CONSTITUTIONAL LAW RECENT DECISIONS FROM THE PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

7/29/2019 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW RECENT DECISIONS FROM THE PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL

1/5

R E C E N T D E C I S I O N S

Constitutional Law-Rights of the Accused; Defendant in aCriminal Case may Waive His Right to a Bill of Particulars.

PEoPLE v. GUTIERREZ

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 theaccused be fully apprised of the true charges against him and thusavoid all and any possible surprise, Which might be detrimental totheir rights and interests.! Section 1 (b), Rule 1112 of the Rules ofCourt merely echoesthe constitutional provision that the accused shallhave the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusationagainst him.3 It has been construed to mean that the'"defendanthas the right to be informed, not only of the nature of the indict-ment, but also the cause thereof, that is, the acts committed by thedefendant constituting that offense.4 It follows then that if there

are ambiguous phrases in the criminal complaint or information amotion for a bill or particulars is called for.5

This right of the accused to move for specifications may, how-ever, be waived. So it was held in the instant case of People vs.Gutierrez.

This is a prosecution for treason. The information wascouched in more or less general terms.6 The crime of which he was

1People Y. Abad Santos, 43 O. G. 509.2 Rule 111, Section 1. "Right of the defendant at the trial.-In all criminal prose-

cutions the defendant shall be entitled:

"* * * * * * * * *"

" (b ) To be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation"

"* * * * * * * * *"

3"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 processto 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.6The information in this case was worded as follows:

"The undersigned special prosecutor hereby accuses Eugenio Gutierrez of thecrime 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


2/5

accused was quite definite though, i.e., treason. Defendant movedto quash the information on the ground of amnesty, but sain motionwas denied. Instead of moving for specifications, his counsel ob-

jected to the introduction of evidence showing specific acts consti-tuting the crime charged. He likewise cross-examinedthe witnessesof the prosecution on such matters.

The court ruled that failure to move for specificationsor quash-ing the information on any of the grounds provided in the Rulesof Court,7 deprives the accused of the right to object to evidencewhich could be lawfully intr.duced and admitted under an informa-tion of more or less general terms, but which sufficiently chargesthe defendant with a definite crime.

Justice Padilla who penned the decision, pointed out that underthe 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 andtraitorously adhered to the enemy, the EMPIRE OF JAPAN against which they werethen 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 commandeeringvehicles, 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."1Rule 113, sec. 2. "Motion to quash-grounds.-The defendant may move to

quash the complaint or information on any of the followinggrounds:" (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 exceptin those casesin whichexistinglaws 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 beingconvicted 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 informa-

tion whichcan be cured by amendment the court shall order the amendment to be madeand shall overrule the motion."

8Rule 106, sec. 5. "Sufficiency of complaint or information.-A complaint

or information is sWlicientif it states the name of the defendant; the designation ofthe offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constitutingthe offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of thecommissionof the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed.


3/5

even granting that it was insufficient or defective, the way to objectthereto is by a motion to quash.9

There is no law in the Philippines which expressly provides thata bill of particulars is applicable in criminal cases.10 In view there-of in the early case of U.S. vs. Schneer,l1 the Supreme Court refusedto' grant a motion for a bill of particulars after the accused hadpleaded. Commenting on this matter the Supreme Court stated:

"We know of no provision either in G.O. 58 or in the laws existingprior thereto which required the Government to furnish a bill ofparticulars. "

In subsequent cases,12however, starting with the case of Ger-nias,13 the court by implication recognized...-theapplicability of theinstitution of the bill of particulars in criminal cases. In all thosecases however, the prosecution came along voluntarily with a bill ofparti~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 Su-preme Court for the first time decided that the accused is entitled

to ask for a bill of particulars in criminal cases to appraise him clear-ly of the crime charged and to enable him to prepare properly fortrial.

A complaint or information in a criminal case is sufficient ifit states the names of the defendant and the offended party, thedesignation of the.offense by the statute, the acts or omissions com-plained of as constituting the offense, and the place and the approxi-mate time of the commissionof the offense.16

It has been held that an indictment is sufficient if it identifiesthe charge against the defendant so that his conviction or acquittal

may prevent a subsequent charge for the same offense,l7 and suf-ficiently advises him what he has to meet and gives him a fair andreasonable opportunity to prepare his defenses.18

Justice Holmes comenting on this point in the case of Paraisovs. U.S.,19 wrote that the constitutional provision granting an ac-cused the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the ac-cusation is satisfied if the complaint, "however open it may be tocriticism on demurrer * * * would leave no doubt in the mind ofand person of rudimentary intelligence" as to what the charge is

"When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall bemcluded in the complaint or information."

9See note 7, supra.10People Y. Abad Santos, see note I, supra.117 Phil. 523.

12 U.s. Y. Cernias, 10 Phil. 682; Guinto Y. Veluz, see note 4, supra; CabilingY. Saguin, G. R. No. L-ll03, prom. July 28, 1947.

13See note 12, supra.14 A. C. Cruz, Bill of Particulars in Criminal Cases, 23 Phil. Law Journal, 437.

15See note 1, supra.

16 See note 8, supra.

17People Y. Bogdanoff, 171 N. E. 890, citing People Y. Farson, 244 N. Y. 213.18Sutton Y. State, 188 S. E. 60; People Y. Farson, see note 17, supra.19 207 U. S. 368.


4/5

and does not require one that will "exclude every misinterpretationcapable of ocurring to intelligence fired with a desire to pervert." .

The above view commends itself for its common sense. Never-theless, there can be no valid objection to an information being asdetailed as the nature of the case permits. This is to make moremeaningful the right of an accused to know the nature and cause

of the accusation against him. Lacking such clarity and explicit-ness, the bill of particulars can supply what is lacking.

In the case under consideration,20Justice Padilla in passingstated:

". A defendant in a criminal case who believes or feels that heis not sufficiently informed of the crime with which he is charged and notin a position to defend himself properly and adequately could move forspecification."21

A motion for a bill of particulars is also proper when an informa-

tion contains such general terms as "and other similar equipment." 22It has been held that even in the absence of an enabling statute,

the courts may order that the accused be furnished with a bill ofparticulars upon his request in proper cases. This the courts maydo by virtue of their inherent power to regulate trials.23

In some jurisdictions where the Legislature has made expressprovisions for a bill of particulars in criminal cases, it has been heldthat the same may be demanded by the accused as a matter ofright.24

Generally, however, it is well established that the granting or

refusing of a bill of particulars rests within the sound discretionof the court, to be exercised with reference to the circumstances ofthe particular case.25-

It has been ruled, however, that if an indictment does not suf-ficiently set forth the acts charged against the accused, particularlyin matters of description, he waives the defects if he fails to askfor a bill of particulars.26

20 People ". Gutierrez, 48 O. G. 3387.21 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

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. ". Capaand Cariiio, 19 Phil. 125; U. S. ". Kilayko, 31 Phil. 371; U. S. ". Escalante, 36 Phil.

743; Henry ". State, 136 P. 982.


5/5

The case under discussion 27 falls under this principle. The ac-cused impliedly waived his rights by objecting to evidence showingspecificacts constituting the crime charged, and by cross-examiningthe witnesses of the prosecution on such matters.28

Civil Law-Purchase and Sale; Paeto de Retro; Period WithinWhich to Redeem Need Not Be Expressed in Clear and Unequivocal

Langu,o,ge.JULIA TUMNENG v. FRANCISCO ABAD .

G.R. No. L-4592,Prom. Sept. 17, 1952

In pacto de retro sales, the vendor is granted the right to re-acquire the thing sold under certain conditions.1 This right of re-

2. Privilege of immunity from self incrimination, U. S.Y.

Binayoh, 35 Phil. 23;U.S. 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, 18Phil. 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 specificationsor for the quashing of the information on any of the grounds provided for in the Rulesof 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 generalterms but which sufficiendy charges the defendant with a definite crime."

1Article 1601 of the Civil Code provides: "Conventional redemption shall take

place when the vendor reserves the right to repurchase the thing sold, with ':he obliga-

gation to comply with the provisions of the article 1616 and other stipulations whichmay have been agreed upon."

Article 1616 provides: "The vendor cannot avail himself of the right to repur-

chase 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."

Documents

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW RECENT DECISIONS FROM THE PHILIPPINE LAW JOURNAL