REMEDIAL LAW: Criminal Procedure - Rule 110

Prosecution of Offenses > 7. Date of Commission of the Offense

The date of the commission of the offense is a critical component in criminal prosecutions, as outlined in Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, which governs the prosecution of offenses. Below is a detailed exposition of this concept, meticulously discussed:

A. General Rule: Date Must Be Stated in the Complaint or Information

Section 6 of Rule 110 provides that:

"The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense must be alleged in the complaint or information, including the time of commission of the offense."

Importance of Alleging the Date:
- The date of commission of the offense is an essential element that must be alleged in the information or complaint.
- It is necessary to inform the accused of the specific allegations against them so they can properly prepare a defense.
- A defect in alleging the date could lead to procedural issues or jeopardize the validity of the proceedings.
Formulation of Allegation:
- The date may be specifically stated (e.g., "on January 1, 2025").
- If the precise date is unknown or uncertain, a general timeframe is allowed (e.g., "on or about January 1, 2025").

B. Rule on Materiality of the Date

General Principle:
- The precise date of the commission of the offense is not always material, provided the offense is alleged to have been committed before the filing of the information or complaint and within the prescriptive period under the law.
Exception to the General Rule:
- When time is an essential element of the offense, the exact date becomes material. Examples:
  - In statutory rape, the age of the victim and the date of the offense are material because the elements of the crime depend on whether the victim is under 12 years old at the time of the act.
  - In bigamy, the date of the second marriage must be alleged to show that it occurred during the subsistence of the first marriage.

C. "On or About" Doctrine

Flexibility in Alleging the Date:
- The phrase "on or about" permits flexibility in the date of commission. Minor variances between the date alleged in the information and the evidence presented during trial do not necessarily invalidate the proceedings.
- For example, if the information alleges that the offense was committed "on or about January 1, 2025," proof that it was committed a few days before or after that date may suffice, as long as it falls within the prescriptive period and does not prejudice the accused.
Jurisprudence:
- In People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 177540 (2008), the Supreme Court held that "the exact date need not be alleged with specificity unless time is a material ingredient of the offense."

D. Variance Between Date Alleged and Date Proved

Rule on Variance:
- Under the Rules of Evidence, a variance between the date alleged and the date proved is immaterial unless the discrepancy:
  - Prejudices the rights of the accused, or
  - Affects the ability of the accused to adequately prepare a defense.
Illustrative Cases:
- In People v. Valero, 124 SCRA 539 (1983), the Court ruled that an accused cannot claim surprise when the prosecution proves a date different from that alleged, as long as the variance does not affect the essence of the crime.
- However, in People v. Bugayong, G.R. No. 181303 (2008), the Court reiterated that when time is a material element, the exact date must be proved as alleged.

E. Statutory Prescription of Offenses and Filing of Complaints/Informations

Timing of Filing:
- The offense must have been committed before the filing of the complaint or information.
- It must also fall within the prescriptive period provided under the Revised Penal Code or special laws.
- Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the dismissal of the case due to prescription.
Special Considerations for Continuing Offenses:
- In continuing crimes, the offense is deemed committed at every point in time during its continuation (e.g., illegal detention).
- For such crimes, the date of termination or discovery of the offense may be crucial for determining prescription.

F. Practical Applications

Multiple Counts of an Offense:
- When multiple offenses are charged, each count must specify the date of the commission of the crime. Failure to do so may result in ambiguities that could prejudice the prosecution.
Amendment of Information:
- If the date alleged in the information is found to be erroneous, the prosecution may seek to amend the information, subject to the requirements of due process and prejudice to the accused.
Date of Commission in Cybercrimes:
- In offenses like cyber libel or unauthorized access under the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, the date of commission may include the date the content was first posted or accessed, as well as subsequent dates of publication if the act is continuous.

G. Key Jurisprudence

People v. Solis, G.R. No. 127018 (1999):
- The Supreme Court ruled that alleging a specific date is not necessary if time is not an essential element of the offense.
People v. Adame, 439 Phil. 406 (2002):
- The Court emphasized that an information’s failure to specify the exact date of commission is not fatal unless it prejudices the accused’s right to a fair trial.
People v. Austria, 382 Phil. 393 (2000):
- Variance in the date is excusable as long as it does not alter the nature of the crime or the rights of the accused.

H. Summary

The date of commission of the offense must be alleged in the complaint or information, but precision is not required unless time is a material element of the crime.
Variances between the date alleged and the date proved are generally immaterial unless they result in prejudice.
Allegations of time are governed by flexibility under the "on or about" doctrine, subject to limitations where time is crucial to proving the elements of the offense.
Case law consistently underscores that technicalities regarding the date must not override substantive justice.

This comprehensive understanding of the date of commission of the offense ensures adherence to procedural due process and protects the rights of the accused while safeguarding the State’s interest in prosecuting crimes.