The Court affirmed the conviction of Anjoy Buca for raping a 7-year old girl. While the information stated the rape occurred sometime before December 24, 2002, evidence showed it happened on that date. The Court held that specifying the exact date is not required for rape cases, as the date is not an essential element of the crime. It is sufficient if the information alleges the offense was committed at a time near the actual date. The information here complied with this rule.
The Court affirmed the conviction of Anjoy Buca for raping a 7-year old girl. While the information stated the rape occurred sometime before December 24, 2002, evidence showed it happened on that date. The Court held that specifying the exact date is not required for rape cases, as the date is not an essential element of the crime. It is sufficient if the information alleges the offense was committed at a time near the actual date. The information here complied with this rule.
The Court affirmed the conviction of Anjoy Buca for raping a 7-year old girl. While the information stated the rape occurred sometime before December 24, 2002, evidence showed it happened on that date. The Court held that specifying the exact date is not required for rape cases, as the date is not an essential element of the crime. It is sufficient if the information alleges the offense was committed at a time near the actual date. The information here complied with this rule.
Topic: Date, Place, and Time of Commission; Rule 110 sec. 10 &11; Accused-appellant argues that the statement in the Precise date only when element of offense Information that the rape occurred sometime before December 24, 2002 despite the fact that the prosecution Issue: established that the crime was committed on December 24, Whether accused-appellant may be convicted of rape despite the 2002 violates Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of failure to allege the exact date of the commission of the crime in the Criminal Procedure, as amended, on the requirement of Information stating the date of the commission of the offense and the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause Facts: of the accusation against him. On Dec. 24, 2002 AAA, a 7 year old girl together with her siblings, CCC, DDD, and EEE were in their house at Taal 2, Held: Royal Valley, Bangkal Davao City. The accused-appellant, Yes Anjoy Buca, a neighbor of their family, entered the house, ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. - Rape is and ordered AAA’s siblings to go to another room to sleep. committed - When Anjoy and AAA were all alone, Anjoy placed AAA on 1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman his lap, pulled down her panties and forcibly inserted his under any of the following circumstances: penis into her vagina. He began to have sex with AAA. CCC, a. Through force, threat, or intimidation; the younger brother, who was at that time hiding below a b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or bench, saw what was happening. CCC came out and pulled otherwise unconscious; AAA away from Anjoy. Then, Anjoy warned AAA not to tell c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of anyone of what he did or else he will kill her parents. authority; and BBB, the mother of AAA came home after buying food. CCC d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of met her at the door and told her, "Mie, Mie, si Ate age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances (referring to AAA) gani no ky gibastos ni Anjoy". BBB mentioned above be present. pretended to ignore the information relayed by CCC as People v. Lizada: It bears stressing that the precise date of Anjoy was still inside their house. BBB was scared that Anjoy the commission of the crime of rape is not an essential might notice her reaction. About ten minutes after, Anjoy element of the crime. Failure to specify the exact date when left their house. AAA then disclosed that Anjoy did the same the rape was committed does not render the Information thing to her many times already. defective. On the same day, AAA and her mother BBB reported the People v. Salalima: Failure to specify the exact dates or time incident to the police. They also went to a physician to have when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the her examined which proved positive for sexual abuse. information defective on its face. The reason is obvious. The RTC: found Anjoy guilty precise date or time when the victim was raped is not an element of the offense. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense was committed an information is sufficient. In previous cases, we ruled that allegations that rapes were committed "before and until October 15, 1994," "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter," "sometime in November 1995 and some occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto" and "on or about and sometime in the year 1988" constitute sufficient compliance with Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, states that it is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. Such requirement is not applicable to the crime of rape where the date of the commission of the offense is not an essential element. The information charging accused-appellant of rape sometime before December 24, 2002 when the crime was committed exactly on December 24, 2002 is sufficiently compliant with said Section 11.