Key legal question
Validity of the indictment and alleged violation of the right to request evidence under Art. 318 CPP
Extracted holding
Any defect could have been cured later in first-instance and appellate proceedings; no absolute nullity was shown.
Extracted reasoning
The challenged omission did not amount to a grave procedural defect. The court held that evidence issues could be revisited later under the CPP rules, so nullity was not available.