Report on case of trafficking (Republic Act 9208) in Butuan City
Edna Hontiveros, an NGO worker in Butuan, wrote that the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City rendered a conviction on white slavery in Butuan City. Although the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (Republic Act No. 9208) was passed two years ago, there is yet no conviction using this law. The case as described by Edna looks like the accused could have been charged and convicted for violating R.A. 9208, but instead the fiscal used “white slavery” under the Revised Penal Code.
Take note that the offender got away by plea bargaining to a lesser offense, and then applied for probation (allowed for first offense). Women’s rights advocates should resist plea bargaining if their evidence is strong. We can’t let traffickers and pimps get away with selling women’s bodies, rape and sexual slavery.
If R.A. 9208 was pursued, the penalty would be much higher.
Here is her letter:
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: hontiveros edna
Date: Nov 29, 2005 10:14 PM
Subject: first trafficking in person convicted in Butuan City
Went to the Hall of Justice this morning to inquire regarding this matter. I found out that the case was filed last February 18, 2005 against Warlito Pullido. He was charged with violating RA 7610 and 9208 under Criminal Case number 11043. Per case report, it said that the accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maintain a house of ill repute where he enlisted the services of at least 4 women for the purpose of prostitution and said accused deriving profits from said business, one of whom was a 16 year old minor. Hewas found guilty for the offense of white slavery traffic. He was sentenced in April 22 of this year of imprisonment of one year and one day to 2 years and 4 months and one day.
His lawyer made a plea bargain as he did not contest the said case and for health reason(daw) his sentence was suspended for a probation for 3 years and posted a bail for P5,000.00.
I guess they focused more on the the violation of RA 7610 whic was why the sentence was light and was given a suspended probation.
Per report that I have gotten, there were 2 other cases filed for violation of RA 7610 and 9208. One was filed last Feb. 18 2005 and the case is still going on. The other case was filed last Sept. 23 but was dismissed in Sept. 27 also of this year.
This is all for now.
December 1st, 2005 04:31
Dear Atty.,
I just discovered that you are a blogger too. I like you elegant site. I have to organize my thoughts first before I would legally make a comment on your posts. I’m still here in Ho Chi Minh City, still resting/recuperating.
Best!
December 3rd, 2005 08:26
Bing,
So what’s the next step here to ensure the higher penalty is imposed?
Carol
December 4th, 2005 21:11
carol,
there is an inter-agency for anti-trafficking led b y the DOJ. but the DOJ cannot see the problem in its own backyard, and that is, fiscals agreeing to plea bargaining to lesser offenses.
as long as the element of recruiting, transporting, receiving, harboring, assisting in exit of victims (outside of the Philippines) for the purpose of prostituting the victims or subjecting them to slavery, sexual abuse, exploitation, etc, that is trafficking. the penalty is higher if the trafficker is a public officer or member of law enforcement agency.
even those who “use” or buy the trafficked persons are liable for 6 months community service for the first offense, and 1 year imprisonment for the 2nd conviction. i personally requested this provision from Senate PResident Frank Drilon
we have a very good law. but as usual, law enforcement is weak and our law enforcers and other officials are corrupt, which is why traffickers have a heyday in the PHilippines