“The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set forth in the information is to enable the accused to adequately prepare her defense. As to the sufficiency of the allegation of the time or date of the commission of the offense, Section 6 and Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court, the rules applicable, provide:
Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. – A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense; and the place wherein the offense was committed.
When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be included in the complaint or information. (5a)
Section 11. Time of the commission of the offense. – It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed as the information or complaint will permit. (10)
Conformably with these rules, the information was sufficient because it stated the approximate time of the commission of the offense through the words “on or about the 2nd of January, 1996,” and the accused could reasonably deduce the nature of the criminal act with which she was charged from a reading of its contents as well as gather by such reading whatever she needed to know about the charge to enable her to prepare her defense.
The information herein did not have to state the precise date when the offense was committed, considering that the date was not a material ingredient of the offense. As such, the offense of qualified theft could be alleged to be committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission. Verily, December 29, 1995 and January 2, 1996 were dates only four days apart.
With the information herein conforming to the standard erected by the Revised Rules of Court and pertinent judicial pronouncements, the accused was fully apprised of the charge of qualified theft involving the US$10,000.00 belonging to her employer on or about January 2, 1996.”
x x x."
See - G.R. No. 159450, March 30, 2011, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. OLIVIA ALETH GARCIA CRISTOBAL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.