People vs.
Ceredon • Appellant contends that the Information filed against him do not
G.R. No. 167169 | 542 SCRA 550 | January 28, 2008 | Reyes, R. T., J.
Petition: Appeal from a decision of the CA
Petitioners: People of the Philippines
Respondents: Elmer Ceredon y Pagaran
Complaint and Information
DOCTRINE
• The date or time of the commission of the rape need not be alleged with
precision. The material fact or circumstance to be considered is the
occurrence of the rape – not the time of its commission. It is sufficient
that the complaint or information states that the crime has been
committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual
commission.
FACTS
• Elmer Ceredon y Pagaran was indicted for 10 counts of rape, defined
and penalized under Art 266(a) and (b) of the RPC.
• Crimes of rape committed in
o 1995 (5 times; victim was 10 years old)
o 1996 (2 times; victim 11 years old)
o 1998 (2 times; victim 13 years old)
o 2000 (1 time; victim 15 years old)
• Aug 13, 2001 – appealed not guilty to all 10 charges at his arraignment
before the RTC
• September 3, 2000 – changed his plea to guilty on all 10 charges during
the pre trial conference; manifestation granted and he was then re-
arraigned
• Read origs to find out how the rape happened
• September 18, 2000 – AAA (victim) revealed to her sister DDD, friend
Giselle and teacher Teresa that she was raped by appellant, her brother.
Upon hearing AAA’s revelation, Teresa accompanied her to their head
teacher Felix Salvador and together, they went to the brgy captain who
told them to report the matter to the police. This they did.
• September 20, 2000 – policemen were dispatched to bring appellant to
st
the police station. 1 confrontation happened and AAA punched
appellant upon seeing him and said “Hayop ka, baboy, nirape mo ako”
nd
• September 21, 2000 – 2 confrontation with mother, sister DDD, uncle,
appellant’s wife Josephine and AAA’s teachers present
o AAA accused her brother of raping her 10 times, while the brother
only admitted to having raped her 3 times only.
o Josephine (wife) told him to admit so AAA could forgive him. He
then admitted and asked for forgiveness.
o AAA replied that she could no longer forgive him because her heart
had “Already hardened like stone.” And cried.
sufficiently charge the offense committed because the exact dates of
commission are not alleged. Hence, his conviction is not warranted.
• Court Proceedings / Procedural History
o January 8, 2002 -- RTC: convicted appellant on all 10 counts of
rape
o January 28, 2005 – CA: affirmed judgment of trial courts but
modified damages
o Hence, this petition.
ISSUES
1. W/N information failed to sufficiently establish with particularity the dates
of the commission of the offense – No
RULING & RATIO
1. The date or time of the commission of rape need not be alleged with
precision.
a. It is enough for the information or complaint to state that the
crime has been committed at a time as near as possible to the
date of its actual commission.
b. Failure to allege the exact date when the crime happened does
not render the information defective, much less void.
2. An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the
offense and the constitutive acts or omissions
a. In a prosecution for rape, the material fact or circumstance to be
considered is the occurrence of the rape, not the time of its
commission.
b. The failure to specify the exact date or time does not ipso fact
make the information defective on its face.
3. The date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of
the said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a
woman through force and intimidation.
a. The precise time when the rape takes place has no substantial
bearing on its commission. As such, the date or time need not be
stated with absolute accuracy.
b. It is sufficient that the complaint or information states that the
crime has been committed at any time as near as possible to the
date of its actual commission.
4. Further, it is already too late in the day for appellant to question the
sufficiency of the information.
a. He had all the time to raise this issue during the course of the
trial by filing a bill of particulars in order to be properly informed.
b. But appellant chose to be silent and did not question the
information.
c. As a result, he is deemed to have waived whatever objections he
had and cannot now be heard to seek affirmative relief.
Page 1 of 2
 d. Furthermore, objections as to matters of form in the information
cannot be made for the first time on appeal.
5. Appellant: In order to qualify the case of relationship, information must
mention that the victim is a “relative within the second degree of
consanguinity”
a. Court: There was no effect in the information when they merely
averred that the victim was the youngest sister of appellant.
b. People v Sanchez: if the offender is merely a relation (not a
parent, ascendant, stepparent or guardian, or common law
spouse of the mother of the victim) it must be alleged in the
information that he is a relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the civil degree.
c. What is required by the Rules is that “the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and
concise language and not necessarily in the language used in
the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common
understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as
its qualifying and aggravating circumstances for the court to
pronounce judgment.”
6. Appellant: no evidence was presented as to the age of the victim.
a. Court: this is false. It is enough that the victim testified on her
age vis-à-vis the time she was raped by appellant.
b. Presentation of birth certificate is not a sine qua non requirement
to prove her age for the appreciation of minority, either as an
element of the cirime or as a qualifying circumstance.
c. More than that accused, through his plea of guilt, admitted to the
age of victim as alleged in the information against him. Thus, he
cannot claim ignorance.

DISPOSITION
• Judgment affirmed.

Page 2 of 2