G.R. No. L-447; June 17, 1946
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS, RICARDO NEPOMUCENO, and JOSE P. VELUZ, all Associate Judges constituting the Second Division of the People’s Court, and JOSEPH ARCACHE, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Joseph Arcache was accused of treason before the People’s Court. The information in counts two and three alleged he sold properties to Japanese forces, including the phrase “and other similar equipments.” After arraignment and a plea of not guilty, the case was set for trial. On the trial date, Arcache’s counsel verbally petitioned the respondent judges to order the prosecution to make the phrase “and other similar equipments” more specific or to strike it, unless a bill of particulars was furnished. The special prosecutor objected, arguing the petition was out of time due to the plea already entered. The respondent judges granted the petition, finding the allegation too broad and indefinite for the accused to properly defend himself. At the prosecution’s request, the trial was postponed to allow time to prepare the bill of particulars. Instead of submitting it, the special prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the order was contrary to law and in excess of jurisdiction. The motion was denied, with the court holding the defect could be cured by amendment in the interest of justice to inform the accused clearly and avoid surprise, without requiring a new plea. The People then filed this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judges acted with grave abuse of discretion or in excess of jurisdiction in granting the accused’s petition to require a bill of particulars or to strike the phrase “and other similar equipments” from the information.

RULING

The petition is denied. The orders of the respondent judges are legal and valid. While no specific law expressly authorizes bills of particulars in criminal cases, their submission is not prohibited and can be permitted. They do not prejudice the accused’s substantial rights; instead, they serve to apprise the accused clearly of the charges to enable intelligent preparation of a defense. Furthermore, defects in the accusation other than lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter can be cured by evidence admitted without objection. Given that the liberty or life of an accused is at stake, it is wise and proper for the accused to be fully apprised of the charges to avoid detrimental surprise. Ambiguous phrases should not be permitted in criminal informations. If included, the court, on motion before trial, should order either its elimination or the filing of a necessary specification, which constitutes an amendment in mere matters of form. The respondent judges issued the orders in the exercise of sound judicial discretion to protect the rights and interests of the accused.