Introduction

In Philippine criminal law, Acts of Lasciviousness is a crime punishable under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which defines it as any act of lewdness committed by a person against another without amounting to rape. This offense becomes particularly grave when committed against minors, often falling under Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), which provides enhanced penalties and considers such acts as qualified forms of child abuse. When multiple instances of this crime are alleged, and the exact dates of commission are unknown—common in cases involving vulnerable victims like children who may not recall precise timelines—drafting the criminal information requires careful adherence to procedural rules to avoid defects that could lead to dismissal or acquittal.

The "information" is the formal charging document filed by the public prosecutor with the court after a preliminary investigation, as governed by Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (RRCP). It must sufficiently allege the elements of the offense to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation, satisfying constitutional due process requirements under Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. This article explores the legal framework, essential components, challenges, and best practices for drafting such an information, drawing from jurisprudence and procedural norms.

Legal Framework Governing Acts of Lasciviousness

Elements of the Offense

Under Article 336 of the RPC, the elements are:

The offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness.
The act is performed with force, threat, intimidation, or when the victim is deprived of reason or unconscious.
The act does not constitute rape or attempted rape.

When involving children, RA 7610 Section 5(b) reclassifies it as "lascivious conduct," defined as intentional touching, with or without consent, of intimate parts for sexual gratification, or similar acts that debase the child's dignity. Penalties escalate based on the victim's age and relationship to the offender (e.g., reclusion temporal if the victim is under 12 years old).

For multiple acts, each distinct instance can be charged as a separate count to avoid the rule against duplicity (Section 13, Rule 110, RRCP), which prohibits charging more than one offense in a single count. However, if acts form a continuing crime or complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC, they may be consolidated.

Handling Unknown Dates

Section 11, Rule 110, RRCP allows allegations of time that are "as near to the actual date as the information or complaint will permit." Exact dates are not required if the offense is not time-dependent (e.g., not involving prescription periods). In cases like People v. Bugayong (G.R. No. 126518, 1998), the Supreme Court held that approximate dates suffice, especially in child abuse cases where victims' testimonies may lack chronological precision due to trauma or young age. Phrases like "on or about," "sometime in," or "during the period from [month/year] to [month/year]" are permissible, provided they do not prejudice the accused's right to prepare a defense.

Challenges in Drafting for Multiple Acts with Unknown Dates

Duplicity and Multiplicity

A key issue is avoiding duplicitous charging, where one count alleges multiple offenses. In People v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 103613, 1993), the Court emphasized that each act must be charged separately unless they constitute a single transaction. For multiple lascivious acts over time, prosecutors must delineate counts based on available evidence, such as victim statements distinguishing incidents by location, context, or sequence (e.g., "first incident," "subsequent incidents").

When dates are unknown, multiplicity—charging too many vague counts—can violate the accused's rights. Jurisprudence in People v. Lizada (G.R. No. 143468-71, 2003) allows grouping acts within reasonable periods (e.g., "sometime in 1995") if specificity is impossible, but warns against overly broad allegations that could allow double jeopardy claims.

Sufficiency of Allegations

The information must allege:

The name of the accused.
The designation of the offense (e.g., "Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610").
The acts constituting the offense.
The approximate time and place.
The name of the offended party.

Failure to meet these (Section 6-9, Rule 110) can lead to quashal under Rule 117. In child cases, anonymity of the victim (e.g., "AAA") is standard per People v. Cabalquinto (G.R. No. 167693, 2006) to protect privacy.

Evidentiary Considerations

While the information is not evidence, it must be based on probable cause from the preliminary investigation. When dates are unknown, affidavits and victim testimonies must provide sufficient details to establish multiple distinct acts. Courts in People v. Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 135554-56, 2002) upheld convictions based on general timelines, noting that inconsistencies in dates do not necessarily discredit the victim if the acts' essence is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Best Practices for Drafting the Information

Structure of the Information

A typical information for multiple acts might be structured as follows:

Sample Draft (Hypothetical, for Illustrative Purposes Only)

Republic of the Philippines
[Regional Trial Court/Municipal Trial Court]
[Branch/Jurisdiction]

People of the Philippines,
Plaintiff,

-versus-

[Accused's Full Name],
Accused.

x------------------------------------x

INFORMATION

The undersigned [Public Prosecutor], accuses [Accused's Full Name] of the crime of MULTIPLE ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS IN RELATION TO SECTION 5(B), ARTICLE III OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7610, committed as follows:

That sometime during the period from January 2010 to December 2012, in the [City/Municipality], Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with lewd design and by means of [force/threat/intimidation/abuse of authority], did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously commit lascivious acts upon the person of [Victim's Anonymized Name, e.g., AAA], a minor [age at time of first act] years old, by [brief description of acts, e.g., touching private parts], against her will and without her consent, which acts debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being.

This is a continuing offense consisting of multiple distinct acts occurring on various occasions within the said period, each constituting a separate violation.

Count 1: Sometime in [approximate period, e.g., early 2010], the accused committed the aforesaid acts [specific distinguishing detail if available].

Count 2: Sometime in [another period], the accused [description].

[Additional counts as needed, up to the number supported by evidence.]

Contrary to law.

[City], Philippines, [Date].

[Public Prosecutor's Name and Signature]

Key Drafting Tips

Specificity Without Precision: Use ranges or approximations for dates (e.g., "on divers dates in 2015"). Avoid vagueness that could be challenged.
Separate Counts: Enumerate each act as a separate count to allow individual verdicts, preventing a "all-or-nothing" trial.
Qualifying Circumstances: Allege factors under RA 7610, such as the victim's minority, relationship (e.g., parent/guardian), or use of authority, to justify higher penalties.
Venue and Jurisdiction: Specify the place to establish court jurisdiction; if acts occurred in multiple locations, charge where the first act happened or where the victim resides (Section 15, Rule 110).
Amendments: If more details emerge, the information can be amended before plea (Section 14, Rule 110), but substantive changes post-arraignment require court approval.
Avoiding Defects: Ensure no misjoinder of offenses; if acts qualify as rape, charge accordingly to avoid lesser included offense issues.

Jurisprudential Insights

Supreme Court decisions provide guidance:

In People v. Larin (G.R. No. 128777, 1998), the Court allowed approximate dates in lasciviousness cases, emphasizing victim credibility over timeline precision.
People v. Optana (G.R. No. 133922, 2001) stressed that multiple acts require distinct allegations to uphold convictions on each count.
For child victims, People v. Ilogon (G.R. No. 185190, 2011) noted that trauma can explain date uncertainties, and courts should not demand impossible exactitude.

In qualified cases under RA 7610, penalties can reach reclusion perpetua if aggravating factors exist, as in People v. Abay (G.R. No. 177752, 2009).

Procedural Implications

Upon filing, the court issues a warrant if probable cause exists (Rule 112). The accused may move to quash if the information is defective (e.g., lack of specificity on dates). If quashed, the prosecutor can refile with corrections. At trial, the prosecution must prove each count beyond reasonable doubt, with victim testimony often sufficient if corroborated by medical evidence.

In summary, drafting an information for multiple acts of lasciviousness with unknown dates balances the need for due process with the realities of victim recollection, ensuring justice for vulnerable parties while safeguarding the accused's rights. This approach aligns with the state's policy to protect children under the Constitution and international conventions like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Philippines has ratified.