Facts:

• Gualberto Cinco y Soyosa is the accused-appellant; the People of the Philippines is the plaintiff-appellee.
• In November 1998, an information was filed against the appellant for acts of lasciviousness involving AAA, a 14-year-old minor.
• The information alleged that on November 30, 1998, in Quezon City, the appellant sexually abused AAA by touching her body and mashing her breast without consent.
• On August 18, 1999, two informations were filed charging the appellant with rape.
• The first rape charge stated that in November 1998, the appellant undressed AAA and had carnal knowledge of her through force and intimidation.
• The second charge alleged that on November 1, 1998, the appellant similarly raped AAA in their house.
• The cases were consolidated; the appellant pleaded not guilty during the arraignment on February 7, 2000.
• The prosecution presented witnesses, including AAA and Dr. Mariella Castillo, who examined AAA medically.
• AAA testified that the appellant threatened her with a knife, tied her hands, and raped her on November 1, 1998, and recounted a second incident later in November.
• Initially, AAA downplayed the incidents due to threats from the appellant's relatives but later disclosed the abuse to her aunt and social workers.
• The defense provided alibis from the appellant and his friends, claiming he was selling ice cream during the incidents.
• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the appellant guilty of two counts of simple rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering civil indemnity and moral damages to AAA, while acquitting him of the acts of lasciviousness charge due to insufficient evidence.
• The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC's decision on January 30, 2008.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, upholding the RTC's conviction of Gualberto Cinco y Soyosa for two counts of simple rape.
• The Court ruled that the informations wer...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Court explained that the requirement for an information to state the approximate date of the offense is not absolute, especially in rape cases.
• According to Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifying the exact date is unnecessary unless it is a material ingredient of the offense.
• The essence of rape lies in the act of carnal knowledge through...continue reading