White slave trade, A341 Revised Penal Code

White slave trade – is the offense relating to the business, profiting, or recruitment related to prostitution.

1. Concept

White slave trade – is the offense relating to the business, profiting, or recruitment related to prostitution.

a. Legal basis

Article 341. White slave trade. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum period shall be imposed upon any person who, in any manner, or under any pretext, shall engage in the business or shall profit by prostitution or shall enlist the services of any other for the purpose of prostitution (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 186.)

(NB: If the article has been amended by legislation or has been the subject of a Supreme Court decision which may have impacted how it is interpreted, do let us know so we can consider for the next update of this article. You may send it via: Feedback.)

2. Modes of commission

The following are the modes of committing the offense:

1) Engaging in the business of prostitution;

2) Profiting by prostitution; or

3) Enlisting the service of women for the purpose of prostitution. (People v. Nuevas, En Banc, G.R. No. L-154, March 18, 1946, Per Ozaeta, J.)

a. Mode 1: Engaging in business of prostitution

Elements of the offense:

1) The offender engages in the business of prostitution; and

2) The offender does so, in any manner, or under any pretext. (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 341)

1) Element 1: Engages in prostitution

The offender engages in the business of prostitution. In People v. Nuevas, the accused was found guilty after evidence showed that he acted as a “manager” who oversaw prostitutes and collected a share of the profits.

People v. Nuevas En Banc, G.R. No. L-154, March 18, 1946, Per Ozaeta, J.:

• The defendant [J.] Nuevas was accused in and convicted by the Court of First Instance of Batangas of a violation of article 341 of the Revised Penal Code…

• It was proved during the trial of this case that about three or four months previous to September 22, 1945, the accused and appellant contracted the services of four women of ill repute whom he brought to and maintained in a certain house in the barrio of Alangilang, Batangas, Batangas, to engage in prostitution. He furnished them food and lodging and in return received one-half of their earnings from their illicit traffic with colored soldiers. On the afternoon of September 22, 1945, the bawdy-house maintained by the defendant was raided by the police and the four women, together with the defendant, who was in that house, were brought to the police station for investigation, as a result of which the present case was filed against the accused. Two of the said women, Emilia de la Cruz and Juanita Fernandez, as well as the sergeant of the military police (Angelo Murano) who made the arrest, testified to the facts herein stated.

• The defendant was the only witness who testified in his own defense. He claimed that he was a resident of Manila but that on September 22, 1945, he went to the house in question “to collect a debt from people who owes me money”; that the owner of the house was an old widow; that the lessee, whose name is Moises Santos and who at the time of the trial was probably in Manila, according to him, was the one who owed him P150.

The trial court did not believe the uncorroborated testimony of the accused but believed that of Sergeant Murano and the two women, Emilia de la Cruz and Juanita Fernandez. Sergeant Murano testified that his duties were to pick up girls of ill fame, vagrants, and prostitutes; that at about 2 p. m. on September 22, 1945, after receiving a tip that the house in question was a brothel, he and his companions raided it and found there thirteen colored soldiers, three of whom were in three different rooms, each with a girl; that in that same house he found the accused, who then and there, upon being questioned, declared that he was not the owner of the house but that the owner had left him in charge; that the women also then and there told him that they had been splitting their earnings with the accused; that the colored soldiers also told him that they paid the girls P10 for each intercourse.

• [E.]] de la Cruz, twenty-one years of age, single, testimony and pointed to accused Jesus Nuevas as “our manager,” with whom she split fifty-fifty her earnings as a prostitute. She affirmed that her charge was P10 a coition.

• [J.] Fernandez, also twenty-years of age, single, testified that she knew that accused [J.] Nuevas “because he is our manager”; that it was the accused who, four months before, contracted her to serve as a prostitute in a house located in the barrio of Alangilang which she said was rented by the accused from the owner, whom she did not know; that it was the accused who was paying for her meals in that house; that she received from her customers P10 for each coition and paid one-half of it to the accused.

2) Element 2: Regardless of manner or pretext

The offender commits the offense in any manner or under any pretext. Thus, the offenders may be held liable in multifarious ways, from clear overt acts such as managing prostitutes to even pretexts such as making it appear that they run a modeling agency or a spa when, in truth and in fact, it is a prostitution ring.

b. Mode 2: Profiting by prostitution

Elements of the offense:

1) The offender profits by prostitution; and

2) The offender does so, in any manner, or under any pretext. (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 341)

1) Element 1: Profiting by prostitution

In this case, the offenders simply need to profit from prostitution. It is not required that they actually manage the business of prostitution. Regardless of whether they do something so as to contribute to the business of prostitution or not do anything at all, so long as they profit, they may be held liable.

2) Element 2: Regardless of manner or pretext

See earlier related discussions.

c. Mode 3: Enlisting women for prostitution

Elements of the offense:

1) The offender enlists the services of any other for the purpose of prostitution; and

2) The offender does so, in any manner, or under any pretext. (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 341)

1) Element 1: Enlists another for prostitution

The offenders enlist another for prostitution. Meaning, they actually recruit or source those prostitutes. Thus, this is different from promoting or facilitation in corruption of minors under Article 340 of the Revised Penal Code. Here, the offenders are actually going out to source or find individuals to become prostitutes and be part of the business.

2) Element 2: Regardless of manner or pretext

See earlier related discussions.

3. Things to note

The following are some additional things to note about this offense.

a. Common provisions

This offense shares common provisions with other offenses under Title XI of the Revised Penal Code – Crimes Against Chastity. See: Crimes Against Chastity

4. Distinguish from other offenses

This offense is distinguished from other offenses or crimes below.

a. White slave trade vs Corruption of minors

The main difference is on the offended party. In white slave trade, the offended party may be an adult or a minor. On the other hand, in corruption of minors, the offended party may only be minors.

In addition, white slave trade may be committed via different ways: (a) Engaging in the business of prostitution; (b) Profiting by prostitution; or (c) Enlisting the service of women for the purpose of prostitution. (People v. Nuevas, En Banc, G.R. No. L-154, March 18, 1946, Per Ozaeta, J.)

On the other hand, corruption of minors is committed by promoting or facilitating the prostitution or corruption of persons underage to satisfy the lust of another. (REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 340)

b. White slave trade vs Rape

White slave trade is focused on the “business side” or “profit side” of prostitution, including recruitment. On the other hand, rape is about unlawful and without consent commits acts of penetration in relation to sexual intercourse.

References

• Title XI – Crimes Against Chastity, Act No. 3815, Revised Penal Code

—

/Updated: May 20, 2023