and exemplary damages to the victims, citing People v. Lalli, which analogized trafficking to crimes like seduction and rape, justifying such awards under Article 2219 of the Civil Code. The moral damages were set at P500,000.00 and exemplary damages at P100,000.00 for each victim, with a 6% per annum interest from finality of judgment until full payment, consistent with Nacar v. Gallery Frames.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Amurao reinforces the critical distinction between entrapment and instigation in law enforcement. It validates the use of entrapment as a legitimate tool against pre-disposed criminals, particularly in combating serious offenses like human trafficking. The ruling serves as a crucial guide for law enforcement and clarifies the boundaries of permissible operations, ensuring that while protecting individual rights, the fight against crime is not unduly hampered by unfounded claims of inducement.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Amurao, G.R. No. 229514, July 28, 2020