Juan Ponce Enrile v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015

FACTS:

On June 5, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information for plunder against Enrile before the Sandiganbayan.

Enrile responded by filing before the Sandiganbayan (1) a motion to dismiss for lack of evidence on record to establish probable cause, and (2) a supplemental opposition to issuance of warrant of arrest and for dismissal of Information.

On July 3, 2014, the Sandiganbayan denied Enrile’s motions and ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest on the plunder case against the accused.

On July 10, 2014, Enrile filed a motion for bill of particulars before the Sandiganbayan.

PJ Cabotaje-Tang announced the Court’s denial of Enrile’s motion for bill of particulars essentially on the following grounds:

1) the details that Enrile desires are “substantial reiterations” of the arguments he raised in his supplemental opposition to the issuance of warrant of arrest and for dismissal of information; and

2) the details sought are evidentiary in nature and are best ventilated during trial.

Atty. Mendoza subsequently moved for the deferment of Enrile’s arraignment. The Sandiganbayan responded by directing the doctors present to determine whether he was physically fit to be arraigned. After he was declared fit, the Sandiganbayan proceeded with Enrile’s arraignment. Enrile entered a “no plea,” prompting the Sandiganbayan to enter a “not guilty” plea on his behalf.

 

ISSUE:

Whether Enrile is entitled to a Motion for a Bill of Particulars in order that he may intelligently enter a plea

 

RULING:

YES. That every element constituting the offense had been alleged in the Information does not preclude the accused from requesting for more specific details of the various acts or omissions he is alleged to have committed. The request for details is precisely the function of a bill of particulars.

The procedural due process mandate of the Constitution requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be fully informed as to why he was charged and what penal offense he has to face, to be convicted only on showing that his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt with full opportunity to disprove the evidence against him. During arraignment, the accused is granted the opportunity to fully know the precise charge that confronts him and made fully aware of possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him.

An arraignment thus ensures that an accused be fully acquainted with the nature of the crime imputed to him in the Information and the circumstances under which it is allegedly committed. It is likewise at this stage of the proceedings when the accused enters his plea, or enters a plea of not guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged.

A concomitant component of this stage of the proceedings is that the Information should provide the accused with fair notice of the accusations made against him, so that he will be able to make an intelligent plea and prepare a defense. Moreover, the Information must provide some means of ensuring that the crime for which the accused is brought to trial is in fact one for which he was charged, rather than some alternative crime seized upon by the prosecution in light of subsequently discovered evidence. Likewise, it must indicate just what crime or crimes an accused is being tried for, in order to avoid subsequent attempts to retry him for the same crime or crimes. In other words, the Information must permit the accused to prepare his defense, ensure that he is prosecuted only on the basis of facts presented, enable him to plead jeopardy against a later prosecution, and inform the court of the facts alleged so that it can determine the sufficiency of the charge.

Oftentimes, this is achieved when the Information alleges the material elements of the crime charged. If the Information fails to comply with this basic standard, it would be quashed on the ground that it fails to charge an offense. Of course, an Information may be sufficient to withstand a motion to quash, and yet insufficiently inform the accused of the specific details of the alleged offenses. In such instances, the Rules of Court allow the accused to move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and to prepare for trial.

Bill of Particulars

In general, a bill of particulars is the further specification of the charges or claims in an action, which an accused may avail of by motion before arraignment, to enable him to properly plead and prepare for trial. In civil proceedings, a bill of particulars has been defined as a complementary procedural document consisting of an amplification or more particularized outline of a pleading, and is in the nature of a more specific allegation of the facts recited in the pleading. The purpose of a motion for bill of particulars in civil cases is to enable a party to prepare his responsive pleading properly.

In criminal cases, a bill of particulars details items or specific conduct not recited in the Information but nonetheless pertain to or are included in the crime charged. Its purpose is to enable an accused: to know the theory of the government’s case; to prepare his defense and to avoid surprise at the trial; to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same offense; and to compel the prosecution to observe certain limitations in offering evidence.

In criminal proceedings, the motion for a bill of particulars is governed by Section 9 of Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides:

Section 9. Bill of particulars. - The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired.

The rule requires the information to describe the offense with sufficient particularity to apprise the accused of the crime charged with and to enable the court to pronounce judgment. The particularity must be such that persons of ordinary intelligence may immediately know what the Information means.

The general function of a bill of particulars, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, is to guard against surprises during trial. It is not the function of the bill to furnish the accused with the evidence of the prosecution. Thus, the prosecutor shall not be required to include in the bill of particulars matters of evidence relating to how the people intend to prove the elements of the offense charged or how the people intend to prove any item of factual information included in the bill of particulars.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Eddie Dizon and Bryan Dizon v. Yolanda Vida Beltran, G.R. No. 221071, January 18, 2017

FACTS: Eddie, married to Verona, started working as a seafarer in the 1980s. He has two children, namely, Bryan and James Christopher Dizon. Verona was a housewife. She and her mother, together with Bryan and James, resided in the house on the disputed property located in Davao City. The registered owners were "Verona, married to Eddie." In 2008, Verona filed before the RTC a petition for the issuance of Temporary and Permanent Protection Orders against Eddie and James. On April 9, 2008, the Spouses Dizon entered into a Compromise Agreement, whereby they contemplated selling the disputed property in the amount of not less than ₱4,000,000, which price shall be increased by ₱100,000 for every succeeding year until the same is finally sold. They would thereafter equally divide the proceeds from the sale. On September 27, 2009, Eddie left for abroad. Verona died on December 8, 2009. On December 9, 2009, Eddie’s brother Jun Dizon informed him about Verona's death. ...
Read more

Karen Nuñez Vito v. Norma Moises-Palma, G.R. No. 224466, March 27, 2019

FACTS: Petitioners' father, Vicentico Nufiez, was the original owner of Lot No. 2159-A located in Capiz with TCT No. T-16612. In May 1992, Vicentico borrowed P30,000 from Rosita Moises and as security, executed a real estate mortgage over his property. Since Rosita had no money, the funds came from Norma Moises-Palma, Rosita's daughter. According to petitioners, the loan was subsequently paid as evidenced by an Affidavit Authorizing Release of Mortgage. Upon Vicentico's and Placida's deaths, the subject lot was transmitted to their heirs. On June 28, 1995, Norma was able to have all petitioners, except Alden, sign a   Deed of Adjudication and Sale wherein petitioners purportedly sold to Norma their in the subject lot for P50,000. After the execution of the DAS, Norma immediately took possession of the subject lot. Instead of paying cash, Norma executed a Promissory Note on July 1, 1995. Upon prodding of petitioners, Norma executed an Acknowledgment of Debt. De...
Read more

Rodolfo Valencia v. The Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 165996, October 17, 2005

FACTS: On February 10, 1999, petitioner Rodolfo Valencia was charged before the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Upon arraignment on April 13, 1999, petitioner pleaded not guilty. On March 24, 2003, the parties submitted a Joint Stipulation of Facts, to wit: 1. Valencia, had been the Governor of the Province of Oriental Mindoro, for having won in the gobernatorial race in the May 1992 local and provincial election; 2. During the 1992 election, Mr. Cresente Umbao of Pola, Oriental, Mindoro also ran for the position of councilor in the Municipality of Pola, Oriental Mindoro but he lost; 3. On October 17, 1992, Councilor Antonio Mercene, Jr. of Pola, Oriental, Mindoro died thus creating a permanent vacancy in the membership position of Sanguniang Bayan of Pola, Oriental Mindoro. 4. On December 1, 1992 then Governor Rodolfo G. Valencia of Oriental, Mindoro, appointed Cresente Umbao to the position of a councilor in the ...
Read more