People v. Daguno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Luisa Daguno y Codog was charged with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under RA 9208 for allegedly recruiting, transporting, and delivering a minor, AAA (15 years old), for prostitution and sexual exploitation. The prosecution presented evidence that on July 10, 2011, the accused-appellant brought AAA and two other girls to Manila, where AAA was met by a man named "Pressure" and taken to a hotel. After sexual intercourse, AAA was given ₱800.00 by the accused-appellant. On July 24, 2011, the accused-appellant again brought AAA and XXX to a lodge, where AAA was made to engage in sexual intercourse with a man, receiving ₱700.00 from the accused-appellant after a ₱100.00 fee deduction. On August 5, 2011, when the accused-appellant offered to pimp the girls again, AAA called her mother for help, leading to the accused-appellant's arrest. A physical examination of AAA showed no evident injury but could not exclude sexual abuse. The accused-appellant denied the accusations, claiming she was at Isetann Mall looking for her grandson on August 5, 2011, when arrested. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 9, Manila, convicted the accused-appellant of Qualified Trafficking in Persons and sentenced her to life imprisonment, a fine of ₱2,000,000.00, moral damages of ₱75,000.00, and exemplary damages of ₱30,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction and sentence but increased the moral and exemplary damages to ₱500,000.00 and ₱100,000.00, respectively. The Petition: The accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Her arguments centered on the discrepancy between the date of the offense alleged in the Information (August 5, 2011) and the dates established during trial (July 10 and 24, 2011), as well as the Information's alleged failure to specifically allege the act of "providing" AAA for prostitution and sexual exploitation.
Issue(s)
Whether the variance between the date of the offense alleged in the Information and the date established by evidence is fatal to the prosecution. Whether the failure to explicitly allege the word "provide" in the Information, when the offense charged is Qualified Trafficking in Persons under RA 9208, violates the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
Ruling
The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the variance in the date of the offense: The Court held that a discrepancy between the date alleged in the Information and the date proven during trial is not fatal when the date is not a material element of the crime, as in Qualified Trafficking in Persons. The Rules of Court only require the date to be approximated for the accused's information. In this case, the dates July 10 and July 24, 2011, were not so far removed from the alleged August 5, 2011, and were reasonably encompassed by the phrase "on or about August 5, 2011." Furthermore, the erroneous allegation was supplanted by the evidence presented, particularly the testimony of AAA, and the accused-appellant did not object to the presentation of such evidence, thus not being caught unaware or deprived of her right to be informed. The Court reiterated the principle that such variance is only fatal if it is so great as to suggest that the Information and the evidence pertain to different offenses. On the alleged failure to allege the word "provide": The Court found this contention to be without merit. While the word "provide" was not explicitly stated in the Information, the word "deliver," which is synonymous with "provide" (meaning "the giving or yielding possession or control of something to another"), was used. The rule is that an Information is valid as long as it distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof, and it is not necessary to follow the exact language of the statute. The accused was charged with Qualified Trafficking in Persons under Section 4(a) in relation to Section 6(a) of RA 9208, which lists "provide" as one of the unlawful acts. The Information alleged "recruit, transport, transfer and deliver," which sufficiently informed the accused of the nature of the offense. The elements of Qualified Trafficking in Persons were sufficiently established: (1) AAA was a minor; (2) accused-appellant introduced AAA to customers for sexual intercourse on several occasions; and (3) accused-appellant received money in exchange for AAA's sexual exploitation. The offense is qualified because the victim was a child, rendering the specific means used immaterial, although the accused did take advantage of AAA's vulnerability.
Main Doctrine
A variance between the date alleged in the Information and the date established during trial is not fatal when the date is not a material element of the crime, and the discrepancy is not so great as to suggest a different offense. The erroneous allegation is deemed supplanted by evidence, especially if no objection was raised during trial.