Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

COELI

4. PEOPLE V. DESUYO

FACTS:

 MARICEL DESUYO was raped by her father, Antonio Desuyo, almost everyday from September 1996 to August 1997. She
bravely narrated to a police and admitted that her father had been sexually abusing her for close to a year already. She next
confided to her maternal aunt who accompanied Maricel to a doctor, who upon examination found Maricel to have several old
hymenal lacerations in her vaginal area. Thereafter, they repaired to the municipal hall where Maricel instituted a complaint
against her father, accused Antonio Desuyo, for having repeatedly raped her.
 In the course of the PI conducted by the MTC judge, accused Antonio Desuyo asked forgiveness from his daughter.
An Information was thereafter filed against the accused for raping his fifteen (15)-year old daughter Maricel.
 During trial, the accused denied having raped Maricel. The trial court did not give credence to the bare denials of the accused.
Solely on account of Maricel's testimony, the court found the accused guilty BRD of the crime of "multiple incestuous rape" and
sentenced him to suffer the supreme penalty of death.
 Accused avers that the Information for "multiple rape" filed against him is deficient since by merely stating that the sexual
assaults were repeated "within the month of September 1996 up to August 18, 1997," it failed to state the exact dates when the
alleged rapes were committed.

ISSUE: W/N the Info should be quashed on the ground that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form, as in this case.

RULING: NO. The failure of the accused to move for the specification of the date when the alleged crime was committed or for the
quashal of the Information (on the ground that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form) deprives him of the right to object to
evidence which could lawfully be introduced and admitted under an information of more or less general terms but which sufficiently
charges the accused with a definite crime. It is indeed too late in the day for the accused to raise this issue because objections to
matters of form or substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. At any rate, it is settled that the exact
date of the commission of rape is not an essential element thereof and need not be stated in the information.

The Court has sustained the following dates alleged in an information for rape as sufficient for purposes of complying with the
provisions of the Rules of Court, to wit:

 "from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994,"


 "sometime in November 1995, and some occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto,"
 "on or about and sometime in the year 1988,"
 "sometime in the year 1987"
 and "before and until October 15, 1994."

In any event, a review of the evidence presented by the prosecution more than establishes the guilt of the accused for the rape of
his daughter.

PETITION MODIFIED. The accused is instead found guilty of two (2) counts of simple rape and, accordingly, sentences him
to reclusion perpetua for each count.