10/7/2017 G.R. No.

L-8781

TodayisSaturday,October07,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.L8781March30,1914

THEUNITEDSTATES,plaintiffappellant,
vs.

ANTONIOJAVIERDICHAO,defendantappellee.

AttorneyGeneralVillamorforappellant.
J.F.Yeagerforappellee.

MORELAND,J.:

ThisisanappealfromanorderoftheCourtofFirstInstanceoftheFourteenJudicialDistrictsustainingademurrer
toainformationanddismissingthecase.

Theinformationisasfollows:

TheundersignedaccusesoneAntonioJavierDichaoofthecrimeofrape,committedasfollows:

On or about and during the interval between October, 1910, to August, 1912, in the municipality of Davao,
District of Davao, Moro Province, P.I., the aforesaid accused did then and there, willfully, maliciously, and
feloniously have sexual intercourse with, and did lie with, and carnally know a woman, Isabel de la Cruz,
under12yearsofage,inthefollowingmanner,towit:theaforesaidaccusedisthestepfatheroftheaforesaid
IsabeldelaCruzandduringtheaforesaidperiodwasthelegalguardianofthesaidIsabeldelaCruzthatby
threatsandcorporalpunishmentuponsaidIsabeldelaCruz,theaforesaidaccused,AntonioJavierDichao,
hadsexualintercoursewithanddidliewithandcarnallyknowsaidIsabeldelaCruzasaresultwhereofthe
saidIsabeldelaCruzgavebirthonAugust5,1912,toachild.Allcontrarytolaw.

Thedemurreralleged:

Thatthefactsthereinsetforthandcontaineddonotconstituteapublicoffense.

Thatthesaidcriminalcomplaintdoesnotconformsubstantiallytotheprescribedform.

Thatsaidcomplaintisvagueandambiguous.

We are of the opinion that the order appealed from must be affirmed. The allegations of an information should, if
possible,besufficientlyexplicitandcertainastotimetoinformthedefendantofthedateonwhichthecriminalactis
alleged to have been committed. Unless the accused is informed of the day, or about the day, he may be, to an
extent,deprivedoftheopportunitytodefendhimself.

While section 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that "except when time is a material ingredient of an
offense,theprecisetimeofcommissionneednotbestatedinacomplaintorinformation,butthecatmaybealleged
tohavebeencommittedatanytimebeforethefilingthereof,"thisdoesnotmeanthattheprosecutingofficermaybe
carelessaboutfixingthedateoftheallegedcrime,orthathemayomitthedatealtogether,orthathemaymakethe
allegationsoindefiniteastoamounttothesamething.Wheretheexactdatecannotfixed,orwheretheprosecuting
officerisnotthoroughlysatisfiedthathecanproveaprecisedate,heshouldallegeintheinformationthatthecrime
wascommittedonoraboutadatenamed.Undersuchallegationheisnotrequiredtoproveanyprecisedatebut
mayproveanydatewhichisnotsoremoteastosurpriseandprejudicethedefendant.Incaseofsurprisethecourt
mayallowanamendmentofinformationastotimeandanadjournmenttotheaccused,ifnecessary,tomeetthe
amendment.

InthecaseofUnitedStatesvs.DeCastro(2Phil.Rep.,616),theinformationdemurredtowasasfollows:

Theundersignedprovincialfiscalaccusesthedefendantofthecrimeofbribery,committedasfollows:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1914/mar1914/gr_l-8781_1914.html 1/3
10/7/2017 G.R. No. L-8781
That as municipal president of the town, in consideration of gifts of money, he permitted opium joints and
gamblinghouses.Thiscontrarytothelaw.

Amongthemanydefectsofthisinformationthecourtpointedoutthefollowing:

Thecomplaintisalsodefectiveinnotstatingthetimeatwhichtheoffenseoccurred.Whileitisnotnecessary,
unless time is a material ingredient of the offense, that the precise time of the commission of the offense
shouldbestated,stilltheactshouldbeallegedtohavebeencommittedatsometimebeforethefilingofthe
complaint.

ThedecisionsinthecaseofUnitedStatesvs.Enriquez(1Phil.Rep.,179),andUnitedStatesvs.Cardona(1Phil.
Rep.,381),arenotinconflictwiththedoctrinehereinlaiddown,norwiththecaseofUnitedStatesvs.DeCastro
fromwhichtheabovequotationismade.Inthefirstcasetheinformationallegedthattheestafacomplainedofwas
committed on the 20th of November 1897. A demurrer was filed to the information on statutory grounds. It was
overruledandthedefendantputupontrial.Hewasconvictedandappealedtothiscourt,bringingupontheappeal
thequestionsarisingontheorderoverrulingthedemurreraswellasonthemerits.Itisclearthatthedemurrerdid
notraise,sofarastheinformationisconcerned,thequestionoftime,asinthecaseatbar,astheprecisedateupon
whichthecrimewasallegedtohavebeencommittedwassetoutintheinformation.Thequestionspresentedtothe
SupremeCourtwas,therefore,notwhethertheinformationallegedthetimewithsufficientlycertainty.Thequestion
inthecasewaswhethertheallegationsofthecomplaintsufficientlynotifiedthedefendant"ofthetransactionfrom
which it is claimed the crime results, so that he can prepare his defense." The discussion in that case turned on
whether the defendant, after reading the complaint, was able to tell "to what acts of his done in the past the
complaintrefers."Indeterminingthequestionthecourtdiscussed,amongotherthings,theallegationwithreference
tothetimewhentheestafawascommitted.Intheconnectionitwassaid:

InthiscomplainttheestafaisallegedtohavebeencommittedonNovember20,1897.Time,however,was
not a material ingredient in the offense of estafa here charged, and under the provisions of article 7 of
GeneralOrders,No.58,thatdateneednothavebeenalleged.

After discussing the various elements of an information charging estafa necessary to identify the acts which
constitutesthecrime,therebynotifyingthedefendantofthepreciseactofhiscomplainedof,thecourtconcluded:"It
is plain that the complaint did not restrict the Government to proof of any defined specific transaction, and
consequentlythatthedefendanthadnonoticeofthetransactionwhichwastobeinvestigated."

IntheCardonacasethetheftofacarabaowasallegedintheinformationtohavetakenplaceonthe25thofMarch
ofacertainyear.Theevidenceintroducedshowedthatthecrimewascommittedonthe5thdayor6thofMarchof
thesameyear.Thedefendantinhisbriefclaimedthattheevidenceintroducedshouldhavebeenrestrictedtothe
datementionedintheinformation,orthe25thofMarch.

Thecourtinresponsetothiscontentionsaid:"ThetestimonyastothewhereaboutsofthedefendantonMarch25
was unimportant, as the evidence shows that the robbery was committed about the 5th or 6th of March. The
defendantinhisbriefsclaimedthattheevidenceshouldberestrictedtothedatementionedinthecomplaint,which
wasthe25thofMarch.Inthiscase,however,thedatewasnotamaterialingredientoftheoffense,andunderthe
provisions of section 7 of General Orders, No. 58, the Government was not limited in its proof to the date stated
therein."

Inthesetwocases,therefore,differentquestionsarepresentedfromthosefoundinthecasebeforeus.Inthefirst
casethequestionoftimeisallegedintheinformationwasdiscussedinanaccidentalwayforthesolepurposeof
determiningwhetheritofitself,orinconnectionwiththeotherallegations,sufficientlyidentifiedthetransactionwhich
it was claimed constituted the estafa, so as to notify the defendant of the transaction referred to. the other
allegations of the information not being sufficient of themselves to do so. In the Cardona case the question was
raisedbydemurrer.Theallegationintheinformationastothetimewhenthecrimewascommittedwasdefiniteand
certain. The only question raised on the appeal related to the alleged variance between the date of the crime as
allegedintheinformationandthatprovedonthetrial.Inthatcase,aswehaveseen,thecourtsaidthat,thetime
allegednotbeing,undersection7,amaterialingredientoftheoffense,itdidnothavetoprovedaslaid.Itdidnot
holdthat,ifithadappearedtothetrialcourt,onthetrial,thatthevariancebetweentheallegationoftheinformation
andtheproofonthetrialhadbeensuchastosurprisethedefendantandprejudicehiminhisdefense,thecourt
would not have been authorized to amend the information and to grant an adjournment, if necessary, to give the
defendantanopportunitytomeetthechargeasamended.

ThesameremarksapplytothecaseofUnitedStatesvs.Arcos(11Phil.Rep.,555),wheretheinformationalleged
"thatbetweenthe2dandthe15thofAugust,1906,"theaccusedcommittedthecrimedescribedthereinandthe
caseofUnitedStatesvs.Smith(3Phil.Rep.,20),inwhichtheinformationcharged"thattheaccused,inthemonth
ofDecemberlast,"committedthecrimethereinsetforth.

Thequestionwhethertheallegationsoftheinformationaresufficientlydefiniteastotimeandquestionwhicharises
on a variance between the allegations and the proof are different in nature and legal effect, and are decided on
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1914/mar1914/gr_l-8781_1914.html 2/3
10/7/2017 G.R. No. L-8781
differentprinciples.

Inthecasebeforeusthestatementofthetimewhenthecrimeisallegedtohavebeencommittedissoindefinite
anduncertainthatitdoesnotgivetheaccusedtheinformationrequiredbylaw.Toallegeinaninformationthatthe
accused committed rape on a certain girl between October, 1910, and August, 1912, is too indefinite to give the
accusedanopportunitytopreparehisdefense,andthatindefinitenessisnotcurdbysettingoutthedatewhena
child was born as a result of such crime. Section 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not warrant such
pleading.Itspurposeistopermittheallegationofadateofthecommissionofthecrimeasneartotheactualdate
asthe information oftheprosecutingofficerwillpermit,andwhenthathasbeen done by any date may be prove
whichdoesnotsurpriseandsubstantiallyprejudicethedefense.Itdoesnotauthorizethetotalomissionofadateof
suchanindefiniteallegationwithreferencetheretoasamountstothesamething.

Asbeforeintimated,wearenottobeunderstoodassayingthatavariancebetweenthedateofthecommissionof
the crime as alleged in the information and that as proved on the trial warrants necessarily the acquittal of the
accused.Theresultofwhatweintendtosayisthat,ifsuchavarianceoccursanditisshowntothetrialcourtthat
thedefendantissurprisedthereby,andthat,byreasonofthatsurprise,heisunabletodefendhimselfproperly,the
courtmay,intheexcerciseofsounddiscretionbasednallthecircumstances,ordertheinformationamendedsoas
tosetforththecorrectdateandmaygrantanadjournmentforsuchlengthoftimeaswillenablethedefendantto
preparehimselftomeetthevarianceinthedatewhichwasthecauseofsurprise.

Thejudgmentappealedfromisaffirmed.

Arellano,C.J.andAraullo,J.,concur.

CarsonandTrent,JJ.,concurintheresult.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1914/mar1914/gr_l-8781_1914.html 3/3