112. Rocaberte vs.

People  The remedy against an indictment that fails to allege the time of the commission of the
GR. No. 72994 offense with sufficient definiteness is a motion for a bill of particulars.
January 23, 1991  Bill of particulars. — Defendant may, at the time of or before arraignment, move for
Topic: Rule 110 or demand a more definite statement or a bill of particulars of any matter which is
Petitioners: Felicisimo Rocaberte not averred with sufficient definiteness or particularity to enable him properly to
Respondents: People of the Philippines and Hon. Andres Santos plead or prepare for trial. The motion shall point out the defects complained of and
Ponente: J. Narvasa the details desired.
 The information against Rocaberte is indeed seriously defective. It places on him and his
FACTS: co-accused the unfair and unreasonable burden of having to recall their activities over a
span of more than 2,500 days. It is a burden nobody should be made to bear. The public
 The Assistant Provincial Fiscal accused Rocaberte and the Ranarios of the crime of Theft. prosecutor must make more definite and particular the time of the commission of the
They allegedly conspired stole construction materials belonging to Philippine Sinter crime of theft attributed to Rocaberte and his co-defendants. If he cannot, the prosecution
Corporation (sledgehammer, beam, steel plates, aluminum and alloy anodes) which cannot be maintained, the case must be dismissed.
amounted to P371,944.00.
 They were charged under Articles 308, 309 of the Revised Penal Code.
 The accused, thru counsel de officio, Atty. Lilio L. Amora, moved to quash the information,
based on the following grounds:
 that the statement of the time of commission of the felony charged, "from 1977 to
December 1983" was fatally defective because there was so great a gap as to defy
approximation in the commission of one and the same offense.
 That the variance is certainly unfair to the accused for it violates their constitutional
right to be informed before the trial of the specific charge against them and deprives
them of the opportunity to defend themselves.
 The motion was denied as well as the defendants' motion for reconsideration.

ISSUE:

W/N the motion to quash is the correct remedy when time of the commission is not definite. NO

HELD:

 The rules of criminal procedure declare that a complaint or information is sufficient if it

states the approximate time of the commission of the offense. Where, however, the
statement of the time of the commission of the offense is so general as to span a number
of years, i.e., "from 1977 to December 1983" it has been held to be fatally defective
because it deprives the accused an opportunity to prepare his defense.
 A defect in the averment as to the time of the commission of the crime charged is not,
however, a ground for a motion to quash under Rule 116 of the Rules of Court. Even if it
were, a motion for quashal on that account will be denied since the defect is one that can
be cured by amendment.