This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-09-18 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In an attempt to discredit the victim's testimony, appellant points out certain discrepancies in her testimony, such as the exact time they went to the farm of Naty Astor. Such discrepancy is trifling. The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the circumstances provided by law.[8] Thus, the precise time when the rape took place has no substantial bearing on its commission. As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy.[9] | |||||
|
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. | |||||