People v. Rocaberte
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An Information was filed against Felicisimo Rocaberte and two others for the crime of Theft, alleging the commission of the offense "on or about the Period from 1977 to December 28, 1983" at the offshore of West Canayaon, municipality of Garcia-Hernandez, province of Bohol. The stolen properties, belonging to Philippine Sinter Corporation, were valued at P371,944.00. Procedural History: The accused moved to quash the information, alleging that the stated period of commission (seven years) was fatally defective and violated their constitutional right to be informed of the specific charge. The motion was denied. A motion for reconsideration, suggesting amendment under Section 4, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, was also denied. The Petition: Felicisimo Rocaberte filed a special civil action for certiorari, impugning the denial of his motion to quash or, alternatively, the refusal to direct the amendment of the information.
Issue(s)
Whether the information sufficiently states the time of the commission of the offense. Whether the defect in the statement of the time of commission is a ground for a motion to quash or requires a bill of particulars. Whether the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash or the motion for amendment.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The orders of the respondent Judge denying the motion to quash and the motion for reconsideration are ANNULLED AND SET ASIDE. The prosecution is directed to amend the information within a period deemed proper by the respondent Judge; failing which, the criminal prosecution against the petitioner and his co-defendants shall be dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of the information regarding the time of commission: The Rules of Criminal Procedure require that an information state the approximate time of the commission of the offense. While it is not necessary to state the precise time unless it is a material ingredient, the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date as the information will permit. A variance of a few months has been held not to be fatal, and amendments to correct the year have been allowed. However, a statement of time spanning several years, or a period of over 2,500 days as in this case, has been held to be fatally defective because it deprives the accused of the opportunity to prepare their defense and violates their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The information against petitioner Rocaberte is indeed seriously defective, placing an unfair and unreasonable burden on the accused to recall their activities over such an extended period. On the remedy for a defective statement of time: A defect in the averment as to the time of the commission of the crime charged is not a ground for a motion to quash under Rule 116 of the Rules of Court. However, even if it were, such a motion should be denied if the defect is curable by amendment, and the court should order the amendment to be made. The proper remedy against an indictment that fails to allege the time of the offense with sufficient definiteness is a motion for a bill of particulars, provided for in Section 6, Rule 116 of the 1964 Rules of Court (now Section 10, Rule 116 under the 1985 and 1988 amendments). This motion allows the accused to demand a more definite statement or a bill of particulars to enable them to properly plead and prepare for trial. On the respondent Judge's actions: The respondent Judge erred in denying the motion to quash outright and in refusing to order an amendment. While a motion to quash might not be the precise remedy for a defective statement of time, the court has the power and duty to order amendments to cure such defects, especially when the defect is substantial and affects the accused's constitutional rights. The failure to do so, or to grant a bill of particulars, constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The prosecution must make the time of the commission of the crime more definite and particular. If this cannot be done, the prosecution cannot be maintained, and the case must be dismissed.
Main Doctrine
A defect in the averment as to the time of the commission of the crime charged, if curable by amendment, should not be a ground for a motion to quash, but the court should order the amendment. If the defect is so grave as to deprive the accused of their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, the information may be dismissed.