Promoting Prostitution vs. Trafficking in Persons: Distinguishing the Offenses Under RA 9208

The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (Republic Act No. 9208) punishes several distinct acts, and treating them as one and the same can lead to the wrong charge, the wrong offense, and the wrong penalty. In People of the Philippines v. Susan Sayo y Reyes and Alfredo Roxas y Sagon, G.R. No. 227704 (April 10, 2019), the Supreme Court corrected a lower court's error and drew a clear line between acts of trafficking and acts that merely promote it.

The facts of the case

Three young women—two of them minors—worked as commercial sex workers at the Pasig Plaza under the supervision of Susan Sayo, who acted as their pimp. Sayo brought them to customers and collected a share of the fees. Alfredo Roxas, for his part, owned a house on Baltazar Street where Sayo brought the women and their customers. Roxas rented out a room for P100 per use, sold condoms to customers, and cleaned the room afterward.

Acting on a report from a human rights organization, police conducted an entrapment operation on November 15, 2005. Undercover officers posed as customers, negotiated with Sayo, and proceeded to Roxas's house. Once payments were handed over, the raiding team arrested Sayo and Roxas.

How the lower courts ruled

The Regional Trial Court convicted both accused of trafficking offenses. Roxas was found guilty of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 5(a) in relation to Section 6 of RA 9208 for the two minors, and Trafficking in Persons under Section 5(a) for the adult complainant. The Court of Appeals affirmed, adding moral and exemplary damages.

The case reached the Supreme Court, but by then Sayo had died. The Court dismissed the case against her, applying Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code and People v. Bayotas: death of the accused before final judgment extinguishes both criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the offense.

The central issue: what offense did Roxas commit?

The Supreme Court affirmed Roxas's conviction but corrected the denomination of the offense. RA 9208 punishes four distinct acts: acts of trafficking in persons under Section 4; acts that promote trafficking in persons under Section 5; violation of the confidentiality rule under Section 7; and use of trafficked persons under Section 11.

Section 4 covers acts that directly involve trafficking—recruiting, transporting, harboring, or receiving a person for prostitution, sexual exploitation, and similar purposes. Section 5, on the other hand, covers acts that promote or facilitate trafficking, including knowingly leasing or allowing the use of a house or establishment for that purpose.

Roxas did not recruit, transport, or harbor the women. He knowingly leased a room used for prostitution, which falls squarely under Section 5(a). The trial court and the Court of Appeals thus erred in convicting him of trafficking in persons instead of the proper offense.

Why Section 5 offenses cannot be qualified

The lower courts also treated Roxas's offense as "qualified" because two of the victims were minors. The Supreme Court rejected this. Section 6 of RA 9208 lists the circumstances that make trafficking "qualified," but it qualifies only violations of Section 4. Acts that promote trafficking under Section 5 are separate and distinct offenses that the law does not allow to be qualified.

The Court noted that this reading was confirmed by Republic Act No. 10364, the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012, which amended Section 6 to state expressly that violations of Section 4 are considered qualified trafficking. This clarificatory amendment is beneficial to the accused and was applied in his favor.

The penalties and damages

Under Section 10 of RA 9208, a person guilty of acts under Section 5 faces imprisonment of fifteen years and a fine of not less than P500,000 but not more than P1,000,000. Roxas was accordingly sentenced to fifteen years and a fine of P500,000.

On damages, the Court applied Planteras, Jr. v. People and set the awards in cases of acts that promote trafficking at P100,000 moral damages and P50,000 exemplary damages for each victim. Roxas was ordered to pay these amounts to all three complainants, with legal interest of six percent per annum from finality of judgment until full payment.

Practical takeaways

• Read the law by its elements. Trafficking in persons under Section 4 of RA 9208 and acts that promote trafficking under Section 5 are separate offenses with different penalties. A person who only leases or allows the use of a place for prostitution is charged under Section 5, not Section 4.
• Qualifying circumstances have limits. Only violations of Section 4 can be qualified under Section 6. Even if a minor is involved, a Section 5 offense remains an unqualified offense with its own fixed penalty.
• Death of the accused ends the case. If an accused dies before final judgment, criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the offense are extinguished, and the case must be dismissed as to that accused.
• Damages are recoverable. Victims of acts that promote trafficking may recover moral and exemplary damages, with interest running from finality of judgment until full payment.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.