RECENT DECISIONS

Constitutional Law-Rights of the Accused; Defendant Criminal Case may Waive His Right to a Bill of Particulars.
PEoPLE v. GUTIERREZ

in a

G.R. No. L-4041, Prom. August 30, 1952 In criminal cases, not only the liberty, but even the life of the accused may be at stake. It is therefore wise and proper that the accused be fully apprised of the true charges against him and thus avoid all and any possible surprise, Which might be detrimental to their rights and interests.! Section 1 (b), Rule 111 2 of the Rules of Court merely echoesthe constitutional provision that the accused shall have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.3 It has been construed to mean that the'"defendant has the right to be informed, not only of the nature of the indictment, but also the cause thereof, that is, the acts committed by the defendant constituting that offense.4 It follows then that if there are ambiguous phrases in the criminal complaint or information a motion for a bill or particulars is called for.5 This right of the accused to move for specifications may, however, be waived. So it was held in the instant case of People vs. Gutierrez. This is a prosecution for treason. The information was couched in more or less general terms.6 The crime of which he was
People Y. Abad Santos, 43 O. G. 509. Rule 111, Section 1. "Right of the defendant at the trial.-In cutions the defendant shall be entitled:
1 2

all criminal prose-

"* "*
3

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

*" *"

" (b ) To be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation" "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall be presumed to be inocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses in his behalf." Subsec. 17, Sec. 1, Art. III, Con stitution of the Philippines. Similar provisions can be found in the Constitutions of the United States, Sixth Amendment; Costa Rica, Art. 40; Colombia, Art. 26; Cuba, Art. 28; Dominican Republic, Art. 6, Sec. 12; France, Art. 7, Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen; Bavaria, Art. 102 (1); Haiti, Art. 12, par. 3; Japan, Art. 33; Liberia, Sec. 7; Mexico, Art. 19, par. 2; Panama, par. 1, Art. 22; Poland, par. 3, Art. 97; Roumania, Art. 11; and Syria, Art. 8. 4 Guinto Y. Veluz, G. R. No. L-980, prom. Dec. 21, 1946. 5 People Y. Abad Santos, see note 1, supra. 6 The information in this case was worded as follows: "The undersigned special prosecutor hereby accuses Eugenio Gutierrez of the crime of treason under article 114 of the Revised Penal Code committed as follows: "That on or about the period comprised between December 8, 1941 and September 2, 1945, in Laguna and in other provinces of the Philippines and within the jurisdic. tion of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being a foreigner but a Filipino citizen owing loyalty and allegiance to the United States of America and the

accused was quite definite though, i.e., treason. Defendant moved to quash the information on the ground of amnesty, but sain motion was denied. Instead of moving for specifications, his counsel objected to the introduction of evidence showing specific acts constituting the crime charged. He likewise cross-examined the witnesses of the prosecution on such matters. The court ruled that failure to move for specifications or quashing the information on any of the grounds provided in the Rules of Court,7 deprives the accused of the right to object to evidence which could be lawfully intr.duced and admitted under an information of more or less general terms, but which sufficiently charges the defendant with a definite crime. Justice Padilla who penned the decision, pointed out that under the applicable rule,8 the information filed was sufficient, and that
Commonwealth of the Philippines, with the intention of betraying his country and the United States of America did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and traitorously adhered to the enemy, the EMPIRE OF JAPAN against which they were then at war, giving said enemy aid and comfort to wit: "That during the period and in the place above-mentionedthe herein accused, for the purpose of giving and with intent to give aid and comfort to the enemy, then and there acted as its informer or agent, bore arms, did guard duty for the enemy, joined and accompanied Japanese soldiers on patrol in search of and for the apprehension and arrest of guerrillas and in commandeering vehicles, food and other provisions for the U$eand benefit of the said enemy, helped and took part in recruiting forced labor for the enemy and finally joined and fled with the enemy in the latter's retreat to the mountains. "Contrary to law." 1 Rule 113, sec. 2. "Motion to quash-grounds.-The defendant may move to quash the complaint or information on any of the following grounds: " (a) That the facts charged do not constitute an offense; " (b) That 'the court trying the cause has no jurisdiction of the offense charged or of the person of the defendant; " (c) That the fiscal has no authority to file the information; "(d) That it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form; " (e) That more than one offense is charged except in those cases in which existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses; "(f) That the criminal action or liability has been extinguished; "(g) That it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or justification; "(h) That the defendant had been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted or acquitted of the offense charged; "(i) That the defendant is insane. "If the motion to quash is based on an alleged defect in the complaint or information which can be cured by amendment the court shall order the amendment to be made and shall overrule the motion." 8 Rule 106, sec. 5. "Sufficiency of complaint or information.-A complaint or information is sWlicientif it states the name of the defendant; the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed.

even granting that it was insufficient or defective, the way to object thereto is by a motion to quash.9 There is no law in the Philippines which expressly provides that a bill of particulars is applicable in criminal cases.10 In view thereof in the early case of U.S. vs. Schneer,l1 the Supreme Court refused to' grant a motion for a bill of particulars after the accused had pleaded. Commenting on this matter the Supreme Court stated: "We know of no provision either in G.O. 58 or in the laws existing prior thereto which required the Government to furnish a bill of particulars. " In subsequent cases,12however, starting with the case of Gernias,13 the court by implication recognized...-the applicability of the institution of the bill of particulars in criminal cases. In all those cases however, the prosecution came along voluntarily with a bill of parti~ulars, and the Supreme Court found no error in this practice.14 It was in the case of People vs. Abad Santos,15 where the Supreme Court for the first time decided that the accused is entitled to ask for a bill of particulars in criminal cases to appraise him clearly of the crime charged and to enable him to prepare properly for trial. A complaint or information in a criminal case is sufficient if it states the names of the defendant and the offended party, the designation of the. offense by the statute, the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense, and the place and the approximate time of the commissionof the offense.16 It has been held that an indictment is sufficient if it identifies the charge against the defendant so that his conviction or acquittal may prevent a subsequent charge for the same offense,l7 and sufficiently advises him what he has to meet and gives him a fair and reasonable opportunity to prepare his defenses.18 Justice Holmes comenting on this point in the case of Paraiso vs. U.S.,19 wrote that the constitutional provision granting an accused the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation is satisfied if the complaint, "however open it may be to criticism on demurrer * * * would leave no doubt in the mind of and person of rudimentary intelligence" as to what the charge is
"When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be mcluded in the complaint or information." 9 See note 7, supra. 10 People Y. Abad Santos, see note I, supra. 11 7 Phil. 523. 12 U.s. Y. Cernias, 10 Phil. 682; Guinto Y. Veluz, see note 4, supra; Cabiling Y. Saguin, G. R. No. L-ll03, prom. July 28, 1947. 13 See note 12, supra. 14 A. C. Cruz, Bill of Particulars in Criminal Cases, 23 Phil. Law Journal, 437. 15 See note 1, supra. 16 See note 8, supra. 17 People Y. Bogdanoff, 171 N. E. 890, citing People Y. Farson, 244 N. Y. 213. 18 Sutton Y. State, 188 S. E. 60; People Y. Farson, see note 17, supra. 19 207 U. S. 368.

and does not require one that will "exclude every misinterpretation capable of ocurring to intelligence fired with a desire to pervert." . The above view commends itself for its common sense. Nevertheless, there can be no valid objection to an information being as detailed as the nature of the case permits. This is to make more meaningful the right of an accused to know the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Lacking such clarity and explicitness, the bill of particulars can supply what is lacking. In the case under consideration,20Justice Padilla in passing stated:
". A defendant in a criminal case who believes or feels that he is not sufficiently informed of the crime with which he is charged and not in a position to defend himself properly and adequately could move for specification." 21

A motion for a bill of particulars is also proper when an information contains such general terms as "and other similar equipment." 22 It has been held that even in the absence of an enabling statute, the courts may order that the accused be furnished with a bill of particulars upon his request in proper cases. This the courts may do by virtue of their inherent power to regulate trials.23 In some jurisdictions where the Legislature has made express provisions for a bill of particulars in criminal cases, it has been held that the same may be demanded by the accused as a matter of right.24 Generally, however, it is well established that the granting or refusing of a bill of particulars rests within the sound discretion of the court, to be exercised with reference to the circumstances of the particular case.25 It has been ruled, however, that if an indictment does not sufficiently set forth the acts charged against the accused, particularly in matters of description, he waives the defects if he fails to ask for a bill of particulars.26
People ". Gutierrez, 48 O. G. 3387. See People ". Abad Santos, see note 1, supra; see also Kirby". U. S., 174 U. S. 47; State ". Da"is, 97, 818. 22 People ". Abad Santos, see note 1, supra. 23 Stdle ". Lewis, 72 S. E. 475; State ". Da"is, see note 21, supra. 24 People ". Bogdanoff, see note 17, supra, citing the cases of Com. ". Reakes, 231 Massachusetts 449 and Com. ". Howard, 205 Massachusetts 128. 25 State ". Shaughnessy, 249 NW 522; Du &is ". People, 65 NE 658; State ". Briggs, 86 P 447. 26 Louisiana ". McClellan, 98 So. 748, "If an indictment does not sufficiently set
20 21

forth the acts charged against the accused, particularly in matters of description, he waives the defect if he fails to ask for a bill of particulars." On the principle that errors and irregularities that are neither jurisdictional nor fundamental may be waived, an accused may waive such matters as: 1. The right to assistance by counsel, U. S. ". Goleng, 21 Phil. 426; U. S. ". Capa and Cariiio, 19 Phil. 125; U. S. ". Kilayko, 31 Phil. 371; U. S. ". Escalante, 36 Phil. 743; Henry ". State, 136 P. 982.

The case under discussion 27 falls under this principle. The accused impliedly waived his rights by objecting to evidence showing specific acts constituting the crime charged, and by cross-examining the witnesses of the prosecution on such matters.28

Civil Law-Purchase and Sale; Paeto de Retro; Period Within Which to Redeem Need Not Be Expressed in Clear and Unequivocal Langu,o,ge.
JULIA TUMNENG

G.R. No. L-4592, Prom. Sept. 17, 1952 In pacto de retro sales, the vendor is granted the right to reacquire the thing sold under certain conditions.1 This right of re2. Privilege of immunity from self incrimination, U. S. Y. Binayoh, 35 Phil. 23; Y. Confrada, 4 Phil. 154; Scribner Y. State, 132 P. 933. 3. Right to preliminary investigation, U. S. Y. Escalante, 36 Phil. 743; U. S. Y. Cofrada, 4 Phil. 154; U. S. Y. Rota, 9 Phil. 426; U. S. Y. Grant and Kennedy, 18 Phil. 122. 4. Right to a speedy trial, Gwnabe Y. Director of Prisons, G. R. No. 1..-1231, Jan. 30, 1947; Meadowcroft Y. People, 45 N. E. 991; State Y. Slorah, 106 A. 768; State Y. Swain, 32 P 2d 773; Com.y. Fisher, 75A 204; State Y. Bohn, 248 P. 119; Butte Y. Com. 133 S. E. 764. 5. Right to public trial, U.S. Y. Mercado, 4 Phil. 304; U.S. Y. Lim Tui, 31 Phil. 504; State Y. Keeler, 156 P. 1080. 6. Right to arraignment, U. S. Y. Sobreyinas, 35 Phil. 32; Garland Y. Washington, 232 U. S. 642; Frank Y. State, 83 S. E. 645; State Y. Rook, 59 P. 653; State Y. Klamer, 145 P. 679. 7. Right to procure witnesses in his behalf, U. S. Y. Garcia, 10 Phil. 384. 8. Right to confrontation of witntsses, Diaz Y. U. S., 223 U. S. 442; Dayids01JJ Y. State, 158 S. W. 1103. It should not be overlooked however, that the right of the accused to be infonned of the nature and cause of the accusation against him can never be waived. Sinyder Y. Massachusetts, 90 A. L. R. 575. 27 People Y. Gutierrez, see note 20, supra. 28 On this point the Supreme Court held that, "Failure to move for specifications or for the quashing of the information on any of the grounds provided for in the Rules of Court (Sec. 2, Rule 113) deprives him of the right to object to evidence which cold be lawfully introduced and admitted under an information of more or less general terms but which sufficiendy charges the defendant with a definite crime." 1 Article 1601 of the Civil Code provides: "Conventional redemption shall take place when the vendor reserves the right to repurchase the thing sold, with ':he obligagation to comply with the provisions of the article 1616 and other stipulations which may have been agreed upon." Article 1616 provides: "The vendor cannot avail himself of the right to repurchase without returning to the vendee the price of the sale and in addition: (1) The expenses of the contract, and any other legitimate payments made by reason of the sale. (2) The necessary and useful expenses made on the thing sold." U.S.

v.

FRANCISCO ABAD .