GR 72994; (January, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 72994 ; January 23, 1991
Felicisimo Rocaberte, petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines and Hon. Andres S. Santos, Judge, RTC, Tagbilaran, Bohol, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Felicisimo Rocaberte, along with two others, was charged with theft in an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court of Bohol. The accusatory portion alleged that the crime was committed “on or about the Period from 1977 to December 28, 1983” at a specified offshore location. The stolen properties, belonging to Philippine Sinter Corporation, were listed with a total value of P371,944.00.
Rocaberte filed a motion to quash the Information, arguing that the stated period of commission—spanning approximately seven years or 2,551 days—was fatally defective. He contended it violated his constitutional right to be informed of the specific charge, depriving him of a proper opportunity to prepare his defense, citing jurisprudence. The trial court, presided by respondent Judge Andres S. Santos, denied the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration, which had alternatively sought amendment under Section 4, Rule 117 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.
ISSUE
Whether the Information, which alleges the commission of theft over a period of about seven years, is sufficient or fatally defective for violating the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition. The Court ruled the Information was seriously defective. While the Rules of Court require only the “approximate time” of commission and precise time is unnecessary unless it is a material ingredient of the offense, the averment must still be sufficiently definite. The period “from 1977 to December 28, 1983” is excessively broad, spanning over 2,500 days.
This vagueness imposes an unfair and unreasonable burden on the accused to recall their activities over an inordinate length of time, effectively crippling their ability to prepare a defense. Such a defect violates the constitutional right to be informed of the accusation. The proper remedy for this defect is not a motion to quash, as the defect is curable by amendment, but a motion for a bill of particulars to demand a more definite statement. Consequently, the Court annulled the challenged orders and directed the prosecution to amend the Information by stating the time with particularity within a period set by the trial court. Failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the case.