Enriles casos

 In 2004 to 2010 or thereabout, in the Philippines, and within this Honorable

Court’s jurisdiction, above-named accused JUAN PONCE ENRILE, then a
Philippine Senator, JESSICA LUCILA G. REYES, then Chief of Staff of
Senator Enrile’s Office, both public officers, committing the offense in relation
to their respective offices, conspiring with one another and with JANET LIM
NAPOLES, RONALD JOHN LIM, and JOHN RAYMUND DE ASIS, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally amass, accumulate, and/or
acquire ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY
TWO MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED PESOS (Php172,834,500.00) through a combination or series of
overt criminal acts
 On July 10, 2014, Enrile filed a motion for bill of particulars8 before the
Sandiganbayan.
 On July 11, 2014, Enrile was brought to the Sandiganbayan pursuant to the
Sandiganbayan’s order and his motion for bill of particulars was called for
hearing. Atty. Estelito Mendoza (Atty. Mendoza), Enrile’s counsel, argued the
motion orally. Thereafter, Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice (PJ) Amparo
Cabotaje-Tang (Cabotaje-Tang), declared a “10-minute recess” to deliberate on
the motion. When the court session resumed, PJ Cabotaje-Tang announced the
Court’s denial of Enrile’s motion for bill of particulars essentially on the
following grounds:
o 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
o the details sought are evidentiary in nature and are best ventilated
during trial.
 A motion for reconsideration was filed by Enrile’s camp. This was denied by the
Sandiganbayan
 Enrile claims in this petition that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it denied his motion
for bill of particulars despite the ambiguity and insufficiency of the Information
filed against him. Enrile maintains that the denial was a serious violation of his
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him. Enrile further alleges that he was left to speculate on what his
specific participation in the crime of plunder had been. He posits that the
Information should have stated the details of the particular acts that allegedly
constituted the imputed series or combination of overt acts that led to the charge
of plunder.

Allegations of Information Details Desired

“x x x accused JUAN PONCE a. Who among the accused acquired the
ENRILE, then a Philippine Senator, alleged “ill-gotten wealth amounting to at
JESSICA LUCILA G. REYES, then least ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO
Chief of Staff of Senator Enrile’s MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED THIRTY
Office, both public officers, FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED
committing the offense in relation to PESOS (Php172,834,500.00)”? One of them,
their respective offices, conspiring two of them or all of them? Kindly specify.
with one another and with JANET
LIM NAPOLES, RONALD JOHN
LIM, and JOHN RAYMUND DE
ASIS, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully, and criminally amass,
accumulate, and/or acquire ill-gotten
wealth amounting to at least ONE
HUNDRED SEVENTY TWO
MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED
THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED PESOS
(Php172,834,500.00) through a
combination or series of overt acts, x x
x.”

b. The allegation “through a combination or

series of overt criminal acts” is a conclusion
of fact or of law. What are the particular
overt acts which constitute the
“combination”? What are the particular overt
acts which constitute the “series”? Who
committed those acts?

x x x by repeatedly receiving from a. What was “repeatedly” received? If sums

NAPOLES and/or her representatives of money, the particular amount. If on several
LIM, DE ASIS, and others, kickbacks occasions and in different amounts, specify
or commissions under the following the amount on each occasion and the
circumstances: before, during and/or corresponding date of receipt.
after the project identification,
NAPOLES gave, and ENRILE and/or
REYES received, a percentage of the
cost of a project to be funded from
ENRILE’S Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF), in
consideration of ENRILE’S
endorsement, directly or through
REYES, to the appropriate
government agencies, of NAPOLES’
non-government organizations which
became the recipients and/or target
implementers of ENRILE’S PDAF
projects, which duly-funded projects
turned out to be ghosts or fictitious,
thus enabling NAPOLES to
misappropriate the PDAF proceeds for
her personal gain;

b. Name the specific person(s) who delivered

the amount of Php172,834,500.00 and the
specific person(s) who received the amount;
or if not in lump sum, the various amounts
totaling Php172,834,500.00. x x x Specify
particularly the person who delivered the
amount, Napoles or Lim or De Asis, and who
particularly are “the others.”

c. To whom was the money given? To Enrile

or Reyes? State the amount given on each
occasion, the date when and the place where
the amount was given.

d. x x x Describe each project allegedly

identified, how, and by whomwas the project
identified, the nature of each project, where it
is located and the cost of each project.

e. For each of the years 2004-2010,

under what law or official documentis a
portion of the “Priority Development
Assistance Fund” identified as that of a
member of Congress, in this instance, as
ENRILE’s, to be found? In what amount for
each year is ENRILE’s Priority Development
 Assistance Fund? When, and to whom, did
Enrile endorse the projects in favor of
“Napoles non-government organizations
which became the recipients and/or target
implementers of ENRILE’s PDAF
projects?” NameNapoles non-government
organizations which became the recipients
and/or target implementers of ENRILE’s
PDAF projects. Who paidNapoles, from
whom did Napoles collect the fund for the
projects which turned out to be ghosts or
fictitious? Who authorized the payments for
each project?

f. x x x what COA audits or field

investigations were conducted which
validated the findings that each of Enrile’s
PDAF projects in the years 2004-2010 were
ghosts or spurious projects?

x x x by taking undue advantage, on a. Provide the details of how Enrile took

several occasions of their official undue advantage, on several occasions, of his
positions, authority, relationships, official positions, authority, relationships,
connections, and influence to unjustly connections, and influence to unjustly enrich
enrich themselves at the expense and himself at the expense and to the damage and
to the damage and prejudice, of the prejudice, of the Filipino people and the
Filipino people and the Republic of the Republic of the Philippines. Was this because
Philippines. he received any money from the
government? From whom and for
what reason did he receive any money or
property from the government through which
he “unjustly enriched himself”? State the
details from whom each amount was
received, theplace and the time.

Enrile posits that his ‘desired details’ are not evidentiary in nature; they are material
facts that should be clearly alleged in the Information so that he may be fully informed
of the charges against him and be prepared to meet the issues at the trial.

Enrile adds that the grounds raised in his motion for bill of particulars are cited in a
context different from his opposition to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. He
maintains that the resolution of the probable cause issue was interlocutory and did “not
bar the submission of the same issue in subsequent proceedings especially in the
context of a different proceeding.”

Issue: WON the request for Bill of Particulars should have been granted-
PARTIALLY
Held:

a. We PARTIALLY GRANT the present petition for certiorari, and SET ASIDE the
Sandiganbayan’s resolutions dated July 11, 2014, which denied Enrile’s motion for
bill of particulars and his motion for reconsideration of this denial.

b. We DIRECT the People of the Philippines to SUBMIT, within a non-extendible

period of fifteen (15) days from finality of this Decision, with copy furnished to
Enrile, a bill of particulars containing the facts sought that we herein rule to be
material and necessary. The bill of particulars shall specifically contain the following:

1. The particular overt act/s alleged to constitute the “combination or series of

overt criminal acts” charged in the Information.

2. A breakdown of the amounts of the “kickbacks or commissions” allegedly

received, stating how the amount of P172,834,500.00 was arrived at.

3. A brief description of the ‘identified’ projects where kickbacks or commissions

were received.

4. The approximate dates of receipt, “in 2004 to 2010 or thereabout,” of the

alleged kickbacks and commissions from the identified projects. At the very least,
the prosecution should state the year when the kickbacks and transactions from
the identified projects were received.

5. The name of Napoles’ non-government organizations (NGOs) which were the

alleged “recipients and/or target implementors of Enrile’s PDAF projects.”

6. The government agencies to whom Enrile allegedly endorsed Napoles’ NGOs.

The particular person/s in each government agency who facilitated the
transactions need not be named as a particular.
All particulars prayed for that are not included in the above are hereby denied.

Ratio:
 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.47 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;48 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.49redarclaw
 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.50redarclaw
 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.
 When, allegations in an Information are vague or indefinite, the remedy of the
accused is not a motion to quash, but a motion for a bill of particulars.
 The purpose of a bill of particulars is to supply vague facts or allegations in the
complaint or information to enable the accused to properly plead and prepare for
trial. It presupposes a valid Information, one that presents all the elements of
the crime charged, albeit under vague terms. Notably, the specifications that a
bill of particulars may supply are only formal amendments to the complaint or
Information.
 It is beyond cavil that a defendant has a basic and fundamental right to be
informed of the charges against him so that he will be able to prepare a defense.
Hence the courts must exercise careful surveillance to ensure that a defendant is
not deprived of this right by an overzealous prosecutor attempting to protect his
case or his witnesses. Any effort to leave a defendant in ignorance of the
substance of the accusation until the time of trial must be firmly rebuffed. This is
especially so where the indictment itself provides a paucity of information. In
such cases, the court must be vigilant in safeguarding the defendant's rights to a
bill of particulars and to effective discovery. Should the prosecutor decide to use
an indictment which, although technically sufficient, does not adequately allow a
defendant to properly prepare for trial, he may well run afoul of the defendant's
right to be informed of the accusations against him.
 Thus, if the Information is lacking, a court should take a liberal attitude towards
its granting69 and order the government to file a bill of particulars elaborating on
the charges. Doubts should be resolved in favor of granting the bill 70 to give full
meaning to the accused’s Constitutionally guaranteed rights.
 Notably, the government cannot put the accused in the position of disclosing
certain overt acts through the Information and withholding others subsequently
discovered, all of which it intends to prove at the trial. This is the type of
surprise a bill of particulars is designed to avoid.71The accused is entitled to the
observance of all the rules designated to bring about a fair verdict. This
becomes more relevant in the present case where the crime charged carries
with it the severe penalty of capital punishment and entails the commission of
several predicate criminal acts involving a great number of
transactions spread over a considerable period of time.
 The Sandiganbayan’s denial of the petitioner’s motion for a bill of particulars,
on the ground that the details sought to be itemized or specified are all
evidentiary – without any explanation supporting this conclusion – constitutes
grave abuse of discretion.
 As discussed above, some of the desired details are material facts that must be
alleged to enable the petitioner to properly plead and prepare his defense. The
Sandiganbayan should have diligently sifted through each detail sought to be
specified, and made the necessary determination of whether each detail was an
ultimate or evidentiary fact, particularly after Enrile stated in his Reply that the
“desired details” could not be found in the bundle of documents marked by the
prosecution. We cannot insist or speculate that he is feigning ignorance of the
presence of these desired details; neither can we put on him the burden of
unearthing from these voluminous documents what the desired details are. The
remedy of a bill of particulars is precisely made available by the Rules to enable
an accused to positively respond and make an intelligent defense.
 Justice Carpio’s reference to the voluminous 144-page Ombudsman’s resolution
(which found probable cause to indict the petitioner and his co-accused not only
of the crime of plunder, but also for violations of several counts of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practice Act) to justify his argument that Enrile was already
aware of the details he seeks in his motion for a bill of particulars, all the more
strengthens our conclusive position that the Information for plunder filed against
Enrile was ambiguous and glaringly insufficient to enable him to make a proper
plea and to prepare for trial. We reiterate, to the point of being repetitive, that the
purpose of the bill of particulars in criminal cases is to supply vague facts or
allegations in the complaint or information to enable the accused to properly
plead and prepare for trial.
 Plunder involves intricate predicate criminal acts and numerous transactions and
schemes that span a period of time. Naturally, in its prosecution, the State
possesses an “effective flexibility” of proving a predicate criminal act or
transaction, not originally contemplated in the Information, but is otherwise
included in the broad statutory definition, in light of subsequently discovered
evidence. The unwarranted use of the flexibility is what the bill of particulars
guards against.