Toledo resident charged for trafficking

CEBU, Philippines - The Cebu City Prosecutor’s Office indicted a man for trafficking charges for transporting minors and two women from Toledo City to Manila for alleged employment.

Prosecutor Mario Ley Gidayawan filed charges for qualified trafficking and trafficking in persons against the man after he failed to file his counter-affidavit to refute the allegations.

Gidayawan recommended no bail for qualified trafficking and P200,000 for trafficking in persons.

In the complaint filed by Police Senior Inspector Joselito Blazo of the Regional Maritime Office-7, the suspect was allegedly transporting six minors and two 18-year-old women from Toledo City on August 8, 2011, but the victims were held by security at Pier 4 in Cebu City while they were waiting for their vessel, which was scheduled to leave for Manila at 2:15 pm.

The security guard at the port reportedly became suspicious when one of the minors, a boy, had a ticket bearing the name of a girl.

During interrogation by the maritime police, the victims admitted they were from Toledo City and that the suspect had recruited and offered them jobs as housemaids and restaurant attendants in Manila.

The suspect, a resident of Barangay Kabituonan, Toledo City, reportedly accompanied them from Toledo City to Cebu City, but did not go with them to the port. He only made them ride a taxi and said someone would fetch them at the South Harbor Port in Metro Manila.

After questioning, the maritime police turned the victims over to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).

Gidayawan said trafficking in persons involves transporting for the purpose of exploitation. He added that the offense can be classified as qualified trafficking when the person being trafficked is a child.

“The positive allegation of the minors’ that they were recruited by respondent on different dates for employment in Manila is sufficient to charge respondent for qualified trafficking,” Gidayawan’s resolution reads.

Moreover, Gidayawan ruled that “more significant is the fact that respondent, who accompanied them from Toledo City to Cebu City, did not accompany them in going to the pier to board the vessel for Manila as he would travel by plane, and would just meet and fetch them in Manila.” – (FREEMAN)