The ambiguity of the complaint cannot be called into question if the proper remedies have not been exercised in a timely manner

Dear PAO,
A complaint of murder was filed against my neighbor X, alleging that he killed Y with apparent premeditation. Assuming the case goes to trial and X is convicted, can he challenge the court’s verdict on the ground that the allegation of apparent intent is imprecise or ambiguous because the circumstances surrounding such apparent intent were not defined?
Mathias

Dear Mathias,
Our Constitution requires that a person accused of a crime be informed of the nature and cause of the charge against him (Section 14 (2), Article III, Constitution of the Philippines, 1987). The accused’s right to be informed extends not only to the main features of the crime, but also to any circumstances that may qualify or aggravate it. This right is expressly reinforced under Section 1, Rule 115 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Rules”):

“Chapter 1. Rights of the accused during the trial. — During all criminal prosecutions, the accused is entitled to the following rights: xxx
“(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the charge brought against him. xxx”

A remedy for a person accused of a crime if the complaint or information is inaccurate or ambiguous is to file a motion for a detailed description before the indictment. As stated in Section 9 of Rule 116 of the Rules:
“Chapter 9. Detailed information. — The accused may, before the indictment, submit a request for the provision of background information so that he can properly make the request and prepare for the trial. The petition must specify the alleged deficiencies in the complaint or information and the desired details. .”

In addition, the accused person may file a motion to quash before his arraignment. This is specifically provided for in section 3(e) of Rule 117 of the Regulations:
“Chapter 3. Grounds. — The accused may file a motion to cancel the complaint or information on any of the following grounds: xxx

“(e) That it does not substantially conform to the prescribed form;”

It should be emphasized that the accused, who did not use any of the above-mentioned remedies and did not participate in the trial, loses the right to challenge such ambiguity in the appeal. As a result, in the situation you mentioned, X can no longer challenge the court’s decision after his conviction unless he filed a motion for particulars or a motion to quash before he was charged and participated in the trial of his case, even if indeed the claim of apparent intentionality is ambiguous. It is an elementary rule that a person should not sleep on his rights. Failure to timely exercise rights guaranteed by our laws or even our Constitution may result in their being waived. As our Supreme Court explained through Assistant Judge Rodil Zalameda:

“There are various procedural remedies available to an accused who believes that the information is vague or defective. Section 9 of Rule 116 of the Rules of Court provides that the accused may, before indictment, file a motion for requisites so that he may properly Similarly, Rule 117 allows the accused to file a motion to quash manifestly insufficient or insufficient. In both cases, our procedural rules require the accused to avail himself of these remedies before the indictment. Therefore, to successfully object to information, the objection must not only be well-founded but also timely.
“According to the court’s guidance in People v. Solar, if the information does not state conclusive facts relating to qualifying or aggravating circumstances, the accused must file a motion to quash or a motion to set forth particulars.” Otherwise, his right to question a defective statement is deemed to be waived:

“Any information alleging that a qualifying or aggravating circumstance—in which the law uses a broad term to encompass the various situations in which it may exist, such as, but not limited to (1) treason; (2) abuse of force majeure; (3) obvious intent; (4) cruelty—must state ultimate facts as to such circumstance to be the subject of a motion to quash under Section 3(e) (ie, that it does not substantially conform to prescribed form), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, or a motion for information under set of parameters specified by the Rules.
“A defendant’s failure to exercise any of these remedies constitutes a waiver of his right to challenge a misstatement of aggravating or qualifying circumstances in the Information, and therefore may be assessed against him if proven at trial.xxx

“In cases in which a sentence or decision has already been rendered by the trial court and is still pending appeal, the case is reviewed by the appellate court depending on whether the accused waived his right to challenge the defective aggravating circumstance statement. or a qualifying circumstance in the Information (that is, whether he has previously filed a motion to quash pursuant to section 3(e) of rule 117, or a motion for a special bill) pursuant to this Decision.” (People of the Philippines v. Roberto Bernardo, GR 216056, December 2, 2020)

We hope we were able to answer your questions. Please note that this advice is based solely on the facts you have provided and we appreciate them. Our opinion may change as other facts change or are clarified.

Editor’s Note: Dear PAO is a daily column for the Office of the State Attorney. Questions for Chief Acosta can be sent to (email protected)