This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-08-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| An Information is an accusation in writing charging a person with an offense, signed by the prosecutor and filed with the court.[24] The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, in implementing the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, specifically require certain matters to be stated in the Information for its sufficiency. The requirement aims to enable the accused to properly prepare for his defense since he is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts constituting the offense charged.[25] | |||||
|
2011-10-19 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| It is immaterial that the prosecution failed to allege in the Information the exact date of the commission of the offenses. It is sufficient that it was alleged therein that in Criminal Case Nos. 1381 and 1382, the crime was committed in October 1995 and 1997, respectively; that AAA was under 12 years of age; and that appellant had carnal knowledge with her. These allegations sufficiently informed appellant that he was being charged with rape of a child who was below 12 years of age. He was definitely afforded the opportunity to prepare his defense. We have repeatedly held that the date of the commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime. It is not necessary to state the precise time when the offense was committed, except when time is a material ingredient of the offense.[67] This Court has upheld the complaints and informations for rape which merely alleged the month and year of its commission. We have also sustained the validity of the information which merely alleged the year of its commission.[68] | |||||
|
2010-08-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| On her failure to recall the exact date when she was raped, it is quite understandable because he did it to her on several occasions. At any rate, the entrenched doctrine is 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. The precise time when the rape took place has no substantial bearing on its commission."[12] | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We have repeatedly held that the date of the commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime.[41] It is not necessary to state the precise time when the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense. In statutory rape, time is not an essential element except to prove that the victim was a minor below twelve years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. Given the victim's established date of birth, she was definitely short of 12 years under the allegations of the Information and on the basis of the evidence adduced. | |||||
|
2009-06-16 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| [113] People v. Ching, G.R. No. 177150, 22 November 2007, 538 SCRA 117, 131. | |||||
|
2008-11-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The award of moral damages in each of the cases is proper because AAA is assumed to have suffered moral injuries.[79] However, the amount of P50,000.00 imposed as moral damages should be increased to P75,000.00 based on prevailing jurisprudence.[80] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is true that the information in Criminal Case No. C-58693 alleged that appellants conspired in raping AAA on 7 November 1999, and that the RTC convicted appellant Ferol alone in Criminal Case No. C-58693 of raping AAA on 8 November 1999. Nonetheless, the discrepancy on the actual date of rape does not constitute a serious error warranting the reversal of appellant Ferol's conviction. 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. The precise time or date 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. It is sufficient that the information states that the crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual commission.[62] In sustaining the view that the exact date of commission of rape is immaterial, we held in People v. Purazo[63] that:We have ruled, time and again, that the date is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of a woman. As such, the time or place of commission in rape cases need not be accurately stated. As early as 1908, we already held that where the time or place or any other fact alleged is not an essential element of the crime charged, conviction may be had on proof of the commission of the crime, even if it appears that the crime was not committed at the precise time or place alleged, or if the proof fails to sustain the existence of some immaterial fact set out in the complaint, provided it appears that the specific crime charged was in fact committed prior to the date of the filing of the complaint or information within the period of the statute of limitations and at a place within the jurisdiction of the court. | |||||
|
2008-06-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Exemplary damages may be awarded only when one or more aggravating circumstances are alleged in the information and proved during the trial.[65] One of the circumstances which aggravate/qualify the crime of rape is when the victim is a minor and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.[66] The minority of the rape victim and her relationship with the offender must be both alleged in the information and proved during the trial in order to be appreciated as an aggravating/qualifying circumstance.[67] | |||||