The Supreme Court in Fernando B. Arambulo v. People affirmed the conviction for Qualified Trafficking in Persons, clarifying that recruiting minors for criminal activities constitutes trafficking under Republic Act No. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003). This decision underscores the state’s commitment to protecting children from exploitation by ensuring that those who recruit minors into illicit activities are held accountable, even if the specific provision under which they were charged was enacted after the crime. This ruling reinforces the principle that the exploitation of children is a grave offense with severe legal consequences.

When Recruitment Leads to Robbery: Defining Trafficking in the Digital Age

This case revolves around Fernando B. Arambulo, who was accused of recruiting three minors into committing a series of robberies. The prosecution argued that Arambulo, along with his son, invited the minors to their house to discuss plans for robberies. The victims testified that Arambulo masterminded the robberies and acted as the getaway driver. Arambulo was initially charged under Section 4(k)(4) of RA 9208, as amended by RA 10364, which specifically addresses recruiting children for illegal activities. However, this provision was enacted after the alleged commission of the crimes, leading to a legal challenge regarding the applicability of the law. The key legal question was whether Arambulo’s actions constituted trafficking under the original provisions of RA 9208, even if the specific provision cited in the charge was not yet in effect.

The Court addressed the issue of whether Arambulo could be convicted under a provision that came into effect after the alleged crimes. The Supreme Court clarified that while Arambulo could not be convicted under Section 4(k)(4) of RA 9208 as amended by RA 10364, his actions still fell under the purview of the original RA 9208. Specifically, the Court referred to Section 4(a) of RA 9208 in its original form, which states:

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.

The Court reasoned that Arambulo’s recruitment of minors for robberies constituted “forced labor or involuntary servitude” as defined under the original RA 9208. According to Section 3(d) of RA 9208, “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.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that the prosecution had successfully demonstrated the elements of the violation of Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) and (c) of RA 9208. First, Arambulo recruited three minors through his son. Second, he exploited their vulnerability through enticement, violence, and coercion. Third, he recruited them to perform illicit activities, namely committing robberies. The court emphasized that the victim’s consent is irrelevant when coercive, abusive, or deceptive means are employed. Moreover, a minor’s consent is never considered freely given.

The Court cited People v. Casio, reinforcing the legal standard that the victim’s consent is negated by coercive or deceptive practices. In this context, even if the minors initially seemed to agree, their consent was vitiated by the circumstances of their recruitment and the coercion they experienced. This principle is crucial for protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation. Therefore, Arambulo’s recruitment of minors for criminal activities met the criteria for trafficking under RA 9208, regardless of their apparent consent.

Moreover, the Supreme Court addressed the correct penalty to be imposed. Section 10(c) of RA 9208 specifies that individuals found guilty of Qualified Trafficking shall face life imprisonment and a fine between P2,000,000.00 and P5,000,000.00. Consequently, the CA correctly sentenced Arambulo to life imprisonment and a fine of P2,000,000.00. The Court also ordered Arambulo to pay each victim P500,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages, adhering to established legal precedents. To ensure the victims receive just compensation, the Court imposed a legal interest rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all monetary awards, calculated from the finality of the Decision until full payment, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision serves as a stern reminder of the penalties for trafficking in persons, especially when minors are involved. The Court underscored that the crime of trafficking is qualified when the trafficked person is a child, and when the crime is committed on a large scale, involving three or more persons. This ruling provides a legal precedent for future cases, ensuring that those who exploit minors for criminal activities are held accountable under the full extent of the law. The decision emphasizes the judiciary’s role in safeguarding vulnerable populations and upholding the principles of justice and protection for all.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether recruiting minors to commit robberies constituted trafficking in persons under Republic Act No. 9208, even if the specific provision cited in the charge was enacted after the alleged crime.
Under what law was Arambulo ultimately convicted?	Arambulo was convicted under Section 4(a) of RA 9208 in its original form, in relation to Section 6(a) and (c) of the same law, for recruiting minors for forced labor and involuntary servitude.
What does RA 9208 define as trafficking in persons?	RA 9208 defines trafficking in persons as the recruitment, transportation, transfer, or harboring of persons with or without their consent, for the purpose of exploitation, including forced labor or services.
Why was Arambulo not convicted under the amended law?	Arambulo was not convicted under the amended law because the specific provision he was initially charged under was enacted after the crimes were committed, and penal laws cannot be applied retroactively.
What penalties did Arambulo receive?	Arambulo was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P2,000,000.00. He was also ordered to pay each of the three victims P500,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages.
What makes trafficking a “qualified” offense?	Trafficking is considered a “qualified” offense when the victim is a child or when the crime is committed by a syndicate or on a large scale, involving three or more persons.
Is the victim’s consent relevant in trafficking cases?	The victim’s consent is irrelevant if coercive, abusive, or deceptive means are used. In the case of minors, consent is never considered freely given.
What is the significance of this Supreme Court decision?	The decision clarifies that recruiting minors for criminal activities constitutes trafficking in persons, even if specific provisions are enacted after the commission of the crime, thus ensuring greater protection for vulnerable individuals.

This case underscores the importance of protecting minors from exploitation and ensuring that those who seek to profit from their vulnerability are held accountable. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the legal framework designed to combat trafficking in persons and sends a clear message that the recruitment of children for criminal activities will not be tolerated.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.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: Fernando B. Arambulo v. People, G.R. No. 241834, July 24, 2019