G.R. No. 235660 - People vs. Daguno y Codog

Case Summary (G.R. No. 235660)

Procedural History

The RTC (Branch 9, Manila) rendered Judgment on July 25, 2016, convicting the accused-appellant of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) of RA 9208, imposing life imprisonment, a P2,000,000 fine, moral damages of P75,000, and exemplary damages of P30,000. The CA affirmed with modification on August 29, 2017, increasing moral and exemplary damages to P500,000 and P100,000 respectively, and retaining life imprisonment and the P2,000,000 fine. The accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued an order for supplemental briefs but both parties declined further briefing to expedite resolution.

Charge and Information

The Information charged the accused-appellant with Qualified Trafficking in Persons, alleging that on or about August 5, 2011 in Manila she willfully, unlawfully and knowingly recruited, transported, transferred and delivered AAA, a 15-year-old minor, to an unknown person for purposes of prostitution and sexual exploitation. The accused pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.

Facts Adduced at Trial — Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution’s evidence established that AAA, a minor who had run away from home, was with friends in Sampaloc on or about July 10, 2011 when the accused-appellant allegedly offered to “bring” them to men in EspaAa, Manila. The accused-appellant reportedly led the group to a hotel where a man identified as “Pressure” selected AAA, after which AAA and the man had sexual intercourse; the accused later allegedly gave AAA P800.00. On July 24, 2011, the accused-appellant allegedly met AAA and another girl at Isetann Mall, arranged for a man to take the girls to Anthony Lodge where AAA had sexual intercourse with the man, and later gave AAA P700.00, deducting a fee. On August 5, 2011, the accused-appellant again purportedly attempted to pimp the girls at Isetann Mall; during that encounter AAA called her mother and barangay officials apprehended the accused-appellant. Medical examination at Philippine General Hospital reported “no evident injury” but stated that sexual abuse could not be excluded.

Facts Adduced at Trial — Defense

The accused-appellant denied the allegations, asserting she was at Isetann Mall on August 5, 2011 searching for her grandson and was arrested by several men at around 5:00 p.m. She offered no corroborating evidence to support her denials.

Legal Issues on Appeal

The accused-appellant raised primarily two issues on appeal: (1) that the Information alleged commission of the offense on August 5, 2011 whereas the prosecution established commission on July 10 and July 24, 2011, creating a fatal variance; and (2) that the Information failed to allege the term “provide” as used in RA 9208, thereby depriving her of notice of the precise nature of the accusation.

Governing Rules on Sufficiency of Information and Date Allegation

Rule 110, Sections 6 and 11 of the Rules of Court require that an information state the approximate date of the offense but do not require precise dating when the date is not a material element. Jurisprudence cited by the courts establishes that where date is not material, an approximate date (“on or about”) suffices; discrepancies between the date alleged and that proved at trial are not fatal unless the variance is so great as to suggest the information and the evidence refer to different offenses. An erroneous date may be supplanted by trial evidence or corrected by formal amendment.

Court’s Analysis on Date Variance

The Supreme Court found the variance between the alleged date (August 5, 2011) and the proven dates (July 10 and July 24, 2011) immaterial because the date of commission is not an element of the crime of trafficking. The Court held that the dates established at trial fell reasonably within the phrase “on or about August 5, 2011” and that the erroneous allegation was supplanted by the prosecution’s evidence. The Court noted the accused-appellant did not object or demonstrate surprise or prejudice from the dates proved at trial.

Court’s Analysis on the Sufficiency of Alleged Acts and Terminology

The Court held that the Information sufficiently stated the offense by employing the statutory designation and describing the acts constitutive of the offense; it is not necessary to mirror the statutory language verbatim. The Information used the word “deliver,” which the Court treated as synonymous with “provide,” and found that the essential acts—recruitment, transport, transfer and delivery of a person for purposes of prostitution—were clearly alleged, fulfilling the notice requirement.

Elements of Trafficking and Their Application

Under RA 9208, trafficking requires (1) an act of recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a person; (2) the means used (such as coercion, deception or taking advantage of vulnerability) except where the victim is a child; and (3) the purpose of exploitation, including prostitution or sexual exploitation. The statute further provides that recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt of a child for purposes of exploitation constitutes trafficking even without proof of the usual means. The Court found beyond reasonable doubt that: AAA was a minor; the accused-appellant introduced AAA to customers who engaged her in sexual intercourse on multiple occasions; and the accused-appellant received money in exchange. Because the victim was a child, the offense qualified as Qualified Trafficking pursuant to Section 6(a) of RA 9208, rendering the means immaterial.

Credibility and Weight of Evidence

The Court gave greater weight to the positive, consistent testimony of the minor-victim (AAA) over the accused-appellant’s

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 235660)

Citation and Panel

Reported at 872 Phil. 331; 118 OG No. 4, 548 (January 24, 2022).
Second Division, G.R. No. 235660, March 04, 2020.
Decision authored by Justice Inting.
Final disposition concurred in by Perlas-Bernabe, Senior Associate Justice (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, and Delos Santos, JJ.
Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated August 29, 2017 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08609 affirmed with modification the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Manila Judgment dated July 25, 2016 in Criminal Case No. 11-285580.
CA opinion in rollo penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario with Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Pablito A. Perez concurring.
RTC presiding judge: Jacqueline S. Martin-Balictar.

Nature of the Case and Charge

Accused-appellant Luisa Daguno y Codog (referred to as Daguino in some parts of the rollo and CA rollo) was charged with Qualified Trafficking in Persons.
Information alleged that on or about August 05, 2011 in the City of Manila, accused "did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly recruit, transport, transfer and deliver one [AAA], a minor, 15 years old, to an unknown person whose true name and real identity and present whereabouts are still unknown, for purposes of prostitution and sexual exploitation."
Plea: accused-appellant pleaded not guilty when arraigned on March 12, 2012.

Factual Background — Timeline of Events as Adduced by Prosecution

July 10, 2011, around 11:00 p.m.: AAA, a 15-year-old runaway, was with friends XXX and YYY in Sampaloc, Manila; friends informed AAA that accused-appellant ("Nanay Jacky") would offer them to some men in España, Manila for a fee.
Upon accused-appellant's arrival, she asked AAA to go with them and brought the three girls to España, Manila, where they met a man identifying himself as "Pressure."
The man chose AAA, took her to a hotel room; accused-appellant waited in the lobby; inside the room the man undressed, asked AAA to undress, and had sexual intercourse with her; accused-appellant later gave AAA P800.00 on their way back to Sampaloc.
July 24, 2011, around 2:00 p.m.: accused-appellant met AAA and XXX at Isetann Mall, Recto, Manila; after talking to a man, accused-appellant and the man brought the girls to Anthony Lodge along Recto Street; the man booked two rooms, had sexual intercourse with AAA in one room while accused-appellant waited at the lobby; accused-appellant gave AAA P700.00, stating she deducted P100.00 as her negotiating fee.
August 5, 2011: accused-appellant again approached AAA and XXX at Isetann Mall and told them she would "pimp" them to a customer; the girls initially refused; when accused-appellant insisted and a man was about to pay, AAA called her mother; around 4:00 p.m., AAA's mother and barangay officials arrived and arrested accused-appellant.

Physical Examination and Victim Status

AAA was a minor, 15 years old, at the time of the events as established by the prosecution.
Physical examination at the Philippine General Hospital produced the impression: "No evident injury at the time of examination but medical evaluation cannot exclude sexual abuse."
Confidentiality protections under Section 7, RA 9208 invoked: victim's identity withheld in publications and records.

Defense of the Accused

Accused-appellant denied the allegations.
Stated she was at Isetann Mall on August 5, 2011 to look for her grandson after being told he might be at the mall; she alleged concern that homosexuals frequent the area and might take advantage of her grandson.
Claimed she was on the fourth floor around 5:00 p.m. when several men arrested her.
Offered no corroborating evidence to support her denial or alibi.

Trial Court (RTC) Disposition

RTC, Branch 9, Manila rendered Judgment dated July 25, 2016 convicting accused-appellant of Qualified Trafficking in Persons (Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a), R.A. No. 9208).
Penalty imposed by RTC: life imprisonment, fine of P2,000,000.00, moral damages of P75,000.00, exemplary damages of P30,000.00.

Court of Appeals Disposition

CA Decision dated August 29, 2017 affirmed the RTC conviction but modified awards of moral and exemplary damages.
CA increased moral damages to P500,000.00 and exemplary damages to P100,000.00 pursuant to People v. Hirang.
CA affirmed life imprisonment without eligibility for parole and fine of P2,000,000.00.
CA ordered interests on damages at 6% per annum from finality of the decision until fully paid.

Issues Raised on Appeal to the Supreme Court

Appellant argued the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt because:
- The Information alleged the offense occurred on August 5, 2011 but the trial evidence established dates of July 10 and July 24, 2011.
- The Information did not allege that she "provided" the victim to an unknown person as stated in RA 9208; instead it used the word "deliver," allegedly depriving her of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
Appellant also contended that acts on August 5, 2011 were only an attempt aborted by arrest and that attempt liability under RA 9208 was only introduced by RA 10364 (Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012) on February 6, 2013.

Supreme Court Ruling — Overview and Holding

The appeal was dismissed; the CA Decision of August 29, 2017 affirming with modification the RTC Judgment was affirmed in toto.
Court held that the date variance between the Information (August 5, 2011) and the dat
...continue reading