Why Vague Dates in Rape Informations Can Still Lead to Conviction

TLDR: This case clarifies that while informations must state the approximate time of an offense, vague dates, especially in child sexual abuse cases, are permissible. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, emphasizing the trauma of victims and the secondary nature of precise dates to the core elements of rape.

G.R. Nos. 133448-53, October 06, 2000: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROSELINDO CUTAMORA AND ALLAN CUTAMORA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

INTRODUCTION

Imagine facing criminal charges based on events that allegedly occurred years ago, with only a vague timeframe provided. This is the predicament Roselindo and Allan Cutamora faced, accused of raping their nieces over a period of years. The case highlights a critical aspect of criminal procedure in the Philippines: the sufficiency of information, particularly the level of detail required when specifying the date of the offense. Did the informations against the Cutamora brothers provide enough detail for them to adequately prepare their defense, or were the vague dates a fatal flaw? This Supreme Court decision delves into this question, providing crucial insights into the balance between the rights of the accused and the realities of prosecuting sensitive crimes like rape, especially those involving child victims.

LEGAL CONTEXT: SUFFICIENCY OF INFORMATION UNDER RULE 110

The bedrock of due process in Philippine criminal procedure is the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. This right is enshrined in the Constitution and operationalized through Rule 110, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, which dictates what constitutes a ‘sufficient’ complaint or information. This rule is not merely a procedural formality; it is a fundamental safeguard ensuring a fair trial.

Section 6 of Rule 110 explicitly states:

“SEC. 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. – A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused, the designation of the offense by the statute, the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed.” (Emphasis supplied)

The key phrase here is “approximate time.” The law recognizes that pinpoint accuracy in stating the date and time of an offense is not always possible or necessary. The purpose of this requirement is threefold, as elucidated in the case of Pecho v. People (262 SCRA 518):

1. To enable the accused to prepare their defense.
2. To protect the accused from double jeopardy (being tried again for the same offense).
3. To enable the court to determine if the facts alleged are sufficient in law to warrant a conviction.

An information, therefore, must be complete enough to fulfill these objectives. It must detail the statutory designation of the offense and the actions constituting it. Crucially, while the time must be stated, it need only be approximate, especially when the exact date is difficult to ascertain, as long as the defense is not prejudiced.

CASE BREAKDOWN: THE CUTAMORA BROTHERS’ APPEAL

Roselindo and Allan Cutamora were charged with multiple counts of rape against their nieces. The informations stated the alleged rapes occurred