Lawyerly

GR No. 167756

2008-04-09

REYES, R.T., J.

In People v. Gianan,[31] the Court ruled that the time of the commission of rape is not an element of the said crime as it is defined in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated therein, i.e.: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. In accordance with Rule 110, Section 11 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as long as it alleges that the offense was committed "at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed," an information is sufficient.

GR No. 126025

2004-07-06

PEOPLE v. JOSELITO ALMENDRAL Y ALCASABAS

TINGA, J,

Similarly, in People v. Gianan,[43] accused contended that the information alleging execution of the crime "sometime in November 1995, and some occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto" was defective because it charged more than one offense. The trial court convicted accused of multiple rape without stating the number of counts of rape involved. This Court however maintained that the failure of the accused to question the validity of the information is deemed a waiver of his objection and convicted accused of four counts of rape and one count of acts of lasciviousness proven by the prosecution.

GR Nos. 140333-34

2001-12-11

PEOPLE v. LOVE JOY DE GUZMAN

PER CURIAM

Failure to recall the exact date of the crime is not an indication of false testimony. Moreover, the precise dated 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 at which the offense was committed in the information is sufficient. The 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 Rule of Criminal Procedure.[12]

GR No. 131040

2001-10-05

PEOPLE v. MICHAEL FRAMIO SABAGALA

QUISUMBING, J.

However, and this we have to emphasize, these inconsistencies pertain to inconsequential and trivial matters. They do not, in any way, relate to the gravamen of the crime, that is, the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.[58] Annie had consistently held during her testimony that appellant forced her to have sex with him and that he succeeded in doing so, notwithstanding the tremendous resistance she exerted to repel his undesired advances.

GR Nos. 135356-58

2001-09-04

PEOPLE v. MELECIO SAGARINO

QUISUMBING, J.

With respect to the occurrence during the early morning of February 14, 1998, the lower court found appellant guilty of acts of lasciviousness only. The elements of the offense encompassed by the term acts of lasciviousness are: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done (a) by using force or intimidation or (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) that the offended party is another person of either sex.[20] In the case at bar, the complainant testified that appellant was stomping his feet and mouthing invectives as he poked a knife at her. This was patent intimidation. Likewise, the element of lewd designs was apparent when appellant removed his shorts and brief, then fondled complainant's breast. Although the information was for attempted rape, appellant could be held liable for acts of lasciviousness because the latter constitute an offense included or subsumed in the charge of attempted rape.[21]

GR Nos. 137969-71

2001-08-15

PEOPLE v. RAFAEL SALALIMA Y GARCIA

QUISUMBING, J.

Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. The reason is obvious. The 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 of Criminal Procedure.[9]

GR No. 124297

2001-02-21

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO SAYAO

MENDOZA, J.

There may be inelegance in the way the information in this case had been drafted, but it is not defective for being vague. First, Rule 110, §11 provides that it is not necessary for the information to allege the exact date and the time of the commission of the crime if such is not an essential ingredient of the offense. In the crime of rape, the date of commission is not an essential element.[16] Second, even if the information fails to specify the date of commission of the crime, accused-appellant waived objection on this ground because he failed to file either a motion for a bill of particulars or a motion to quash the information.[17] Third, the vagueness of the information could not have prejudiced accused-appellant since his denial and alibi are so general that it cannot be said that his defense hinges on the date of commission.[18]

GR Nos. 133919-20

2001-02-19

PEOPLE v. CARLOS AWING Y ABAYON

QUISUMBING, J.

Moreover, even if the information in Criminal Case No. 39, 870-97 lacked an allegation of actual day and time of the commission of the rape, the defect, if any, could be deemed cured by the evidence presented during the trial. Moreover, we find that any objection based on this ground had been waived as a result of appellant's failure to object to the information before arraignment. Appellant could have moved for either a bill of particulars or quashal of the information for failure of the information to substantially conform to the prescribed form.[17] However, he did not choose to do either step. It is now too late in the day for him to claim on appeal that the information against him was defective and that he ought to go scott free for that reason.

GR Nos. 137106-07

2001-01-31

PEOPLE v. JOSE ELPEDES Y SUNAS

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

SEC. 10. Bill of particulars. - Accused may, at or before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and to prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects and details desired. The failure to move for specifications or the quashal of the information on any of the grounds provided for in the Rules of Court deprives accused of the right to object to evidence which could be lawfully introduced and admitted under an information of more or less general terms but which sufficiently charges the accused with a definite crime.[21] It is too late in the day for accused-appellant to raise this issue now because objections as to matters of form or substance in the information can not be made for the first time on appeal.[22] Besides, the exact date of the commission of the crime is not an essential element of the crime.[23] In People v. Gianan,[24] the Court held:It is settled that the time of the commission of rape is not an element thereof, as this crime is defined in Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated therein, i.e. (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. In accordance with Rule 110, Section 11. As long as it alleges that the offense was committed "at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed," an information is sufficient. Thus, in People v. Bugayong,[25] it was held 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. (Italics provided) Indeed, under Rule 110, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, the information need only state "the approximate time of the commission of the offense." Section 11 thereof provides:

GR Nos. 137408-10

2000-12-08

PEOPLE v. WILLY MARQUEZ

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The failure to move for specifications or the quashal of information on any of the grounds provided for in the Rules of Court deprives accused of the right to object to evidence which could be lawfully introduced and admitted under an information of more or less general terms but which sufficiently charges the accused with a definite crime.[12] It is too late in the day for accused-appellant to raise this issue because objections as to matters of form or substance in the information can not be made for the first time on appeal.[13] Be that as it may, the exact date of the commission of the crime is not an essential element of the crime.[14] In People v. Jesus Gianan y Molina,[15] the Court pointedly stated that: It is settled that the time of the commission of rape is not an element thereof, as this crime is defined in Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under of the circumstances enumerated therein, i.e. (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. In accordance with Rule 110, Section 11, as long as it alleges that the offense was committed "at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed," an information is sufficient. Thus, in People v. Bugayong,[16] it was held 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.[17]

	GR No. 167756 2008-04-09	PEOPLE v. JERRY NAZARENO REYES, R.T., J.
In People v. Gianan,[31] the Court ruled that the time of the commission of rape is not an element of the said crime as it is defined in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated therein, i.e.: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. In accordance with Rule 110, Section 11 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as long as it alleges that the offense was committed "at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed," an information is sufficient.
	GR No. 126025 2004-07-06	PEOPLE v. JOSELITO ALMENDRAL Y ALCASABAS TINGA, J,
Similarly, in People v. Gianan,[43] accused contended that the information alleging execution of the crime "sometime in November 1995, and some occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto" was defective because it charged more than one offense. The trial court convicted accused of multiple rape without stating the number of counts of rape involved. This Court however maintained that the failure of the accused to question the validity of the information is deemed a waiver of his objection and convicted accused of four counts of rape and one count of acts of lasciviousness proven by the prosecution.
	GR Nos. 140333-34 2001-12-11	PEOPLE v. LOVE JOY DE GUZMAN PER CURIAM
Failure to recall the exact date of the crime is not an indication of false testimony. Moreover, the precise dated 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 at which the offense was committed in the information is sufficient. The 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 Rule of Criminal Procedure.[12]
	GR No. 131040 2001-10-05	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL FRAMIO SABAGALA QUISUMBING, J.
However, and this we have to emphasize, these inconsistencies pertain to inconsequential and trivial matters. They do not, in any way, relate to the gravamen of the crime, that is, the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.[58] Annie had consistently held during her testimony that appellant forced her to have sex with him and that he succeeded in doing so, notwithstanding the tremendous resistance she exerted to repel his undesired advances.
	GR Nos. 135356-58 2001-09-04	PEOPLE v. MELECIO SAGARINO QUISUMBING, J.
With respect to the occurrence during the early morning of February 14, 1998, the lower court found appellant guilty of acts of lasciviousness only. The elements of the offense encompassed by the term acts of lasciviousness are: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done (a) by using force or intimidation or (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) that the offended party is another person of either sex.[20] In the case at bar, the complainant testified that appellant was stomping his feet and mouthing invectives as he poked a knife at her. This was patent intimidation. Likewise, the element of lewd designs was apparent when appellant removed his shorts and brief, then fondled complainant's breast. Although the information was for attempted rape, appellant could be held liable for acts of lasciviousness because the latter constitute an offense included or subsumed in the charge of attempted rape.[21]
	GR Nos. 137969-71 2001-08-15	PEOPLE v. RAFAEL SALALIMA Y GARCIA QUISUMBING, J.
Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. The reason is obvious. The 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 of Criminal Procedure.[9]
	GR No. 124297 2001-02-21	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO SAYAO MENDOZA, J.
There may be inelegance in the way the information in this case had been drafted, but it is not defective for being vague. First, Rule 110, §11 provides that it is not necessary for the information to allege the exact date and the time of the commission of the crime if such is not an essential ingredient of the offense. In the crime of rape, the date of commission is not an essential element.[16] Second, even if the information fails to specify the date of commission of the crime, accused-appellant waived objection on this ground because he failed to file either a motion for a bill of particulars or a motion to quash the information.[17] Third, the vagueness of the information could not have prejudiced accused-appellant since his denial and alibi are so general that it cannot be said that his defense hinges on the date of commission.[18]
	GR Nos. 133919-20 2001-02-19	PEOPLE v. CARLOS AWING Y ABAYON QUISUMBING, J.
Moreover, even if the information in Criminal Case No. 39, 870-97 lacked an allegation of actual day and time of the commission of the rape, the defect, if any, could be deemed cured by the evidence presented during the trial. Moreover, we find that any objection based on this ground had been waived as a result of appellant's failure to object to the information before arraignment. Appellant could have moved for either a bill of particulars or quashal of the information for failure of the information to substantially conform to the prescribed form.[17] However, he did not choose to do either step. It is now too late in the day for him to claim on appeal that the information against him was defective and that he ought to go scott free for that reason.
	GR Nos. 137106-07 2001-01-31	PEOPLE v. JOSE ELPEDES Y SUNAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
SEC. 10. Bill of particulars. - Accused may, at or before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and to prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects and details desired. The failure to move for specifications or the quashal of the information on any of the grounds provided for in the Rules of Court deprives accused of the right to object to evidence which could be lawfully introduced and admitted under an information of more or less general terms but which sufficiently charges the accused with a definite crime.[21] It is too late in the day for accused-appellant to raise this issue now because objections as to matters of form or substance in the information can not be made for the first time on appeal.[22] Besides, the exact date of the commission of the crime is not an essential element of the crime.[23] In People v. Gianan,[24] the Court held:It is settled that the time of the commission of rape is not an element thereof, as this crime is defined in Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated therein, i.e. (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. In accordance with Rule 110, Section 11. As long as it alleges that the offense was committed "at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed," an information is sufficient. Thus, in People v. Bugayong,[25] it was held 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. (Italics provided) Indeed, under Rule 110, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, the information need only state "the approximate time of the commission of the offense." Section 11 thereof provides:
	GR Nos. 137408-10 2000-12-08	PEOPLE v. WILLY MARQUEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The failure to move for specifications or the quashal of information on any of the grounds provided for in the Rules of Court deprives accused of the right to object to evidence which could be lawfully introduced and admitted under an information of more or less general terms but which sufficiently charges the accused with a definite crime.[12] It is too late in the day for accused-appellant to raise this issue because objections as to matters of form or substance in the information can not be made for the first time on appeal.[13] Be that as it may, the exact date of the commission of the crime is not an essential element of the crime.[14] In People v. Jesus Gianan y Molina,[15] the Court pointedly stated that: It is settled that the time of the commission of rape is not an element thereof, as this crime is defined in Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under of the circumstances enumerated therein, i.e. (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. In accordance with Rule 110, Section 11, as long as it alleges that the offense was committed "at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed," an information is sufficient. Thus, in People v. Bugayong,[16] it was held 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.[17]

PEOPLE v. JESUS GIANAN Y MOLINA