ROCABERTE V.

PEOPLE
FACTS:
1. The case at bar treats of the sufficiency of the
averment in the information of the time of the
commission of felony ascribed to petitioner.
2. The information filed against petitioner reads as
follows: That on or about the Period from 1977
to December 28,1983 . The accused conspiring,
confederating, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
take, steal and carry away sledge hammers, block
aluminums, steel plate.
3. The accused moved to quash the information alleging
that the time of commission of the felony charged
(check #2) was fatally defective that there:
a. There was so great a gap as to defy
approximation in the commission of one and the
same offense.
b. 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.
4. Motion was denied. Accused filed an MR and presented
an alternative remedy which is Section 4, Rule 117 1.
Still it was denied by respondent judge.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.
ISSUE: WON the information should be amended?
HELD:
1. The rules of criminal procedure declare that:
a. A complaint or information is sufficient if 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

Amendment of complaint or information. 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.

7.

offense, and the place wherein the offense was

committed.
And as regards the time of the commission of the
offense, particularly that:
a. It is not necessary to state in the complaint or
information the precise time at which the
offense was committed except when time is a
material ingredient of the offense, but the act
may be alleged to have been committed at any
time as near to the actual date at which the
offense was committed as the information or
complaint will permit.
A variance of few months between the time set out in
the indictment and that established by the evidence
during the trial has been held not to constitute an error
so serious as to warrant reversal of conviction solely
on that score.
HOWEVER, in this case, there was a variance of several
years between the time state in the information, 1947,
and the proof of its actual commission adduced at the
trial, 1952.
The statement of the time of the commission of the
offense which is so general as to span a number of
years has been held to be fatally defective because it
deprives the accused an opportunity to prepare his
defense.
Note: A defect in the averment as to the time of the
commission of the crime charged is not a ground for a
motion to quash under Rule 116 since it can be cured
by an amendment.
The remedy against an indictment that fails to allege
the time of the commission of the offense with
sufficient definiteness is a Motion for Bill of
Particulars.

DISPOSITIVE: Directing the amendment of the information.