View full case

PEOPLE v. LUISA DAGUNO

FACTS:

The case involves the accused-appellant Luisa Daguno y Codog who was charged with the offense of Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Republic Act No. 9208. The prosecution alleged that the accused, also known as "Nanay Jacky," recruited a 15-year-old minor named AAA and transported her to different locations for the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation. The prosecution presented evidence showing that the accused brought AAA and her friends to meet a man in España, Manila, where the man chose AAA and had sexual intercourse with her in a hotel room. On another occasion, the accused and the man brought AAA and her friend to a lodge where the man again had sexual intercourse with AAA in one room while the accused waited at the lobby. The accused gave AAA money after each incident. AAA's mother eventually arrived and reported the incident, leading to the arrest of the accused. The accused denied the allegations and claimed she was at the mall looking for her grandson, but the trial court found her guilty of Qualified Trafficking in Persons. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages awarded. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the prosecution fail to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt based on the discrepancy in the alleged date of commission?

  2. Did the failure to allege the word "provide" in the Information violate the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her?

  3. Whether the elements of Qualified Trafficking in Persons were sufficiently established by the prosecution.

  4. Whether the defense of the accused-appellant is meritorious.

  5. Whether the penalty imposed by the lower courts is proper.

  6. Whether the award of damages to the victim is appropriate.

RULING:

  1. The discrepancy in the alleged date of commission does not invalidate the Information. The Rules of Court only require an approximation of the date of commission to inform the accused. As long as the disparity in the date is not so great that it induces the perception that the information and the evidence are no longer pertaining to one and the same offense, the allegation in the Information of a different date than the one established during the trial is not fatal to the prosecution. In this case, the disparity in the dates is not significant, and the evidence presented by the prosecution supplanted the erroneous allegation in the Information. The accused also did not object to the presentation of such evidence or claim to be deprived of her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against her. Hence, the appeal lacks merit.

  2. The failure to allege the word "provide" in the Information does not violate the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against her. An Information is valid as long as it distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts constitutive thereof. It is not necessary to follow the language of the statute in the Information. In this case, the accused was charged and convicted of Qualified Trafficking in Persons, with the use of the word "deliver" in the Information, which is synonymous to "provide." The accused's contention that she was deprived of her right to be informed of the accusation against her lacks merit.

  3. Yes, the elements of Qualified Trafficking in Persons were sufficiently established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

  4. No, the defense of the accused-appellant is not meritorious.

  5. Yes, the penalty imposed by the lower courts is proper.

  6. Yes, the award of damages to the victim is appropriate.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The date alleged in the Information does not need to be exact as long as it approximates the date of commission, and a discrepancy in the dates is not fatal to the prosecution as long as it does not induce the perception that the information and the evidence are no longer pertaining to one and the same offense.

  • An Information is valid as long as it distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts constitutive thereof, and it is not necessary to follow the language of the statute in the Information.

  • The offense of Qualified Trafficking in Persons is established when the act of recruitment, transportation, transfer, or harboring of persons is accompanied by the purpose of exploitation, even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the law. The exploitation includes the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude, or the removal or sale of organs.

  • When the victim of trafficking is a minor, the offense of Trafficking in Persons is qualified.

  • The positive testimony of the victim prevails over the negative and self-serving statements of the accused.

  • The defense of simple denial is weak and can easily be fabricated.

  • Persons found guilty of Qualified Trafficking shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than P2,000,000.00, but not more than P5,000,000.00.

  • The court may order the payment of moral damages and exemplary damages to the victim in cases of Trafficking in Persons.

  • Factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally upheld unless there is an indication that they overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.