When Does Consent Matter in Human Trafficking Cases?

G.R. No. 267140, November 06, 2024

Human trafficking is a heinous crime that robs individuals of their freedom and dignity. But what happens when the victim seemingly “consents” to the situation? Does consent negate the crime of trafficking? This Supreme Court decision, People of the Philippines vs. Larissa Nadel Dominguez, sheds light on this critical question, particularly in cases involving minors, emphasizing that consent is not a defense when exploitation is involved. This case underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act and its implications for vulnerable individuals.

The Legal Framework of Anti-Trafficking Laws

The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (RA 9208), as amended by RA 10364 and RA 11862, aims to eliminate trafficking, especially of women and children. This law defines trafficking in persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons by means of threat, force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power, or taking advantage of vulnerability for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation includes prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, servitude, or the removal/sale of organs.

A critical component of understanding this law is its definition of a “child.” According to the Act, a child is anyone under 18 years of age. This is crucial because the law recognizes that children are inherently vulnerable and cannot provide true consent to exploitative situations.

Here’s a key provision from the Anti-Trafficking Act:

“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, obtain, hire, provide, offer, 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;”

The Case of Larissa Nadel Dominguez

The case revolves around Larissa Nadel Dominguez, who was accused of qualified trafficking for recruiting a 15-year-old girl, AAA, under the guise of being a babysitter. Instead, AAA was allegedly forced to work as an entertainer in Dominguez’s bar, where she was subjected to lascivious conduct by male customers.

The procedural journey of the case:

• Initial Complaint: AAA’s mother sought help after learning about her daughter’s situation.
• Entrapment Operation: NBI agents, in coordination with the DSWD, conducted a rescue operation at the bar.
• Trial Court: The Regional Trial Court convicted Dominguez of qualified trafficking.
• Appellate Court: The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision.
• Supreme Court: Dominguez appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that AAA was not exploited and that the operation was an instigation, not a valid entrapment.

During the trial, AAA testified tearfully about being misled and exploited. Agent Mesa, from the NBI, corroborated AAA’s account and detailed the entrapment operation. Dominguez, on the other hand, claimed that AAA was hired as a babysitter and was never forced into prostitution.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of AAA’s testimony, stating:

“The above testimony, as corroborated by the undercover government operatives, shows that AAA was subjected to sexual exploitation and prostitution. Sexual intercourse is not necessary to establish that the recruitment was for the purpose of sexual exploitation and prostitution under the Anti-Trafficking Act… The acts of caressing and touching her private parts constitute lascivious conduct.”

The Court also highlighted the distinction between entrapment and instigation, finding that the NBI’s operation was a valid entrapment because the criminal intent originated with Dominguez, not the authorities. The court underscored that the victim does not have to be actually subjected to sexual intercourse with a customer before the recruiters can be held liable under the law.

Practical Implications and Key Lessons

This case reinforces the principle that consent is irrelevant in trafficking cases involving minors. The law focuses on the act of exploitation, regardless of whether the victim initially agreed to the situation.

Consider this hypothetical: A 17-year-old runaway agrees to work as a dancer in a club to earn money. Even if she willingly accepts the job, if the club subjects her to sexual exploitation, the owner can still be charged with human trafficking.

Key Lessons:

• Vulnerability Matters: Taking advantage of someone’s vulnerability, especially a minor’s, is a key element in proving human trafficking.
• Exploitation Defined: Exploitation extends beyond sexual intercourse and includes any form of lascivious conduct or forced labor.
• Entrapment vs. Instigation: Law enforcement can use entrapment to catch criminals, but they cannot instigate a crime that wouldn’t have otherwise occurred.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What constitutes “exploitation” under the Anti-Trafficking Act?

A: Exploitation includes prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation (even without intercourse), forced labor, slavery, servitude, or the removal/sale of organs.

Q: If a person willingly enters a situation that turns exploitative, is it still trafficking?

A: Yes, especially if the person is a minor. The law focuses on the act of exploitation, regardless of initial consent.

Q: What is the difference between entrapment and instigation?

A: Entrapment is a valid law enforcement tactic where the criminal intent originates with the suspect. Instigation is illegal, where law enforcement induces someone to commit a crime they wouldn’t have otherwise committed.

Q: What are the penalties for human trafficking in the Philippines?

A: Penalties range from hefty fines to life imprisonment, depending on the severity of the crime and the victim’s circumstances.

Q: What should I do if I suspect someone is being trafficked?

A: Contact the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), or a reputable anti-trafficking organization immediately.

Q: Does the Anti-Trafficking Act only apply to women and children?

A: No, while women and children are disproportionately affected, the law applies to all victims of trafficking, regardless of gender or age.

Q: What is ASG Law’s expertise?

A: ASG Law specializes in criminal law, labor law, and family law, offering comprehensive legal solutions for a wide range of cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.