will post its salient features here.

Thanks to Atty. Damcelle Torres of Sen. Kiko Pangilinan’s office, for helping with this bill and updating us of its developments.

Will post Albert Muyot’s (Unicef) report next time.

FINALLY after two years, we have a conviction for violation of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (Republic Act No. 9208) in the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City. There were previous convictions in Batangas province and Butuan City but these were for the crime of white slavery that had a lesser penalty than in RA 9208. The problem with many prosecutors is that they agree to plea bargaining by the accused for a lesser offense, hence the poor record of conviction for violation of RA 9208. The Department of Justice, which heads the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking (IACAT), should issue a memorandum to its prosecutors that plea bargaining is not allowed when the charge is for violation of RA 9208.

The accused, Ronnie Aringoy and Hadja Jarma Lalli were arraigned on Sept. 9, 2005 and convicted after only 50 days, last Nov. 29. It probably helped that in September there was a roadshow education campaign in Zamboanga under the Filipino Initiatives Against Trafficking project conducted by the IACAT, with nongovernmental organizations Visayan Forum, ECPAT and Coalition Against Trafficking in Women-Asia Pacific.

We should congratulate city prosecutor Ricardo Cabaron and commend the police personnel who arrested and gathered the evidence for the case, Captain Jesus Belarga and Senior Police Officer-1 Federico Lindo, Jr. as well as city social worker Kit Barredo, but our applause and highest respect goes to the trafficked survivor, Rosario (not her real name).

Rosario was lured and deceived into taking the boat from the Zamboanga pier to Sandakan in Malaysia, and then to Kota Kinabalu, because she badly needed a job. The recruiters promised her a job in a restaurant. Instead of landing a decent job in a restaurant, Rosario was raped and prostituted in Kota Kinabalu from June 14 to July 18, 2004. Her Malaysian bother-in-law rescued her after she contacted her sister by mobile phone. Other women would have hid in shame and not file a complaint, but Rosario looked for her recruiters and traffickers and filed a complaint for violation of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act.

Traffickers and their international syndicates, which make tons of money, have a heyday in the Philippines because of our weak law enforcement, corruption in government, and the vulnerability of women and girls due to poverty. In this case, the policemen and policewomen of Zamboanga City are an exception. When Rosario went to the police to complain, they immediately believed her story and devised an entrapment. They told Rosario to call Aringoy, and she told him about the two beautiful women whom Aringoy could bring to Malaysia. When Aringoy arrived, the policemen arrested him. The speed with which the police and the prosecutor responded to Rosario’s complaint was extraordinary.
Judge Jesus Carbon, Jr.’s decision should be a good entry to the 2nd Gender Justice Awards. He wrote: “ The accused tried to show that Rosario was a guest relations officer (GRO) who has four children sired by four different men. No sufficient evidence was adduced to prove this allegation. Even if indeed she was a GRO with four children fathered by four different men, such circumstance would have rendered her even more vulnerable to sexual exploitation.” Judge Carbon, Jr. shows a firm grasp of RA No. 9208 when he ruled that “consent of a trafficked person the intended exploitation is irrelevant and not a material fact that can be raised in a criminal prosecution. It will not exempt or mitigate the offender’s criminal liability (Sec. 3(a) and Section 17, RA No. 9208) Traffickers in human beings and illegal recruiters prey on the vulnerability and gullibility of the weak and the underprivileged, “of poor laborers, seamen, domestics and other workers who use employment abroad as the only way out of their grinding poverty.”

But what of the employees and officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) in the Zamboanga port? Rosario testified that she used the passport of her sister, and her recruiters and traffickers told her that they had a contact in the DFA in Zamboanga, who will put the picture of Rosario on her sister’s passport and no one would know the difference. There had to be a deal more than just the passport, and one that involved the immigration officer in the port to look away.
Trafficking in persons (mostly women and girls, but boys are also victimized) for prostitution in Malaysia has been going on for many years. It is a lucrative business for corrupt government officials of the DFA and corrupt police officers, and escaped public scrutiny until lately, when RA No. 9208 was passed. If the DFA Secretary is serious about trafficking, how come his people in Zamboanga have not yet been fired? How come the government of Malaysia is not doing anything about trafficking either? Governments must cut both the supply and the demand and institute programs and policies to alleviate the poverty of their people.

All the mayors of Zamboanga in the past knew of this illegal trade. Even if very few filed complaints, the stories of rape and prostitution could not have escaped the local government officials there. Yet, in the past no one lifted a finger to make sure that no trafficking could succeed through their port, probably because they viewed it not as a problem at all, but as a solution to the poverty of their people. But if they see the recruitment of their women and girls as a way out of poverty, the officials and the community will mostly likely look the other way when they complain of having been raped and prostituted in Malaysia.

– versus –
ROSENDO ALBA, minor, represented

by his mother ARMI A. ALBA, and

HON. NIMFA CUESTA-VILCHES,

Presiding Judge, Branch 48, Promulgated:

Regional Trial Court, Manila,

Respondents. June 15, 2005

x – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Probative Value of

DNA Analysis as Evidence

Despite our relatively liberal rules on admissibility, trial courts should be cautious in giving credence to DNA analysis as evidence. We reiterate our statement in Vallejo:

In assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, therefore, courts should consider, among other things, the following data: how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests.[51]

We also repeat the trial court’s explanation of DNA analysis used in paternity cases:

In [a] paternity test, the forensic scientist looks at a number of these variable regions in an individual to produce a DNA profile. Comparing next the DNA profiles of the mother and child, it is possible to determine which half of the child’s DNA was inherited from the mother. The other half must have been inherited from the biological father. The alleged father’s profile is then examined to ascertain whether he has the DNA types in his profile, which match the paternal types in the child. If the man’s DNA types do not match that of the child, the man is excluded as the father. If the DNA types match, then he is not excluded as the father.[52]

It is not enough to state that the child’s DNA profile matches that of the putative father. A complete match between the DNA profile of the child and the DNA profile of the putative father does not necessarily establish paternity. For this reason, following the highest standard adopted in an American jurisdiction,[53] trial courts should require at least 99.9% as a minimum value of the Probability of Paternity (“W”) prior to a paternity inclusion. W is a numerical estimate for the likelihood of paternity of a putative father compared to the probability of a random match of two unrelated individuals. An appropriate reference population database, such as the Philippine population database, is required to compute for W. Due to the probabilistic nature of paternity inclusions, W will never equal to 100%. However, the accuracy of W estimates is higher when the putative father, mother and child are subjected to DNA analysis compared to those conducted between the putative father and child alone.[54]

DNA analysis that excludes the putative father from paternity should be conclusive proof of non-paternity. If the value of W is less than 99.9%, the results of the DNA analysis should be considered as corroborative evidence. If the value of W is 99.9% or higher, then there is refutable presumption of paternity.[55] This refutable presumption of paternity should be subjected to the Vallejo standards.

Right Against

Self-Incrimination

Section 17, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” Petitioner asserts that obtaining samples from him for DNA testing violates his right against self-incrimination. Petitioner ignores our earlier pronouncements that the privilege is applicable only to testimonial evidence. Again, we quote relevant portions of the trial court’s 3 February 2000 Order with approval:

Obtaining DNA samples from an accused in a criminal case or from the respondent in a paternity case, contrary to the belief of respondent in this action, will not violate the right against self-incrimination. This privilege applies only to evidence that is “communicative” in essence taken under duress (People vs. Olvis, 154 SCRA 513, 1987). The Supreme Court has ruled that the right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition on the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication (testimonial evidence) from a defendant, not an exclusion of evidence taken from his body when it may be material. As such, a defendant can be required to submit to a test to extract virus from his body (as cited in People vs. Olvis, Supra); the substance emitting from the body of the accused was received as evidence for acts of lasciviousness (US vs. Tan Teng, 23 Phil. 145); morphine forced out of the mouth was received as proof (US vs. Ong Siu Hong, 36 Phil. 735); an order by the judge for the witness to put on pair of pants for size was allowed (People vs. Otadora, 86 Phil. 244); and the court can compel a woman accused of adultery to submit for pregnancy test (Villaflor vs. Summers, 41 Phil. 62), since the gist of the privilege is the restriction on “testimonial compulsion.”[56]

The policy of the Family Code to liberalize the rule on the investigation of the paternity and filiation of children, especially of illegitimate children, is without prejudice to the right of the putative parent to claim his or her own defenses.[57] Where the evidence to aid this investigation is obtainable through the facilities of modern science and technology, such evidence should be considered subject to the limits established by the law, rules, and jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition. We AFFIRM the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 29 November 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 59766. We also AFFIRM the Orders dated 3 February 2000 and 8 June 2000 issued by Branch 48 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in Civil Case No. SP-98-88759.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.
Chief Justice
Chairman

You can view the pictures of the 1st Gender Justice Awards in an album here in my blog. Featuring the Judge Nimfa Penaco Sitaca and other awardees, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr, Che Che Lazaro, Sheila Coronel, Milabel Amar, Vicky Tambunting, Ana Cristal, Miyen Versoza,Sheila Bazar, Sally Magat, Edith Santos, Oyie de Dios et al.

Some images (click to enlarge):

Enjoy!

Rbing