Case No.

11, Rule 110

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. AAA

G.R. No. 243629 June 30, 2020
Keywords:
Topic: Section 11 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, titled Date of commission of the offense.

Accused - appellant Plaintiff - appellee

AAA THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

RECIT READY SUMMARY:

The petition was denied, and the Supreme Court affirmed with decisions of the RTC and CA due to lack
of merit. The pointed-out inconsistencies on the petition of the accused between the medical findings and the
alleged date in the information does not discredit the testimonies provided by the witnesses. According to Section
11 of Rule 110, that the offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual
date of its commission, therefore the inconsistency on the date doesn’t prove that she was not raped on the alleged
date in the information.
DOCTRINE
1. Prosecution of Offenses
RULE 110
Section 11. Date of commission of the offense. — 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. The offense
may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission.
(11a)

2. Elements of the Crime of Rape

"Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed:
"1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
"a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
"b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
"c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
"d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
"2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act
of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object,
into the genital or anal orifice of another person.

FACTS:
1. On June 10, 2014, the father (AAA) inserted his penis inside the vagina of on his 5-year-old daughter
BBB, and the 6-year-old brother (DDD) witnessed the incident through window peeping.
2. The brother told his mother what he saw the father do to his two-year-old daughter CCC where the father
inserts his fingers on the vagina, sometime in December 2014. EEE immediately reports it to the police,
and the father was arrested on December 16, 2014
3. The 5-year-old daughter and the 2-year-old daughter underwent on medical examination on January 2015
where the results revealed healed lacerations on their hymen, and based on this medico-legal results, BBB
was last raped on November 29, 2014.
4. AAA was charged with one count of Statutory rape by inserting his penis inside the vagina, and one count
of sexual assault against BBB and one count of sexual assault against CCC by inserting his fingers inside
the vagina.
5. AAA denied the accusations and countered that EEE fabricated the charges against him and pointed out
that EEE was the one sexually abused their daughters, and this is because AAA threatened to report EEE
of his doings to the authorities.
6. On February 17, 2017, RTC found AA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape but acquitted on
the two other cases for failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
7. AAA elevated the case to the CA through petition on certiorari, and pointed out the inconsistency between
the medical findings and the supposed date of the crime was committed where the CA denied the appeal
 and affirmed on the RTC’s decision that date and time of the commission of the crime is not a material
ingredient on the crime of Rape, and the CA even modified the initial penalties and civil liabilities
imposed by the RTC: From reclusion perpetua to reclusion perpetua without eligibility to parole; From
75K to 100K civil indemnity; from 75K to 100K moral damages; and from 30K to 100K exemplary
damages.
ISSUES:

Whether there is merit on the petition of the accused on the crime of Statutory rape in the grounds of
inconsistencies on the date between the medical findings and the alleged date of the commission of the
crime in the information of the prosecution.

RULING:
No, there is no merit in the petition of the accused.
As stated on Sec 11 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the offense may be alleged to have been committed on a
date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission. The difference on the medical findings date when the
victim is last raped by the accused on the alleged date of commission of the crime doesn’t necessary discredit the
testimonies provided by the witnesses and does not prove that she was not raped on the alleged date in the
information.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed February 7, 2017 Decision and May 29, 2018
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. are AFFIRMED.