People vs.

Ching 538 SCRA 117

*Facts: *CA affirmed with modification the RTC conviction of accused-appellant William Ching from
three counts of rape committed against his minor daughter, AAA who was only 12 years old when the
alleged crime was committed. CA reduced the penalty from death penalty to "reclusion perpetua". The
prosecution presented AAA, AAA's mother, BBB, among others as witnesses. The AAA was the third
child in eight children born to appellant and BBB. Sometime in the year 1996, the appellant instructed
AAA's four other siblings to play outside, while AAA was cooking inside then Ching instructed AAA to go
in his bedroom and thereafter inserted his penis to the victim's vagina after removing her shorts and
panty. The victim screamed for help but to no avail as the appellant also threatened the girl of killing
her. AAA did not reported the incident to anybody. For the second time and third time in 1998,
Appellant had carnal knowledge with the girl when her sibling was asleep. Meantime, Ching was
arrested from June 1998 to February of 2009 for drug pushing. When he was subsequently released he
went to the place where AAA was employed and asked for money, AAA refused and reported not just
the commotion caused by Ching but the times when she was raped. In the petition for review before the
Supreme Court, the appellant asserted that CA erred in not considering the information filed against
accused-appellant as to the approximate date of the commission of the alleged rapes.

*Issue: *Whether the accused-appellant constitutional right to be inform of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him was violated?

*Held: *The contention was devoid of merit. An information is an accusation in writing, to be valid and
sufficient, an information must state the name of the accused, the designation of the offense, the acts
complained of as constituting an offense and the approximate date and time of its commission and the
place. With respect to the time, It is expressed in Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure that it is not necessary to state in the information the precise date of the offense. Especially
in rape cases, where failure to specify the exact dates and times does not ipso facto make the
information defective. As held in "People vs. Purazo", 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. The allegations in the informations which
stated that the three incidents of rape were committed in the year 1996 and in May 1998 are sufficient
to affirm the conviction of appellant in the instant case. The imposition of death penalty was proper,
however due to RA 9346, CA was just proper in reducing the said penalty. Hence, CA decision
AFFIRMED "in toto. "No costs.

Side notes:
The first rape incident in 1996 was covered by Article 335 of the Penal Code amended by RA 7659
The subsequent rape incidents were covered by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 which states that death
penalty shall be imposed where a victim is a minor and the offending party is a parent.