Lawyerly

GR No. 217975

2015-11-23

MENDOZA, J.

The argument is nonetheless specious. An information is intended to inform an accused of the accusations against him and, as such, it must embody the essential elements of the crime charged by setting forth the facts and circumstances that have a bearing on the culpability and liability of the accused, so that he can properly prepare for and undertake his defense.[26] It is not necessary, however, 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.[27] In rape cases, the date of commission is not an essential element of rape but what is material is its occurrence,[28] which in this case, was sufficiently established by AAA. Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its commission. The failure to specify the exact date or time when it was committed does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face.[29]

GR No. 174065

2009-02-18

PEOPLE v. ROLLY CANARES Y ALMANARES

BRION, J.

Thus, we have ruled that allegations of rape in the information committed, "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter,"[39] "on or about and sometime in the year 1988,"[40] or "from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994,"[41] "sometime in the year 1982 and dates subsequent thereto," and "sometime in the year 1995 and subsequent thereto,"[42] all constitute sufficient compliance with Section 11 of Rule 110. In People v. Salalima, we also ruled that the allegation that the sexual assaults were committed, "sometime during the month of March 1996 or thereabout," or "sometime during the month of April 1996 or thereabout," and also, "sometime during the month of May 1996 or thereabout" substantially informed the accused of the crimes charged since all the elements of rape were stated in the informations. [43]

GR No. 167756

2008-04-09

PEOPLE v. JERRY NAZARENO

REYES, R.T., J.

In People v. Garcia,[34] the Court upheld a conviction for ten counts of rape based on an Information which alleged that the accused committed multiple rapes "from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994." In People v. Espejon,[35] the Court found the appellant liable for rape under an information charging that he perpetrated the offense "sometime in the year 1982 and dates subsequent thereto" and "sometime in the year 1995 and subsequent thereto."

GR NO. 177744

2007-11-23

PEOPLE v. GERONIMO DOMINGO

NACHURA, J.

An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof.[15] The precise time or date of the commission of an offense need not be alleged in the complaint or information, unless it is an essential element of the crime charged. In rape, it is not.[16] The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. In fact, the precise time when the rape takes place has no substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy. It is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.[17]

GR No. 174656

2007-05-11

PEOPLE v. ZALDY IBAÑEZ Y FRANCISCO

QUISUMBING, J.

An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. The exact date of the commission of a crime is not an essential element of the crime charged. Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its commission.[17] The gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. The precise time of the crime has no substantial bearing on its commission. Therefore, it is not essential that it be alleged in the information with ultimate precision.[18]

GR No. 134241

2003-08-11

DAVID REYES v. JOSE LIM

CARPIO, J.

To subscribe to Reyes' contention will unjustly enrich Reyes at the expense of Lim. Reyes sold to Line One the Property even before the balance of P18 million under the Contract to Sell with Lim became due on 8 March 1995. On 1 March 1995, Reyes signed a Deed of Absolute Sale[29] in favor of Line One. On 3 March 1995, the Register of Deeds issued TCT No. 134767[30] in the name of Line One.[31] Reyes cannot claim ownership of the P10 million down payment because Reyes had already sold to another buyer the Property for which Lim made the down payment. In fact, in his Comment[32] dated 20 March 1996, Reyes reiterated his offer to return to Lim the P10 million down payment.

GR Nos. 147656-58

2003-05-09

PEOPLE v. BERNABE GUTIERREZ Y GUTIERREZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Appellant assails the trial court's finding that the lacerations in complainant's hymen were consistent to her claim that she was raped, saying that there was no testimony given to this effect by the medico-legal officer. This argument deserves scant consideration. In a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape.[27] The medical examination of the victim, as well as a medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an essential element of rape.[28]

GR Nos. 146685-86

2003-04-30

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN HILET Y MERCADEJAS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Appellant's argument that the information in Criminal Case No. 99-330 is defective for its failure to state the approximate time of the commission of the crime is untenable. An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. The exact date of the commission of a crime is not an essential element of rape. Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its commission. The failure to specify the exact date or time when it was committed does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face.[6] In People v. Miranda,[7] we upheld the validity of the information which merely stated that the rape was allegedly committed "sometime in February 1988".

GR Nos. 123269-72 & 131243

2003-01-22

PEOPLE v. MARLON SARAZAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The rule is well-settled that the absence of lacerations on the vagina does not necessarily negate rape. The fact that the hymen was intact upon examination does not belie rape, for a broken hymen is not an essential element of rape, nor does the fact that the victim has remained a virgin negate the crime.[32] In a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape,[33] which the prosecution in this case was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

GR No. 145522

2002-12-05

PEOPLE v. ZOSIMO CANTOMAYOR Y TAHUM

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

"fn">[17] where the Court convicted the appellant for rape under an information charging him with rape perpetrated "sometime in the year 1982 and dates subsequent thereto" and "sometime in the year 1995 and subsequent thereto," the Court explained that the date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. In fact, the precise time when the rape takes place has no substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy. It is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission. Anent the imposable penalty, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Since the crime was committed in 1990, the higher penalty imposed for incestuous rape by Republic Act No. 7659 and

GR No. 138974

2002-09-19

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO SEGOVIA

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

commission. The date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. In fact, the precise time when the rape takes place has no substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy. It is sufficient if the complaint or information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.[4] In the case at bar, the complaint alleges that the rape was committed "on or about 22nd day of November 1987."[5] This sufficiently apprised accused-appellant of the charge proffered against him.[6] The date alleged was stated near

GR Nos. 144495-96

2002-03-12

PEOPLE v. LEONARDO S. PASCUAL

PANGANIBAN, J.

Having successfully and satisfactorily established the fact that appellant had sexual intercourse with his daughter against her will at or about the time alleged in the criminal Complaints, the prosecution has established beyond moral certainty that he is guilty of the rape charges.[31]

	GR No. 217975 2015-11-23	PEOPLE v. BERNARDINO BIALA MENDOZA, J.
The argument is nonetheless specious. An information is intended to inform an accused of the accusations against him and, as such, it must embody the essential elements of the crime charged by setting forth the facts and circumstances that have a bearing on the culpability and liability of the accused, so that he can properly prepare for and undertake his defense.[26] It is not necessary, however, 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.[27] In rape cases, the date of commission is not an essential element of rape but what is material is its occurrence,[28] which in this case, was sufficiently established by AAA. Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its commission. The failure to specify the exact date or time when it was committed does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face.[29]
	GR No. 174065 2009-02-18	PEOPLE v. ROLLY CANARES Y ALMANARES BRION, J.
Thus, we have ruled that allegations of rape in the information committed, "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter,"[39] "on or about and sometime in the year 1988,"[40] or "from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994,"[41] "sometime in the year 1982 and dates subsequent thereto," and "sometime in the year 1995 and subsequent thereto,"[42] all constitute sufficient compliance with Section 11 of Rule 110. In People v. Salalima, we also ruled that the allegation that the sexual assaults were committed, "sometime during the month of March 1996 or thereabout," or "sometime during the month of April 1996 or thereabout," and also, "sometime during the month of May 1996 or thereabout" substantially informed the accused of the crimes charged since all the elements of rape were stated in the informations. [43]
	GR No. 167756 2008-04-09	PEOPLE v. JERRY NAZARENO REYES, R.T., J.
In People v. Garcia,[34] the Court upheld a conviction for ten counts of rape based on an Information which alleged that the accused committed multiple rapes "from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994." In People v. Espejon,[35] the Court found the appellant liable for rape under an information charging that he perpetrated the offense "sometime in the year 1982 and dates subsequent thereto" and "sometime in the year 1995 and subsequent thereto."
	GR NO. 177744 2007-11-23	PEOPLE v. GERONIMO DOMINGO NACHURA, J.
An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof.[15] The precise time or date of the commission of an offense need not be alleged in the complaint or information, unless it is an essential element of the crime charged. In rape, it is not.[16] The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. In fact, the precise time when the rape takes place has no substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy. It is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.[17]
	GR No. 174656 2007-05-11	PEOPLE v. ZALDY IBAÑEZ Y FRANCISCO QUISUMBING, J.
An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. The exact date of the commission of a crime is not an essential element of the crime charged. Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its commission.[17] The gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. The precise time of the crime has no substantial bearing on its commission. Therefore, it is not essential that it be alleged in the information with ultimate precision.[18]
	GR No. 134241 2003-08-11	DAVID REYES v. JOSE LIM CARPIO, J.
To subscribe to Reyes' contention will unjustly enrich Reyes at the expense of Lim. Reyes sold to Line One the Property even before the balance of P18 million under the Contract to Sell with Lim became due on 8 March 1995. On 1 March 1995, Reyes signed a Deed of Absolute Sale[29] in favor of Line One. On 3 March 1995, the Register of Deeds issued TCT No. 134767[30] in the name of Line One.[31] Reyes cannot claim ownership of the P10 million down payment because Reyes had already sold to another buyer the Property for which Lim made the down payment. In fact, in his Comment[32] dated 20 March 1996, Reyes reiterated his offer to return to Lim the P10 million down payment.
	GR Nos. 147656-58 2003-05-09	PEOPLE v. BERNABE GUTIERREZ Y GUTIERREZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Appellant assails the trial court's finding that the lacerations in complainant's hymen were consistent to her claim that she was raped, saying that there was no testimony given to this effect by the medico-legal officer. This argument deserves scant consideration. In a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape.[27] The medical examination of the victim, as well as a medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an essential element of rape.[28]
	GR Nos. 146685-86 2003-04-30	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN HILET Y MERCADEJAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Appellant's argument that the information in Criminal Case No. 99-330 is defective for its failure to state the approximate time of the commission of the crime is untenable. An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. The exact date of the commission of a crime is not an essential element of rape. Thus, in a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its commission. The failure to specify the exact date or time when it was committed does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face.[6] In People v. Miranda,[7] we upheld the validity of the information which merely stated that the rape was allegedly committed "sometime in February 1988".
	GR Nos. 123269-72 & 131243 2003-01-22	PEOPLE v. MARLON SARAZAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The rule is well-settled that the absence of lacerations on the vagina does not necessarily negate rape. The fact that the hymen was intact upon examination does not belie rape, for a broken hymen is not an essential element of rape, nor does the fact that the victim has remained a virgin negate the crime.[32] In a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the rape,[33] which the prosecution in this case was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
	GR No. 145522 2002-12-05	PEOPLE v. ZOSIMO CANTOMAYOR Y TAHUM YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
"fn">[17] where the Court convicted the appellant for rape under an information charging him with rape perpetrated "sometime in the year 1982 and dates subsequent thereto" and "sometime in the year 1995 and subsequent thereto," the Court explained that the date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. In fact, the precise time when the rape takes place has no substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy. It is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission. Anent the imposable penalty, the trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Since the crime was committed in 1990, the higher penalty imposed for incestuous rape by Republic Act No. 7659 and
	GR No. 138974 2002-09-19	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO SEGOVIA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
commission. The date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force and intimidation. In fact, the precise time when the rape takes place has no substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy. It is sufficient if the complaint or information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.[4] In the case at bar, the complaint alleges that the rape was committed "on or about 22nd day of November 1987."[5] This sufficiently apprised accused-appellant of the charge proffered against him.[6] The date alleged was stated near
	GR Nos. 144495-96 2002-03-12	PEOPLE v. LEONARDO S. PASCUAL PANGANIBAN, J.
Having successfully and satisfactorily established the fact that appellant had sexual intercourse with his daughter against her will at or about the time alleged in the criminal Complaints, the prosecution has established beyond moral certainty that he is guilty of the rape charges.[31]

PEOPLE v. ROLLY ESPEJON