Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

People of the Philippines v Vicente Lualhati (Griño-Aquino, 1989) occurrence of the carnal copulations in rape do not affect any

tions in rape do not affect any essential right

of the accused, where the acts occurred within the period of time alleged in
Appeal from the decision of the RTC of Lucena City both writings and the difference noted in other respects was of a formal,
rather than a substantial, character.
Topic: Date, place and time of commission
WON pardon given by offended party extinguished criminal liability in spite of
FACTS father’s objection – NO (old ruling) People v Miranda states that Pardon
 Accused was charged with Rape by his common-law wife’s 11 year “does not prohibit the continuance of a prosecution if the offended party
old daughter, Josephine Dimauhan. The information read: pardons the offender after the cause has been instituted, nor does it order
o That in or about the month of June 1978, at Barangay Masalucot 2, in the the dismissal of said cause.”
Municipality of Candelaria, Province of Quezon, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, by means of roce (sic)
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
RTC affirmed.
carnal knowledge of one x x x, a minor, 11 years of age, against her will.
That in the commission of the above-described crime, the ff aggravating
circumstances were present : relationship, accused being the step-father of
the offended party, and dwelling.
 The accused filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the
complaint charged more than one offense: That on or about the
month of June, 1978, and for sometime prior and subsequent
thereto x x x “. Trial court dismissed this because the information
charged only one offense.
 Accused filed another motion to dismiss on the ground that the offended party, her
mother and grandmother pardoned him. A joint affidavit of desistance was attached.
The motion was dismissed because the victim’s father wanted to prosecute the case
and there was no judicial pronouncement depriving him of parental authority.
 The trial court convicted the accused of rape and imposed him the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.


WON there was a valid complaint against the appellant – YES, the
complaint only alleged one offense because the affidavit attached therewith
cured the ambiguity on number of offenses.
Appellant contends the complaint is void because it charges at least 3 crimes
of rape: that committed “on or about the month of June, 1978”, “sometime
prior to said period”, “subsequent thereto”.

Court: No merit.

Sec 10, Rule 110 – not necessary that the complaint or information indicate
the precise time the crime was committed unless it was a material ingredient
to the offense.

Attached to the complaint was Josephine’s sworn statement wherein she

categorically affirmed that Vicente abused her before the start of classes in
June 1978. The affidavit may be considered part of the complaint. It
cures any ambiguity in the complaint regarding the number of offenses.
Discrepancies between the accusation and the complaint as to time of