We disagree with the accused. His reliance on Valdesancho is misplaced. In Valdesancho, the accused was charged with two sets of information for rape committed against AAA on 15 August 1994 and 16 August 1994, respectively. During the presentation of evidence, the prosecution submitted evidence proving that the victim was raped on the said dates. In his defense, the accused interposed alibi and proved that he was in another town when the incidents happened. He was also able to prove that on the said dates, the victim was no longer living with them and was already residing in another town. However, upon promulgation of the decision, the trial court convicted the accused for raping the victim on 15 and 16 August 1993. It reasoned that due to the tender age of the victim and educational attainment, she could not possibly remember the dates when she was raped by the accused. On appeal, this Court acquitted the accused and held that his right to due process was violated since he was not able to present evidence to prove where he was on 15 and 16 August 1993. He was not given any opportunity to defend himself of the crimes of rape allegedly committed on the earlier dates. The circumstances in Valdesancho are different from that of the present case. In this case, the accused was charged with rape committed sometime in January 2006 against AAA. He was able to present evidence proving where he was on January 2006 when the crime was committed. In fact, he was able to present evidence based on sweetheart defense in that he and AAA were lovers and that they had a consensual sexual intercourse on the said date. During trial, he testified that he and AAA were in a secret relationship as husband and wife and he was surprised when he was charged with rape. As embodied in Section 14 (1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law. Further, paragraph 2 of the same section, it provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. It is further provided under Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court that a complaint or information to be filed in court must contain a designation given to the offense by the statute, besides the statement of the acts or omissions constituting the same, and if there is no such designation, reference should be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense. In Patula v. People,19 the Court emphasized the importance of the proper manner of alleging the nature and cause of the accusation in the information: x x x An accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly charged in the complaint or information. To convict him of an offense other than that charged in the complaint or information would be violative of the Constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. Indeed, the accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless the crime is alleged or necessarily included in the information filed against him.20 chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry ChanRoblesVi rtua lawlib rary