THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. SALVADOR ABAD SANTOS, RICARDO NEPOMUCENO, AND JOSE P. VELUZ, ALL ASSOCIATE JUDGES CONSTITUTING THE SECOND ARCACHE, RESPONDENTS.

DE JOYA, J.:


From the petition filed in this case, it appears that respondent Joseph
Arcache has been accused of the crime of treason before the People’s Court, in
Criminal Case No. 729; thereof; that in counts 2 and 3 contained in the
information, specifying the different kinds of properties alleged to have been
sold by him to the Japanese Imperial Forces, in the City of Manila, during the
enemy occupation, was also added the phrase “and other similar equipments”; that
on March 8, 1946, said respondent was duly arraigned before the respondent
judges of the People’s Court, and entered a plea of not guilty, and the case was
set for trial commencing April 8, 1946; that when the case was actually called
or trial, on April 8, 1946, counsel for respondent Joseph Arcache verbally
petitioned the respondent judges that the prosecution should make more specific
said phrase “and other similar equipments” set north in counts two (2) and three
(3) of the information or have stricken therefrom, unless the prosecution should
furnish a bill of particulars specifying what those other similar equipments
were; that the special prosecutor objected to said petition, on the ground that
it was out of time, since respondent Joseph Arsache had already entered a plea
of not guilty to the charge; that on the same date, April 8, 1946, considering
that the allegation objected to was too broad and too indefinite to enable the
accused to properly defend himself, the respondent judges granted the petition,
and, at the request of the prosecution, postponed the trial of the case to April
10, 1946, to give the special prosecutor time to prepare the bill of
particulars, which he agreed to submit not later than April 31, 1946; that on
the same date, April 9, 1946, instead 0f submitting a bill of particulars, the
special prosecutor filed a motion for reconsideration of said order court, on
the ground that it was contrary to law that the court had acted in excess of its
jurisdiction and/or with abuse thereof, which motion for reconsideration was
denied on April 10, 1946, on the ground that the alleged defect in the
information could be cured by amendment, which might be properly ordered, in the
interest of justice, so that the accused might is clearly informed of the
charges against him, and thus avoid any possible surprise, without necessity in
the part of the accused to plead anew to the amended information.

On April 26, 1946, the respondent judges filed their answer to the petition
for certiorari filed in this case, relying upon the reasons already stated, in
their order dated April 10, 1946.

On April 30, 1946, respondent Joseph Arcache filed his answer to said
petition, alleging that the special prosecutor was estopped to question the
legality and validity of the two orders complained of as he had expressly agreed
to submit the specifications or bills of particulars called for, and that it was
precisely at the request of the special prosecutor that the trial of the case
was postponed to April 10, 1946, to give him ample time to prepare and submit
said bill of particulars; that the filing of specifications or bills of
particulars may be ordered in criminal cases, in accordance with, existing law
and American judicial precedents; that the defendant merely wanted to know
specifically what the alleged “other similar equipments” were, without amending
the information, in the strict sense of the term, which would require him to
withdraw his previous plea of not guilty; and that the question whether to order
the filing of a bill of particulars or not is purely discretionary on the part
of the lower court.

As already stated by this Court long ago, there is no specific provision of
law, in this jurisdiction, expressly authorizing the filing of specifications or
bills of particulars in criminal cases. (United States vs. Schneer, 7 Phil. 523,
525). But it is also true that, in a subsequent case, this Court held that a
detailed complaint or information cannot be properly objected to, and that the
details contained therein may be properly considered as specifications or bills
of particulars. (United States vs. Cernias, 10 Phil. 682, 690). It is
thus evident that, in the absence of specific provisions of law prohibiting the
filing of specifications or bills of particulars in criminal cases, their
submission may be permitted, as they cannot prejudice any substantial rights of
the accused. On the contrary, they will serve to apprise the accused clearly of
the charges filed against them, and thus enable them to prepare intelligently
whatever defense or defenses they might have.

Furthermore, in criminal cases, any defect in the accusation other than that
of lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter may be cured by good and
sufficient evidence introduced by the prosecution, and admitted by the trial
court, without any objection on the part of the defense, and the accused may be
legally convicted of the crime or offense intended to be charged and so
established by the evidence. (Serra vs. Mortiga, 11 Phil. 762; 204 TJ.
S. 470; U. S. vs. Destrito et al., 23 Phil. 28, 30).

Of course, it is to be expected that the defense will object to any question,
which is not based upon the allegations made in the complaint or information;
but this does not preclude the possibility that immaterial evidence might be
admitted, although not supported by such allegations, due to inadvertence on the
part of the defense. And inasmuch as in criminal cases not only the liberty but
even the life of the accused may be at stake, it is always wise and proper that
the accused should be fully apprised of the true charges against them, and thus
avoid all and any possible surprise, which might be detrimental to their rights
and interests; and ambiguous phrases should not, therefore, be permitted in
criminal complaints or informations; and if any such phrase has been included
therein, on motion of the defense, before the commencement of the trial, the
court should order either its elimination as surplusage or the filing of the
necessary specification, which is but an amendment in mere matters of form.

Considering that the two orders complained of are legal and valid, and that
they were issued by the respondent judges, in the exercise of sound judicial
discretion, for the protection of the rights and interests of respondent Joseph
Arcache, the petition for certiorari filed in this case is, therefore, hereby
denied and dismissed, without costs. So ordered.

Moran, C.J., Paras, Pablo, Perfecto, and Bengzon, JJ.,
concur.

FERIA, J.:

I concur in the result.