This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-09-27 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The determinative factor in the resolution of the question involving a variance between allegation and proof in respect of the date of the crime is the element of surprise on the part of the accused and his corollary inability to defend himself properly.[27] Appellant, after the prosecution has finished its case, entered upon his defense and testified on his behalf and was given the chance to present evidence with regard to every detail concerning which the prosecution's witnesses had offered their testimony which includes the rape incident that occurred in July 1997 and not July 1998. There can be no surprise to speak of when it turned out that the second incident happened in 1997 since appellant was given the opportunity to refute said claim. | |||||
|
2009-07-17 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| At any rate, in a prosecution for rape, the material fact to be considered is the occurrence of carnal knowledge, not the time of its commission.[28] It is enough that the Information indicates a date which is not so remote as to surprise and prejudice the accused.[29] It is not essential that the date be alleged in the Information with ultimate precision.[30] | |||||
|
2009-02-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Following these principles, we held in People v. Bugayong[34] that when the time given in the information is not the essence of the offense, such time does not need to be proven as alleged; the complaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed at any time within the period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement of the action. We again emphasized this doctrine in the case of People v. Rafon,[35] when we held it unnecessary to state in the information the precise date when the offense was committed, except when it is an essential element of the offense. | |||||
|
2008-04-09 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| However, it is not necessary for the information to allege the date and time of the commission of the crime with exactitude unless time is an essential ingredient of the offense.[29] In People v. Bugayong,[30] the Court held that when the time given in the information is not the essence of the offense, the time need not be proven as alleged; and that the complaint will be sustained if the proof shows that the offense was committed at any time within the period of the statute of limitations and before the commencement of the action. | |||||
|
2003-05-05 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Thus, in prosecutions for rape, we have sustained complaints and informations which merely alleged: "sometime before and until October 15, 1994," for a rape committed in 1993;[34] "on or about May 1998," for a rape committed sometime in the first week of May 1998;[35] "on or about May 1994," for a rape committed on 11 May 1994;[36] "sometime in 1992 and subsequent thereto in 1994," for two counts of rape committed in August and September 1994;[37] "sometime in the month of April 1993," for a rape committed sometime in 1993;[38] "sometime in the month of September 1998," for a rape committed one night in September 1998;[39] "sometime (in) January 1992, and many times thereafter," for a rape committed during the first week of January 1992;[40] and "on or about the year 1990," for a rape committed in 1990.[41] | |||||
|
2002-04-17 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The failure of the accused to move for the specification of the date when the alleged crime was committed or for the quashal of the Information on the ground that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form[10] deprives him of the right to object to evidence which could lawfully be introduced and admitted under an information of more or less general terms but which sufficiently charges the accused with a definite crime.[11] It is indeed too late in the day for the accused to raise this issue because objections to matters of form or substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. At any rate, it is settled that the exact date of the commission of rape is not an essential element thereof and need not be stated in the information.[12] The Court has sustained the following dates alleged in an information for rape as sufficient for purposes of complying with the provisions of the Rules of Court, to wit: "from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994,"[13] "sometime in November 1995, and some occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto,"[14] "on or about and sometime in the year 1988,"[15] "sometime in the year 1987"[16] and "before and until October 15, 1994."[17] In any event, a review of the evidence presented by the prosecution more than establishes the guilt of the accused for the rape of his daughter. | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| It cannot be said that accused-appellant was deprived of due process when the Information filed against him for Rape failed to state the exact date of the commission of the offense. Date is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of the woman.[12] Thus, the precise date need not be alleged in the Information. Sec. 11, Rule 110, of the Rules on Criminal Procedure states - | |||||