100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 62 - 64 out of 68 pages.
People v Pascual.AAApositively identified the appellant ErnestoMercado as the person who had sexuallyabused her on different occasions. However, shefailed to provide the exact dates of theoccurrence of rape. Therefore, the accused-appellant contends that such failure is notsufficient to convict him. Does the exact dateand time of the commission in the crime of rapeis essential?Answer:No, the date of the commission of the rape isnot an essential element of the crime of rape, for thegravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of awoman.The discrepancies in the actual dates the rapestook place are not serious errors warranting a reversal ofthe appellants conviction. People v Aure. Accused-appellant Diocado was found guilty ofthe crime of rape with an 11 year old girl, withoutthe consent of the latter. He alleged that hisconviction is unjust because during the trial andbased on information given there was anabsence of the exact date of when the rape wascommitted. Does the element of exact date andtime of the commission in the crime of rape isessential to convict?
Answer:No, what must be proven is the carnalknowledge of the accused with the private complainantwithout her consent. Thus, as a rule, the exact time ofthe commission of the rape is not a ground for acquittalonce the prosecution has clearly established the sexualact between the rapist and the victim without the lattersconsent. People v Diocado. Accused-appellant Canares was charged in twoseparate informations for rape and attemptedrape in relation with Republic Act No. 7610 (theChild Abuse Law). The first case is about rapingthe 9 year old girl and the second is theattempted rape to a 16 year old girl. Prosecutionin both cases failed to provide the exact date ofthe occurrence of such crime. Does failure toprovide the exact date will exculpate theaccused in the crime of rape?Answer:No, the precise date of the commission of therape is not an essential element of the crime.Thegravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of thewoman under any of the circumstances provided by law.People v Canares.Accused-appellant Eduardo Aboganda wascharged for raping his own daughter. Hepleaded not guilty to the charge. On appeal,accused-appellant questioned the vagueness ofthe date and time alleged in the informationsagainst him as well as his erroneous convictionfor incestuous rape. Does failure to provide theexact date is insufficient to convict the accusedin the crime of rape?Answer:No, the conviction of accused-appellant doesnot depend on the sole testimony of the victim, providedthat such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, andconsistent with human nature and the normal course ofthings, a factor which exists in the present case.Moreover, the accused-appellant belatedly raised hisargument on appeal. The accused gave a “not guilty”plea upon arraignment instead of questioning the so-called defect in the Information against him. If the