G.R. No. 211465, December 03, 2014
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHIRLEY A. CASIO, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
That on or about the 3rd day of May 2008, at about 1:00 o’clock A.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, with intent to gain, did then and there hire and/or recruit AAA, a minor, 17 years old and BBB for the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation, by acting as their procurer for different customers, for money, profit or any other consideration, in Violation of Sec. 4, Par. (a), Qualified by Sec. 6, Par. ( a), of R.A. 9208 (Qualified Trafficking in Persons).The facts, as found by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, are as follows:
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
At that point, PO1 Luardo sent a text message to PSI Ylanan that they found a prospective subject.13
Accused: Chicks mo dong? (Do you like girls, guys?) PO1 Luardo: Unya mga bag-o? Kanang batan-on kay naa mi guests naghulat sa motel. (Are they new? They must be young because we have guests waiting at the motel.) Accused: Naa, hulat kay magkuha ko. (Yes, just wait and I’ll get them.)12
Accused gave the assurance that the girls were good in sex. PO1 Luardo inquired how much their services would cost. Accused replied, “Tag kinientos” (P500.00).16
Accused: Kining duha kauyon mo ani? (Are you satisfied with these two?) PO1 Veloso: Maayo man kaha na sila modala ug kayat? (Well, are they good in sex?)15
Accused had consummated the act of trafficking of person[s] . . . as defined under paragraph (a), Section 3 of R.A. 9208 for the purpose of letting her engage in prostitution as defined under paragraph [c] of the same Section; the act of “sexual intercourse” need not have been consummated for the mere “transaction” i.e. the ‘solicitation’ for sex and the handing over of the “bust money” of Php1,000.00 already consummated the said act.Ruling of the Court of Appeals
. . . .
WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused, SHIRLEY A. CASIO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of trafficking in persons under paragraph (a), Section 4 as qualified under paragraph (a), Section 6 of R.A. 9208 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of TWENTY (20) YEARS and to pay a fine of ONE MILLION (Php1,000,000.00).
Finally, accused is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 10 August 2010 promulgated by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 in Cebu City in Crim. Case No. CBU-83122 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. The accused-appellant is accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Php2,000,000 and is ordered to pay each of the private complainants Php150,000 as moral damages.Accused filed a notice of appeal35 on August 28, 2013, which the Court of Appeals noted and gave due course in its resolution36 dated January 6, 2014.
Whether the entrapment operation conducted by the police was valid, considering that there was no prior surveillance and the police did not know the subject of the operation;43
Whether the prosecution was able to prove accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt even though there was no evidence presented to show that accused has a history of engaging in human trafficking;44 and
Whether accused was properly convicted of trafficking in persons, considering that AAA admitted that she works as a prostitute.45
Article 3Senator Loren Legarda, in her sponsorship speech, stated that the “Anti-Trafficking Act will serve as the enabling law of the country’s commitment to [the] protocol.”59
Use of terms
For the purposes of this Protocol:
(a) “Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;
(b) The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used;
(c) The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall be considered “trafficking in persons” even if this does not involve any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article;
(d) “Child” shall mean any person under eighteen years of age.
Trafficking in human beings, if only to emphasize the gravity of its hideousness, is tantamount to modern-day slavery at work. It is a manifestation of one of the most flagrant forms of violence against human beings. Its victims suffer the brunt of this insidious form of violence. It is exploitation, coercion, deception, abduction, rape, physical, mental and other forms of abuse, prostitution, forced labor, and indentured servitude.During the interpellation of Republic Act No. 9208, then numbered as Senate Bill No. 2444, Senator Teresa Aquino-Oreta asked if there was a necessity for an anti-trafficking law when other laws exist that cover trafficking.61
. . . .
As of this time, we have signed the following: the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; the 1995 Convention on the Rights of the Child; the United Nations Convention on the Protection of Migrant Workers and their Families; and the United Nations’ Resolution on Trafficking in Women and Girls, among others.
Moreover, we have also expressed our support for the United Nations’ Convention Against Organized Crime, including the Trafficking Protocol in October last year.
At first glance, it appears that we are very responsive to the problem. So it seems.
Despite these international agreements, we have yet to come up with a law that shall squarely address human trafficking.60
At present, Mr. President, the relevant laws to the trafficking issue are the Revised Penal Code, Republic Act No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act, R[epublic] A[ct] No. 6955 or the Mail-Order Bride Act, and Republic Act No. 8239 or the Philippine Passport Act. These laws address issues such as illegal recruitment, prostitution, falsification of public documents and the mail-order bride scheme. These laws do not respond to the issue of recruiting, harboring or transporting persons resulting in prostitution, forced labor, slavery and slavery-like practices. They only address to one or some elements of trafficking independent of their results or consequence.62 (Emphasis supplied)Thus, Republic Act No. 9208 was enacted in order to fully address the issue of human trafficking. Republic Act No. 9208 was passed on May 12, 2003, and approved on May 26, 2003.
On January 28, 2013, Republic Act No. 1036464 was approved, otherwise known as the “Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012.” Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208 was amended by Republic Act No. 10364 as follows:
(1) The act of “recruitment, transportation, transfer or harbouring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders.” (2) The means used which include “threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another; and (3) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes “exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.”63
SEC. 3. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9208 is hereby amended to read as follows:Under Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of trafficking in persons have been expanded to include the following acts:
“SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act:
“(a) Trafficking in Persons – refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.
“The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes shall also be considered as ‘trafficking in persons’ even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph. (Emphasis supplied)
The Court of Appeals found that AAA and BBB were recruited by accused when their services were peddled to the police who acted as decoys.65 AAA was a child at the time that accused peddled her services.66 AAA also stated that she agreed to work as a prostitute because she needed money.67 Accused took advantage of AAA’s vulnerability as a child and as one who need money, as proven by the testimonies of the witnesses.68
(1) The act of “recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders;” (2) The means used include “by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person” (3) The purpose of trafficking includes “the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs” (Emphasis supplied)
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act:The victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking.71 Even without the use of coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor’s consent is not given out of his or her own free will.
- Trafficking in Persons - refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the persons, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.
The recruitment transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as “trafficking in persons” even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.70 (Emphasis supplied)
SEC. 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. — It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or judicial, to commit any of the following acts.Republic Act No. 9208 further enumerates the instances when the crime of trafficking in persons is qualified.
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;72
SEC. 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. — The following are considered as qualified trafficking:Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 9208 defines “child” as:
- When the trafficked person is a child;
- When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as the “Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995” and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
- When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group;
- When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a person who exercise authority over the trafficked person or when the offense is committed by a public officer or employee;
- When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of the military or law enforcement agencies;
- When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies; and
- When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons, the offended party dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). (Emphasis supplied)73
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act:Based on the definition of trafficking in persons and the enumeration of acts of trafficking in persons, accused performed all the elements in the commission of the offense when she peddled AAA and BBB and offered their services to decoys PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo in exchange for money. The offense was also qualified because the trafficked persons were minors.
. . . .
b. Child - refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or one who is over eighteen (18) but is unable to fully take care of or protect himself/herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.74
[T]he act of “sexual intercourse” need not have been consummated for the mere “transaction” i.e. that ‘solicitation’ for sex and the handing over of the “bust money” of Php.1,000.00 already consummated the said act.75
. . . American federal courts and a majority of state courts use the “subjective” or “origin of intent” test laid down in Sorrells v. United States to determine whether entrapment actually occurred. The focus of the inquiry is on the accused's predisposition to commit the offense charged, his state of mind and inclination before his initial exposure to government agents. All relevant facts such as the accused's mental and character traits, his past offenses, activities, his eagerness in committing the crime, his reputation, etc., are considered to assess his state of mind before the crime. The predisposition test emphasizes the accused's propensity to commit the offense rather than the officer's misconduct and reflects an attempt to draw a line between a “trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal.” If the accused was found to have been ready and willing to commit the offense at any favorable opportunity, the entrapment defense will fail even if a police agent used an unduly persuasive inducement.Accused argued that in our jurisprudence, courts usually apply the objective test in determining the whether there was an entrapment operation or an instigation.78 However, the use of the objective test should not preclude courts from also applying the subjective test. She pointed out that:
Some states, however, have adopted the “objective” test. . . . Here, the court considers the nature of the police activity involved and the propriety of police conduct. The inquiry is focused on the inducements used by government agents, on police conduct, not on the accused and his predisposition to commit the crime. For the goal of the defense is to deter unlawful police conduct. The test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law enforcement agent was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person, other than one who is ready and willing, to commit the offense; for purposes of this test, it is presumed that a law-abiding person would normally resist the temptation to commit a crime that is presented by the simple opportunity to act unlawfully. (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)77
Applying the “subjective” test it is worth invoking that accused-appellant procures income from being a laundry woman. The prosecution had not shown any proof evidencing accused-appellant’s history in human trafficking or engagement in any offense. She is not even familiar to the team who had has [sic] been apprehending human traffickers for quite some time.79 (Citations omitted)Accused further argued that the police should have conducted a prior surveillance before the entrapment operation.
There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure the apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission of the crime. There is instigation when the accused is induced to commit the crime. The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal intent. In entrapment, the mens rea originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea and the resolve to commit the crime comes from him. In instigation, the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution.81Accused contends that using the subjective test, she was clearly instigated by the police to commit the offense. She denied being a pimp and claimed that she earned her living as a laundrywoman. On this argument, we agree with the finding of the Court of Appeals:
[I]t was the accused-appellant who commenced the transaction with PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso by calling their attention on whether they wanted girls for that evening, and when the officers responded, it was the accused-appellant who told them to wait while she would fetch the girls for their perusal.82This shows that accused was predisposed to commit the offense because she initiated the transaction. As testified by PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo, accused called out their attention by saying “Chicks mo dong?” If accused had no predisposition to commit the offense, then she most likely would not have asked PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo if they wanted girls.
A prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation, the conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. However the police carry out its entrapment operations, for as long as the rights of the accused have not been violated in the process, the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof. The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance.88 (Citations omitted)This flexibility is even more important in cases involving trafficking of persons. The urgency of rescuing the victims may at times require immediate but deliberate action on the part of the law enforcers.
SEC. 10. Penalties and Sanctions. — The following penalties and sanctions are hereby established for the offenses enumerated in this Act:However, we modify by raising the award of moral damages from P150,000.0089 to P500,000.00. We also award exemplary damages in the amount of P100,000.00. These amounts are in accordance with the ruling in People v. Lalli90 where this court held that:
. . . .
c. Any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Section 6 shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) but not more than Five million pesos (P5,000,000.00);
The payment of P500,000 as moral damages and P100,000 as exemplary damages for the crime of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute finds basis in Article 2219 of the Civil Code, which states:Human trafficking indicts the society that tolerates the kind of poverty and its accompanying desperation that compels our women to endure indignities. It reflects the weaknesses of that society even as it convicts those who deviantly thrive in such hopelessness. We should continue to strive for the best of our world, where our choices of human intimacies are real choices, and not the last resort taken just to survive. Human intimacies enhance our best and closest relationships. It serves as a foundation for two human beings to face life’s joys and challenges while continually growing together with many shared experiences. The quality of our human relationships defines the world that we create also for others.Art. 2219. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases:The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous case to the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts. In fact, it is worse. To be trafficked as a prostitute without one’s consent and to be sexually violated four to five times a day by different strangers is horrendous and atrocious. There is no doubt that Lolita experienced physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, and social humiliation when she was trafficked as a prostitute in Malaysia. Since the crime of Trafficking in Persons was aggravated, being committed by a syndicate, the award of exemplary damages is likewise justified.91
(1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries;
(2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries;
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts;
(4) Adultery or concubinage;
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest;
(6) Illegal search;
(7) Libel, slander or any other form of defamation;
(8) Malicious prosecution;
(9) Acts mentioned in Article 309;
(10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, and 35.
. . . .
* Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1888 dated November 28, 2014.
1Rollo, p. 4. The English translation for this is, “Do you like girls, guys?” “Chicks” is a colloquial term for girls in Cebuano.
2 An Act to Institute Policies to Eliminate Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, Establishing the Necessary Institutional Mechanisms for the Protection and Support of Trafficked Persons, Providing Penalties for its Violations, and for Other Purposes.
3 Note that the offense was committed on May 2, 2008, prior to the enactment of Rep. Act No. 10364, which amended Rep. Act No. 9208. Thus, the provisions of Rep. Act No. 9208 cited in this case are the original provisions.
4 CA rollo, p. 8. Although the information states, “3rd day of May 2008,” the record of the case shows that the offense was committed on May 2, 2008.
5 International Justice Mission, Get To Know Us (visited November 26, 2014). International Justice Mission or IJM is a United States-based human rights organization, founded in 1997, which aims to “protect the poor from violence.” International Justice Mission, Where We Work (visited November 26, 2014). At present, IJM has partner offices in Canada, United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Germany. IJM also has field offices in Latin America, India, Africa, Southeast Asia including the Philippines.
6Rollo, p. 4.
7 Id. at 6.
8 Id. at 4.
12 Id. at 4–5.
13 Id. at 5.
20 CA rollo, p. 9.
21 Id. at 10.
23Rollo, p. 6.
24 CA rollo, pp. 10–11.
25 Id. at 11.
26 Id. at 10.
27 Id. at 12.
30Rollo, p. 6.
31 CA rollo, pp. 9–13.
32 Id. at 13.
33Rollo, pp. 3–13. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos and concurred in by Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy of the Nineteenth Division.
34 Id. at 13.
35 Id. at 14.
36 Id. at 16–17.
37 Id. at 1.
38 Id. at 19–20.
39 Id. at 19.
40 Id. at 30–32. The manifestation was dated July 14, 2014.
41 Id. at 22–24. The manifestation was dated July 14, 2014.
42 Id. at 21.
43 CA rollo, p. 33.
44 Id. at 37.
46 Id. at 32.
47 Id. at 33.
48 Id. at 36–37.
49 Id. at 37.
50 Id. at 72–73.
51 Id. at 74–75.
52 Id. at 75–76.
53 Id. at 72.
54 United Nations Human Rights, Protocol to Prevent, “Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime” (visited November 26, 2014).
55 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and the Protocols Thereto” (visited November 26, 2014).
56 United Nations Treaty Collection (visited: November 26, 2014).
57 Sponsorship speech of Senator Loren Legarda, delivered on December 10, 2002. Record of the Senate, Volume II, No. 42, Twelfth Congress, Second Regular Session, October 15–December 18, 2002, p. 617; Record of the Senate, Volume III, No. 62, February 12, 2003, p. 383.
58 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Signatories to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Crime and its Protocols” (visited November 27, 2014).
59 Sponsorship speech of Senator Loren Legarda, delivered on December 10, 2002. Record of the Senate, Volume II, No. 42, Twelfth Congress, Second Regular Session, October 15–December 18, 2002, p. 617.
60 Record of the Senate, Volume II, No. 42, Twelfth Congress Second Regular Session, October 15–December 18, 2002, p. 614–616.
61 Record of the Senate, Volume III, No. 60, Twelfth Congress, Second Regular Session, January 13–June 5, 2003, p. 364.
62 Record of the Senate, Volume III, No. 60, Twelfth Congress, Second Regular Session, January 13–June 5, 2003, p. 364.
63 Rep. Act No. 9208 (2003), sec. 3(a). Note that this definition is the original definition, considering that the crime was committed prior to the enactment of Rep. Act No. 10364. In the resolution of this case, we use the provisions in Rep. Act No. 9208 prior to its amendment.
64 An Act Expanding Rep. Act No. 9208 entitled “An Act to Institute Policies to Eliminate Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children, Establishing the Necessary Institutional Mechanisms for the Protection and Support of Trafficked Persons, Providing Penalties for its Violations and for Other Purposes.”
65Rollo, p. 6.
66 Id. at 5.
68 Id. at 5–6.
69 CA rollo, p. 37.
70 Considering that Shirley A. Casio committed the offense in 2008, we apply the original definition of “trafficking in persons.”
71 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Human Trafficking FAQs” (visited November 26, 2014).
72 Rep. Act No. 9208, sec. 4 prior to its amendment by Rep. Act No. 10364.
73 Rep. Act No. 9208, sec. 6 prior to its amendment by Rep. Act No. 10364.
74 This definition was maintained in Rep. Act No. 10364.
75 CA rollo, p. 13.
76 361 Phil. 595 (1999) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
77 Id. at 611–612.
78 CA rollo, pp. 35–36.
79 Id. at 36–37.
80 528 Phil. 740 (2006) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division].
81 Id. at 751, citing Araneta v. Court of Appeals, 226 Phil. 437, 444 (1986) [Per J. Gutierrez, Jr., Second Division]; See also People v. Quiaoit, Jr., 555 Phil. 441, 449 (2007) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]; People v. Cortez, 611 Phil. 360 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division]; People v. Tapere, G.R. No. 178065, February 20, 2013, 691 SCRA 347, 358–359 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
82Rollo, pp. 9–10.
83 Id. at 5.
84 CA rollo, p. 12.
85Rollo, p. 11.
86 Id. at 10.
87 G.R. No. 174097, July 21, 2010, 625 SCRA 220 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division].
88 Id. at 239.
89Rollo, p. 13.
90 G.R. No. 195419, October 12, 2011, 659 SCRA 105 [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
91 Id. at 126.
92 An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines (2006)
Sec. 3 of Republic Act No. 9346 states:
“Sec.3. Persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.”