Alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the

alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses can be explained by their age and their
inexperience with court proceedings, and that even the most candid of witnesses commit mistakes
and make confused and inconsistent statements. This is especially true of young witnesses, who
could be overwhelmed by the atmosphere of the courtroom. Hence, there is more reason to accord
them ample space for inaccuracy. 20
Accused-appellant capitalizes on AAA’s inability to recall the exact date when the incident in
1996 was committed. Failure to recall the exact date of the crime, however, is not an indication of
false testimony, for even discrepancies regarding exact dates of rapes are inconsequential and
immaterial and cannot discredit the credibility of the victim as a witness.
21
In People v.
Purazo, 22 We ruled:
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
Page | 4

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.
Also in People v. Salalima, 23 the Court held:
Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the
information defective on its face. The reason is obvious. The precise date or time when the victim
was raped is not an element of the offense. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal
knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code. As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at any time as near to the actual date
when the offense was committed an information is sufficient. In previous cases, we ruled that
allegations that rapes were committed "before and until October 15, 1994," "sometime in the year
1991 and the days thereafter," "sometime in November 1995 and some occasions prior and/or
subsequent thereto" and "on or about and sometime in the year 1988" constitute sufficient
compliance with Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
In this case, AAA’s declaration that the rape incident took place on December 15, 1996 was
explained by the trial court, and we quote:
The rape took place in 1996. As earlier noted by the Court the date December 15, 1996 mentioned
by [AAA] may have been arbitrarily chosen by the latter due to the intense cross-examination she
was subjected but the Court believes it could have been in any month and date in the year 1996 as