G.R. No. 213455 JUAN PONCE ENRILE Vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Et. Al. 2015

JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HON. AMPARO M.
CABOTAJE-TANG, HON. SAMUEL R. MARTIRES, AND
HON. ALEX L. QUIROZ OF THE THIRD DIVISION OF
THE SANDIGANBAYAN, Respondents.
G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 2015
BRION, J.
FACTS
On June 5, 2014, petitioner Juan Ponce Enrile was
charged with plunder in the Sandiganbayan on the basis of
his purported involvement in the Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam. On July 3, 2014, a warrant
for Enrile’s arrest was issued, leading to petitioner’s
voluntary surrender. On July 10, 2014, Enrile filed a motion
for bill of particulars before the Sandiganbayan. On the
same date, he filed a motion for deferment of arraignment
since he was to undergo medical examination at the
Philippine General Hospital (PGH). The Court denied Enrile’s
motion for bill of particulars.
ISSUE
Whether or not Motion to Quash is the proper remedy if
the information is vague or indefinite resulting in the serious
violation of Enrile’s constitutional right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him
HELD
No. When allegations in 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. Thus, if
the Information is lacking, a court should take a liberal
attitude towards its granting and order the government to
file a bill of particulars elaborating on the charges. Doubts
should be resolved in favor of granting the bill 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. The 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. Notably, conviction for plunder
carries with it the penalty of capital punishment; for this
reason, more process is due, not less. When a person’s life
interest – protected by the life, liberty, and property
language recognized in the due process clause – is at stake
in the proceeding, all measures must be taken to ensure the
protection of those fundamental rights.
While both the motion to dismiss the Information and

the motion for bill of particulars involved the right of an
accused to due process, the enumeration of the details
desired in Enrile’s supplemental opposition to issuance of a
warrant of arrest and for dismissal of information and in his
motion for bill of particulars are different viewed particularly
from the prism of their respective objectives. In the former,
Enrile took the position that the Information did not state a
crime for which he can be convicted; thus, the Information
is void; he alleged a defect of substance. In the latter, he
already impliedly admits that the Information sufficiently
alleged a crime but is unclear and lacking in details that
would allow him to properly plead and prepare his defense;
he essentially alleged here a defect of form. Note that in the
former, the purpose is to dismiss the Information for its
failure to state the nature and cause of the accusation
against Enrile; while the details desired in the latter (the
motion for bill of particulars) are required to be specified in
sufficient detail because the allegations in the Information
are vague, indefinite, or in the form of conclusions and will
not allow Enrile to adequately prepare his defense unless
specifications are made. 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. Hence, while the information may be
sufficient for purposes of stating the cause and the crime an
accused is charged, the allegations may still be inadequate
for purposes of enabling him to properly plead and prepare
for trial.

G.R. No. 213455 JUAN PONCE ENRILE Vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Et. Al. 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 213455 JUAN PONCE ENRILE Vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Et. Al. 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 213455 JUAN PONCE ENRILE Vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Et. Al. 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Petitioner,

Notably, the government cannot put the accused in the

While both the motion to dismiss the Information and

You might also like