PEOPLE VS.

WILLIAM CHING

Facts:

CA affirmed with modification the RTC conviction of accused-appellant

William Ching from three counts of rape committed against his minor daughter,
AAA who was only 12 years old when the alleged crime was committed. CA reduced
the penalty from death penalty to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution presented
AAA, AAA's mother, BBB, among others as witnesses. AAA was the third child in
eight children born to appellant and BBB. Sometime in the year 1996, the appellant
instructed AAA's four other siblings to play outside, while AAA was cooking inside
then Ching instructed AAA to go in his bedroom and thereafter inserted his penis
to the victim's vagina after removing her shorts and panty. The victim screamed
for help but to no avail as the appellant also threatened the girl of killing her. AAA
did not report the incident to anybody. For the second time and third time in 1998,
Appellant had carnal knowledge with the girl when her sibling was asleep.
Meantime, Ching was arrested from June 1998 to February of 2009 for drug
pushing. When he was subsequently released, he went to the place where AAA was
employed and asked for money, AAA refused and reported not just the commotion
caused by Ching but the times when she was raped. In the petition for review
before the Supreme Court, the appellant asserted that CA erred in not considering
the information filed against accused-appellant as to the approximate date of the
commission of the alleged rapes.

Issue: Whether it was necessary to state in the information the precise date of the
offense

Ruling: The contention was devoid of merit. An information is an accusation in

writing, to be valid and sufficient, an information must state the name of the
accused, the designation of the offense, the acts complained of as constituting an
offense and the approximate date and time of its commission and the place. With
respect to the time, it is expressed in Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure that it is not necessary to state in the information the precise
date of the offense. Especially in rape cases, where failure to specify the exact
dates and times does not ipso facto make the information defective. As held
in People vs. Purazo, 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. The allegations
in the information which stated that the three incidents of rape were committed in
the year 1996 and in May 1998 are sufficient to affirm the conviction of appellant
in the instant case. The imposition of death penalty was proper, however due to
RA 9346, CA was just proper in reducing the said penalty. Hence, CA decision
AFFIRMED in toto. No costs.