Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 85 views

    People vs. Ibañez

    Uploaded by

    Aaliyah
    Zaldy Ibanez y Francisco was charged with three counts of rape of his daughter AAA. He claimed the informations were invalid because they did not specify precise dates of the rapes. The court held that an information is valid if it states the elements of the offense, and the exact date is not an essential element of rape. The material fact is that rape occurred, not the specific time. Ibanez waived his right to object to the informations by not filing a motion to quash before his arraignment and plea of not guilty. He was found guilty of two counts of rape.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People vs. Ibañez

    Uploaded by

    Aaliyah
    85 views1 page
    Zaldy Ibanez y Francisco was charged with three counts of rape of his daughter AAA. He claimed the informations were invalid because they did not specify precise dates of the rapes. The court held that an information is valid if it states the elements of the offense, and the exact date is not an essential element of rape. The material fact is that rape occurred, not the specific time. Ibanez waived his right to object to the informations by not filing a motion to quash before his arraignment and plea of not guilty. He was found guilty of two counts of rape.

    Original Description:

    People vs. Ibañez digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Zaldy Ibanez y Francisco was charged with three counts of rape of his daughter AAA. He claimed the informations were invalid because they did not specify precise dates of the rapes. The court held that an information is valid if it states the elements of the offense, and the exact date is not an essential element of rape. The material fact is that rape occurred, not the specific time. Ibanez waived his right to object to the informations by not filing a motion to quash before his arraignment and plea of not guilty. He was found guilty of two counts of rape.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    85 views1 page

    People vs. Ibañez

    Uploaded by

    Aaliyah
    Zaldy Ibanez y Francisco was charged with three counts of rape of his daughter AAA. He claimed the informations were invalid because they did not specify precise dates of the rapes. The court held that an information is valid if it states the elements of the offense, and the exact date is not an essential element of rape. The material fact is that rape occurred, not the specific time. Ibanez waived his right to object to the informations by not filing a motion to quash before his arraignment and plea of not guilty. He was found guilty of two counts of rape.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    People vs.

    IBAÑEZ
    G.R. No. 174656

    Facts:

    Zaldy Ibanez y Francisco was charged with three counts of Rape under three informations, before the
    RTC, Cavite, Branch 21. When Arraigned, appellant entered pleas of not guilty. Whereupon, trial on the
    merits ensued. On the first charge of rape, AAA testified that she was in their home at XXX, Cavite in
    June 1997. On the second charge of rape, AAA testified that appellant raped her eight times from January
    to December 1998 in their home and she did not tell her mother because she was afraid of the appellant.
    AAA testified that the third rape happened sometime in the morning of April 1999 in their house while her
    mother is at work. Appellant denied raping his daughter. As alibi, he claimed that he was often away from
    home and usually returned only four days after because he was hooked on gambling and drugs. He
    would usually return home in the morning with his wife had hone to work to avoid quarrels. By then, AAA
    would already be in school. He admitted being in a rehabilitation center for sometime, but continued to
    take drugs upon his release. He also admitted that he would beat and threaten his wife if she did not give
    him money for drugs. He testified further that in January 1999, he left the house, stayed in Pasig and
    returned home only to steal his wife’s car. After trial, the lower court found appellant guilty beyond
    reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape in the first and last but was acquitted on the second.
    According to Ibanez, the lower court erred in rendering the decision because the informations filed are not
    explicit and certain as to the dates of the rape. Such uncertainties run afoul of the constitutionally
    protected right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.

    Issue:

    Should the precise dates of the commission of the rape be alleged in the information?

    Held:

    An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the offense and the acts or omissions
    constitutive thereof. The exact date of the commission of a crime is not an essential element of the crime
    charged. Thus, 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. The gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge
    of a woman. The precise time of the crime has no substantial bearing on its commission. Therefore, it is
    not essential that it be alleged in the information with ultimate precision. Also, it cannot be seriously
    asserted that appellant was deprived of his constitutional rights to be informed of the nature and cause of
    the accusation against him when the prosecution failed to state the exact date of the commission of the
    offense. At any rate, it is not too late for appellant to question the sufficiency of the criminal informations
    regarding the dates of the commission of the offense. Appellant could have filed a motion for a bill of
    particulars before his arraignment or a motion to quash information on the ground that the informations
    alleged erroneous dates prior to his entry of plea. However, he did not. Instead, he had himself arraigned
    and entered a plea of not guilty to the crime of rape. Such being the case, appellant has waived his right
    to object to the informations on the ground of an error as to the time of the alleged rape.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy