PEOPLE VS ABAD SANTOS

Facts:
Respondent Joseph Arcache was accused of treason before the Peoples Court.
In counts 2 and 3 of the information, specifying the different kinds of properties
alleged to have been sold by him to the Japanese Imperial Forces, was also
added the phrase and other similar equipment.
During trial, counsel for Arcache asked the respondent judges that the
prosecution should make more specific the phrase mentioned above, or have it
stricken therefrom, unless the prosecution should furnish a bill of particulars
specifying what those other similar equipment were.
The special prosecutor objected to the petition, on the ground that it was out of
time since Arcache had already entered a plea of not guilty.
The respondent judges granted the petition and postponed the trial (upon request
of the prosecution) to give the special prosecutor time to prepare the bill of
particulars.
On the day that he was supposed to furnish the bill of particulars, the prosecutor
instead filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of the court, on the ground
that it was contrary to law and the court had acted with grave abuse of discretion
in issuing such order.
The MR was denied on the ground that the alleged defect in the information
could be cured by amendment, in the interest of justice, so that the accused
might be clearly informed of the charges against him.
The prosecutor filed a petition for certiorari assailing such order.
Respondent judges reiterated in their answer the reasons they stated when they
granted the motion for a bill of particulars.
Respondent Arcache argued that the petitioner was estopped to question the
order since he agreed to submit the bill of particulars called for.
Issue:
WoN the respondent judges committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted
Arcaches motion for a bill of particulars- NO.
o In this jurisdiction, there is no specific provision of law expressly
authorizing the filing of specifications or bill of particulars in criminal
cases.
o In the absence of such, their submission may be permitted, as they
cannot prejudice any substantial rights of the accused. On the contrary,
they will serve to appraise the accused clearly of the charges filed against
them, and thus enable them to prepare intelligently whatever defense or
defenses they might have. Inasmuch as 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 any and all possible surprise, which might be detrimental to
their rights and interests.
o Ambiguous phrases should not, therefore, be permitted in criminal
complaints or informations; and if any such phrase has been inclused
therein, on the motion of the defense, before the commencement of 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.
Ruling:
Petition denied.