This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-01-24 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 97-0229 ALLEGEDLY COMMITTED ON JULY 6, 1997 DESPITE INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. Appellant contends that the prosecution failed to establish the fact of rape allegedly committed on July 6, 1997. He points out the inconsistency in the private complainant's testimony that the interval between the third and fourth rapes was only one day in contrast to the Informations which stated that the third rape happened on June 5, 1997 and the fourth rape transpired on July 5, 1997 an interval of more than one (1) month. Citing People v. Taganna,[31] appellant argues that while the precise date and time are not essential in rape, nevertheless, it must be stated as near the actual date as the information will permit. Otherwise, he will be denied his constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him.[32] | |||||
|
2002-09-19 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| to the actual date of commission. Thus, the same afforded accused-appellant ample opportunity to prepare an intelligent defense and avoid surprise and substantial prejudice to the defense.[7] In People v. Bugayong,[8] we held that a difference of one (1) year or twelve (12) months is merely a matter of form and does not prejudice the rights of the accused. The phrase "on or about" employed in the information does not require the | |||||