PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CHARITO ISUG MAGBANUA G.R. No. 128888 December 3, 1 FACTS! •
•
•
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Upon his arraignment on 23 July 1996, appellant entered a plea of NOT GUIT!"#$% Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued" The prose&ution presented three 'itnesses, namely( )o*li&a +ag*anua, the &omplaining 'itness eonilo +ag*anua, the un&le of )o*li&a and older *rother of appellant and -ra" .rlene /y, the physi&ian 'ho e0amined )o*li&a and issued the medi&al &ertifi&ate" )o*li&a +ag*anua, the &omplaining 'itness, is the eldest among the seen 4 &hildren of appellant 'ith his 'ife, .ni&eta +ag*anua" /he 'as eighteen 154 years old, single, o*less and a resident of Ilin, /an Jose, O&&idental +indoro, at the time of the trial" )o*li&a testified that in the year 1991, 'hen she 'as *arely thirteen 134 years old and not yet haing her menstrual period, she 'as se0ually a* used *y appellant, her o'n father" It 'as around noon 'hen appellant first molested her" /he aerred that appellant approa&hed her and po7ed a 7nife 7 nife at her" /he narrated that her defilement did not end there" /in&e then until 1998, appellant &ontinuously a*used her seeral times a month" The se0ual assaults usually too7 pla&e at noontime 'hen she 'as left alone 'ith appellant 'hile her mother 'ent to to'n to'n to *uy their their *asi *asi&& need needss and and 'hil 'hilee her her *rot *rothe herr and and sist sister erss 'ere 'ere at the the hous housee of thei their r grandmother 'hi&h 'as uite far from their house" .s a result of the freuent se0ual iolations, )o*li&a *e&ame pregnant" /he gae *irth to a *a*y *oy on 18 Noem*er 1998 at the house of her grandmother 'here she temporarily transferred" /he named the &hild :oger :oldan +ag*anua and registered his *irth 'ith the lo&al &iil registry 'ithout stating the name of the natural father in the &ertifi&ate of *irth" ;hen as7ed a*out the identity of the father of the &hild, )o*li&a &ategori&ally ans'ered that it 'as appellant 'ho sired the *a*y" /he e0plained that appellant fathered the &hild sin&e he 'as the one 'ho a*used her from 1991 until she *e&ame pregnant" .&&ord .&&ording ing to )o*li&a, )o*li&a, she did not report the rape rape in&ide in&idents nts to her mother mother *e&ause *e&ause appella appellant nt threatened to 7ill her" he r" Three months after she gae *irth, she 'ent to lie 'ith her Un&le eonilo and his 'ife at +alar /treet /treet,, /an Jose, Jose, O&&iden O&&idental tal +indor +indoro" o" ;hile ;hile there, there, she dis&lo dis&losed sed to her aunt the harro' harro'ing ing e0perien&e she had in the hands of her father"
•
•
•
On the other hand, the defense presented only one 'itness, the appellant himself" On the 'itness stand, appellant admitted that )o*li&a is his daughter, the latter *eing the eldest among his seen &hildren"
I//U=(
;hether the information insuffi&ient to support a udgment of &oni&tion for its failure to state the pre&ise date of the offense, it *eing an essential ingredient of the &rime &harged" <=-( •
•
•
• •
•
;ith respe&t to the allegation of insuffi&ien&y of the information, 'e find the &ontention deoid of merit" >ailure to spe&ify the e0a&t dates or time 'hen the rapes o&&urred does not ipso facto ma7e the information defe&tie on its fa&e" The reason is o*ious" The date or time of the &ommission of rape is not a material ingredient of the said &rime *e&ause the gravamen of rape is &arnal 7no'ledge of a 'oman through for&e and intimidation" In fa&t, the pre&ise time 'hen the rape ta7es pla&e has no su*stantial *earing on its &ommission" .s su&h, the date or time need not *e stated 'ith a*solute a&&ura&y" It is suffi&ient that the &omplaint or information states that the &rime has *een &ommitted at any time as near as possi*le to the date of its a&tual &ommission" The purpose of the reuirement is to gie the a&&used an opportunity to defend himself" /e&tion 11, :ule 11? of the :ules of @ourt states thus( /e&tion 11" Time of the commission of the offense"A It is not ne&essary to state in the &omplaint or information the pre&ise time at 'hi&h the offense 'as &ommitted e0&ept 'hen the time is a material ingredient of the offense, *ut the a&t may *e alleged to hae *een &ommitted at any time as near to the a&tual date at 'hi&h the offense 'as &ommitted as the information or &omplaint 'ill permit"
•
.lthough the information did not state 'ith parti&ularity the dates 'hen the se0ual atta&7s too7 pla&e, 'e *eliee that the allegations therein that the a&ts 'ere &ommitted on si&4 the year 1991 and the days thereafter su*stantially apprised appellant of the &rime he 'as &harged 'ith sin&e all the essential elements of the &rime of rape 'ere stated in the information" .s su&h, appellant &annot &omplain that he 'as depried of the right to *e informed of the nature of the &ase filed against him" .n information &an 'ithstand the test of udi&ial s&rutiny as long as it distin&tly states the statutory designation of the offense and the a&ts or omissions &onstitutie thereof"
:.TIO( The rule is that at any time *efore entering his plea, the a&&used may moe to uash the information on the ground that it does not &onform su*stantially to the pres&ri*ed form" The failure of the a&&used to assert any ground for a motion to uash *efore he pleads to the information, either *e&a use he did not file a motion to uash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall *e deemed a 'aier of the grounds for a motion to
uash, e0&ept the grounds of no offense &harged, la&7 of urisdi&tion oer the offense &harged, e0tin&tion of the offense or penalty, and eopardy" )erfor&e, a formal defe&t in the information not *eing one of the e0&eptions to the rule, appellants failure to ino7e the same through a motion to uash is deemed to *e a 'aier of su&h o*e&tion and he &annot no' *e heard to see7 affirmatie relief on that ground" +oreoer, o*e&tions as to matters of form or su*stan&e in the information &annot *e made for the first time on appeal" The remedy against an indi&tment that fails to a llege the time of the &ommission of the offense 'ith suffi&ient definiteness is a motion for *ill of parti&ulars, proided for in /e&tion 6, :ule 116 of the :ules of @ourt of 196$" It is already too late in the day for appellant to uestion the suffi&ien&y of the information" urthermore, o*e&tions as to matters of form or su*stan&e in the information &annot *e made for the first time on appeal" .t any rate, although the prose&ution failed to spe&ify the parti&ular dates in 1991 'hen the se0ual assaults too7 pla&e, 'e are &onin&ed that it 'as a*le to esta*lish the fa&t of rape"Thus, 'hateer agueness may hae attended the information 'as &larified 'hen )o*li&a testified that she 'as defiled *y appellant 'hen she 'as *arely 13 years old, haing *een *orn on 3 +ar&h 195"
