GR 213455 Perlas Bernabe (Digest)
G.R. No. 213455, August 11, 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.
FACTS
Petitioner Juan Ponce Enrile is charged with Plunder in relation to the anomalous scheme behind the utilization of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). He filed a motion for a bill of particulars before arraignment, seeking to specify vague allegations in the Information.
ISSUE
Whether the motion for a bill of particulars should be granted, and the proper scope and function of such a motion in a criminal case.
RULING
The Separate Concurring Opinion concurs with the ponencia that the motion for a bill of particulars should be partially granted. The opinion elaborates on the following principles:
1. The sufficiency of an Information is rooted in the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. A motion to quash is the remedy for an insufficient Information that fails to allege the ultimate facts constituting the offense. A motion for a bill of particulars, conversely, presupposes the Information is sufficient but couched in vague language; its purpose is to enable the accused to properly plead and prepare for trial by specifying details, not to supply evidential information.
2. If a motion for a bill of particulars is denied and arraignment proceeds, the accused must enter a plea. If he refuses, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him. If the denial is later reversed, the accused may change his plea upon consideration of the bill, which forms part of the Information. The original arraignment and plea remain valid.
3. In the context of a Plunder charge involving PDAF transactions, the accused must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to intelligently refute each component criminal act to disprove the combination or series of acts or the aggregate amount. The motion should be granted to specify details such as the specific overt acts making up the “combination or series,” the particular criminal acts under Section 1(d) of the Plunder Law alleged for each transaction, and the exact amount amassed, acquired, or accumulated for each act to show how the total threshold of P50,000,000.00 was reached.