The Prosecution’s Evidence Cannot Be Limited To What Is Stated in the Bill of Particulars

Juan Ponce Enrile vs. Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines [G.R. No. 258841, February 27, 2024]

Imagine being accused of a crime and feeling like the accusations are vague and unclear. You ask for more details, but then the court allows the prosecution to introduce evidence beyond those details. Would that be fair? In a recent case before the Philippine Supreme Court, former Senator Juan Ponce Enrile argued that the Sandiganbayan (special court for graft cases) was doing just that in his plunder case. The central legal question was whether the prosecution’s evidence should be strictly limited to the matters specified in a bill of particulars.

Legal Context: Ensuring Fair Trial Through Due Process

The Philippine Constitution guarantees every accused person the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. This is enshrined in Article III, Section 14, which states that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall… enjoy the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.”

This right is implemented through the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which require that an Information (the formal charge) must state:

• The name of the accused;
• The designation of the offense given by the statute;
• The acts or omissions complained of constituting the offense;
• The name of the offended party;
• The approximate date of the commission of the offense; and
• The place where the offense was committed.

However, sometimes the Information might be valid but lack specific details. That’s where a “bill of particulars” comes in. Rule 116, Section 9 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure allows the accused to request a bill of particulars to get more clarity and properly prepare for trial. It states: “The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him to properly plead and prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired.”

The key is that the Information must contain “ultimate facts,” not “evidentiary facts.” Ultimate facts are the essential facts that the evidence will prove at trial, while evidentiary facts are the details that support those ultimate facts. For example, in a theft case, the ultimate fact is that the accused took the victim’s wallet. Evidentiary facts would be witness testimonies describing the theft or security camera footage.

A bill of particulars is intended to guard against surprise during trial, and not the function of the bill to furnish the accused with the evidence of the prosecution.

Case Breakdown: Enrile’s Plunder Case and the Fight for Details

The case began in 2014 when the Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information with the Sandiganbayan, charging Juan Ponce Enrile, along with several others, with plunder. The Information alleged that Enrile, while a Senator, had amassed ill-gotten wealth of at least PHP 172.8 million through kickbacks and commissions from his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), also known as pork barrel funds. He allegedly conspired with Janet Lim Napoles and others to divert these funds to ghost projects implemented by Napoles’ non-government organizations (NGOs).

Enrile requested a bill of particulars, seeking more specific details about the charges. The Sandiganbayan initially denied this request, leading Enrile to file a Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court partially granted his petition, ordering the prosecution to provide more details, including:

• The specific overt acts constituting the alleged criminal acts;
• A breakdown of the kickbacks and commissions received;
• A brief description of the identified projects involved;
• Approximate dates of receipt of kickbacks;
• Names of Napoles’ NGOs involved; and
• Government agencies to whom Enrile allegedly endorsed the NGOs.

After the prosecution submitted its bill of particulars, the proceedings continued. Enrile then argued that the prosecution’s evidence should be limited to the overt acts described in the bill of particulars. The Sandiganbayan disagreed, stating that the ultimate issue was whether Enrile was guilty of plunder and that it would not limit the prosecution’s evidence at this stage.

Enrile then filed a Petition for Prohibition with the Supreme Court, arguing that the Sandiganbayan had disregarded the bill of particulars and violated his constitutional rights. He claimed the Sandiganbayan’s actions constituted a vexatious, oppressive, unjustified, and capricious delay, violating his right to a speedy trial.

However, the Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Sandiganbayan, emphasizing a critical point: “The general function of a bill of particulars, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, is to guard against surprise 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.”

The Court stated that to limit the prosecution to the presentation only of evidence mentioned in the Information and the Bill of Particulars would be to shackle and tie its hands and deprive it of the free exercise of its discretion to determine who and what to present. The prosecution possesses the discretion to determine how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.

Practical Implications: The Scope of Evidence in Criminal Trials

This ruling clarifies the role of a bill of particulars in Philippine criminal procedure. While it ensures the accused is informed of the charges, it doesn’t restrict the prosecution’s ability to present its case fully. This decision prevents defendants from using the bill of particulars to unduly limit the evidence presented against them.

The Sandiganbayan’s position was also upheld by the Supreme Court, stating that the Sandiganbayan cannot direct the prosecution to observe certain limitations in offering evidence, precisely when no evidence has yet been offered since trial has not yet started as to him.

Key Lessons:

• A bill of particulars is for informing the accused, not revealing the prosecution’s entire strategy.
• The prosecution can present evidence beyond what’s listed in the bill of particulars, as long as it’s relevant to the charges.
• Defendants must raise objections to specific pieces of evidence during trial, rather than trying to broadly limit the prosecution’s case beforehand.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: What is a bill of particulars?

A: It’s a request for more specific details about the charges in a criminal case, helping the accused prepare their defense.

Q: Does a bill of particulars limit the evidence the prosecution can present?

A: No, the prosecution can present relevant evidence beyond what’s in the bill of particulars.

Q: What should I do if I think the prosecution is presenting irrelevant evidence?

A: Object to the evidence during trial, explaining why it’s not relevant to the charges.

Q: What is grave abuse of discretion?

A: It means acting in an arbitrary or despotic manner due to passion, prejudice, or personal hostility.

Q: What if the Sandiganbayan disregards the Bill of Particulars Decision?

A: Unless and until Enrile is able to show that the Sandiganbayan has acted in a manner that patently disregards the Bill of Particulars or that is in any manner contrary to law, the Court finds no reason to interfere with the proceedings in the Sandiganbayan.

ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and ensuring due process. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.