G.R. No. L-8781; March 30, 1914
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ANTONIO JAVIER DICHAO, defendant-appellee.

FACTS:
An information was filed in the Court of First Instance of Davao accusing Antonio Javier Dichao of the crime of rape. It alleged that, as the stepfather and legal guardian of Isabel de la Cruz, a girl under 12 years of age, he willfully, maliciously, and feloniously had sexual intercourse with her through threats and corporal punishment. The information specified that the acts were committed “on or about and during the interval between October, 1910, to August, 1912,” and noted that as a result, Isabel gave birth to a child on August 5, 1912. The defendant filed a demurrer to the information, arguing that the facts did not constitute a public offense, that the complaint did not conform substantially to the prescribed form, and that it was vague and ambiguous. The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the case. The Government appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether the information is valid, considering its allegation that the crime was committed over an excessively broad and indefinite period (“between October, 1910, to August, 1912”), thereby failing to inform the accused with sufficient certainty of the time of the commission of the offense to enable him to prepare his defense.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the order of the trial court sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the case. The Court held that while Section 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (General Orders No. 58) provides that the precise time need not be stated unless it is a material ingredient of the offense, this does not authorize the prosecuting officer to be careless or to make allegations so indefinite as to deprive the accused of the opportunity to prepare a defense. The information must allege the commission of the crime “at any time before the filing thereof” or, where the exact date is uncertain, “on or about” a specific date. Alleging that the crime occurred over a span of nearly two years is too indefinite and violates the requirement of sufficient particularity. The birth of a child on a specific date does not cure this fatal vagueness. The Court distinguished this case from those dealing merely with variances between the date alleged and the date proved at trial, noting that the defect here pertains to the fundamental sufficiency of the pleading itself. Accordingly, the information was legally insufficient.