JUAN PONCE ENRILE v.
PEOPLE of the PHILIPPINES • On July 3, the Sandiganbayan denied the motions and
August 11, 2015 | Brion, J.
Purpose of Information – Ultimate Facts vs. Evidentiary Facts – Bill
of Particulars
DAP
DOCTRINE: An information is intended to inform the accused of
the crime he is facing in sufficient detail for him to prepare his
defense. Ultimate facts are defined as those facts which the
expected evidence will support while evidentiary facts support
the existence of another alleged but unproven fact. The former
is material in the information but the latter is better ventilated
during trial. 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. Failure to ask for it deprives the defendant
of the right to object to pieces of evidence which would have
been unacceptable in a more specific information. It is given to
avoid surprises during trial.
CASE SUMMARY: Enrile asked for a bill of particulars as the
information for plunder re: Napoles NGO PDAF scam did not specify,
among others, the overt acts that are material to the case. SB denied
as the facts are allegedly all evidentiary. SC reversed as some of the
facts (incl. the overt acts) are material and should be described with
sufficient particularity.
FACTS:
• On June 5, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman filed an
Information for plunder against Enrile, Jessica Lucila Reyes,
Janet Lim Napoles, Ronald John Lim and John Raymund de
Asis before the Sandiganbayan. (information in Notes).
• Enrile responded by filing before the Sandiganbayan (1) an
urgent omnibus motion (motion to dismiss for lack of
evidence on record to establish probable cause and ad
cautelam motion for bail) on June 10, 2014 and (2) a
supplemental opposition to issuance of warrant of arrest and
for dismissal of Information on June 16, 2014. On June 24,
the prosecution filed a consolidated opposition to both
motions.
ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest on the plunder
case. Enrile received a notice of hearing on July 8, informing
him of arraignment before the Sandiganbayan Third Division
on July 11.
• On July 10, 2014, Enrile filed for a motion for a bill of
particulars and a motion to defer arraignment due to
medical examination at the Philippine General Hospital.
• On July 11, 2014, Enrile was brought to the Sandiganbayan
per the order and his motion for a bill of particulars was
called for hearing. The Court denied the motion as (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. Estelito Mendoza orally
sought a reconsideration of the denial of the motion for bill of
particulars but was denied as no new substantial grounds
were raised for the issuance of the BoP. Atty. Mendoza
moved for the deferment of the arraignment and the
Sandiganbayan asked the doctors to determine if Enrile was
fit for arraignment. After he was declared it, Enrile did not
plea, and the Sandiganbayan entered a Not Guilty plea on
his behalf.
• Enrile filed a petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the Sandiganbayan. He states that
the facts he asked are material and the grounds for motion
for bill of particulars was stated in a different context from his
opposition to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The People
aver that there was no grave discretion as the Information
already contained the ultimate facts. Enrile replied that the
denial of the BoP is a denial of his right to due process and
fairness in trial of the offense charged. The details also
couldn’t be found in the documents of the prosecution during
the preliminary conference. Finally, the motion for bill of
particulars was not dilatory.
ISSUE: WON there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
Sandiganbayan in denying Enrile’s motion for a bill of particulars on
the ground that the facts sought are evidentiary and best ventilated
during the trial – YES
RULING:
1. Purpose of Information
(in general)
a. Under the Constitution (Sections, 1 and 14
(specifically),
Art. III), a person who stands charged of a
criminal offense has the right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him. It is
required that the offense charged be stated with
clarity and with certainty to inform the accused of
the crime he is facing in sufficient detail for him
to prepare his defense.
b. US v. Karelsen: The object of the written accusation
is (1) see (a), (2) to avail himself of his onciction or
acquittal for protection against a further prosecution
for the same cause and (3) to inform the court of the
facts alleged so that it can decide whether they are
sufficient in law to warrant a conviction. To meet this
requirement, facts must be stated, not
conclusions of law. In short, the complaint must
contain a specific allegation of every fact and
circumstances necessary to constitute the crime
alleged.
c. Regarding procedural sufficiency, an information is
an accusation in writing charging a person with an
offense, signed by the prosecutor and filed with the
court. The requirement of sufficiency aims to enable
the accused to properly prepare for his defense as
he is presumed to have no independent
knowledge of the facts constituting the offense
charged.
d. It should provide the accused with fair notice. 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.
2. Ultimate facts as distinguished from evidentiary facts,
only need to be alleged/Evidentiary Facts and Ultimate
Facts re: Substantial requirements of an information
a. Doctrine
i. An information only needs to state the
ultimate facts constituting the offense.
Evidentiary and other details (e.g. facts
supporting the ultimate facts) can be
provided during the trial
ii. Ultimate facts are defined as those facts
which the expected evidence will support.
The term does not refer to the details of
probative matter or particulars of evidence
by which these material elements are to be
established." It refers to the facts that the
evidence will prove at the trial. It has also
been defined as the principal, determinative
and constitutive facts on whose existence
the cause of action rests and without which
the judgment would lack support in essential
particulars.
iii. Evidentiary facts, on the other hand, are
the facts necessary to establish the ultimate
facts; they are the premises that lead to the
ultimate facts as conclusion. They are facts
supporting the existence of some other
alleged and unproven fact. Matters of
evidence do not need to be alleged, only
facts essential to the nature of the offense
should be in the Information.
3. Bill of Particulars, purpose and availability/ Bill of
particulars re: Substantial requirements of an
information
a. Doctrine
i. 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 vi. Failure of the accused to move for the
him to properly plead and prepare for trial. specification of the details desired
ii. In criminal cases, a bill of particulars details DEPRIVES him of the RIGHT TO OBJECT
items or specific conduct not recited in TO EVIDENCE that could be introduced
the Information but nonetheless pertain and admitted under an Information of
to or are included in the crime charged. more or less general terms but which
Its purpose is to enable an accused: to know sufficiently charges the accused with a
the theory of the government's case; to definite crime.
prepare his defense and to avoid surprise at vii. The application for a bill of particulars is
the trial; to plead his acquittal or conviction addressed to the discretion of the court
in bar of another prosecution for the same but exercised within context of the facts,
offense; and to compel the prosecution to the nature of the crime charged in each
observe certain limitations in offering case and the right of the assued to be
evidence. informed of the nature and cause of
iii. The motion for the bill of particulars in accusation against him.
criminal proceedings is governed by viii. A motion to quash is filed when the facts
Section 9, Rule 116, Revised Rules of charged do not constitute an offense but a
Criminal Procedure (see notes) bill of particulars involves an information that
iv. The general function of a bill of particulars, is valid but general/vague. The latter is a
whether in civil or criminal proceedings, is to proper remedy for a valid information that is
guard against surprises during trial. It is not ambiguous.
the function of the bill to furnish the accused b. In The Case
with the evidence of the prosecution. Thus,
the prosecutor shall not be required to Element Proper Court’s
include in the bill of particulars matters of Requested Subject for Comment
evidence relating to how the people intend Bill of
to prove the elements of the offense Particulars
charged or how the people intend to prove ?
any item of factual information included in Who among the No The amount of ill-
the bill of particulars. accused gotten wealth
v. The purpose of a bill of particulars is to acquired the ill- acquired by each
supply vague facts or allegations in the gotten wealth? accused is
complaint or information to enable the immaterial for as
accused to properly plead and prepare for long as the total
trial. It presupposes a valid Information, amount is at least
one that presents all the elements of the P50M due to the
crime charged, albeit under vague terms. fact that plunder
Notably, the specifications that a bill of may be
particulars may supply are only formal committed in
amendments to the complaint or Information connivance

 which implies the
knowledge and series/combinatio
assent. n of acts that
Under what law No This is evidentiary constitute
is the PDAF as it will support plunder. The
designated as the ultimate fact desired details
Enrile’s/Amoun that the PDAF also weren’t
t of Enrile’s was used to fund found in the
PDAF/Findings spurious or ghost prosecution’s
that PDAF projects, along document
projects were with the exact bundles so
ghosts/spuriou amounts and the reference to it will
s details of the not cure the
COA audits re: defect. There
spurious projects must also be a
Who are the No The others are sum or a ballpark
other people not charged of figure of the
Enrile received conspiracy and amounts involved
kickbacks need not be in each
from? stated with transaction.
particularly. Approximate Yes Given the amount
Making the others dates of each of time in the
known would be act charge (6 years),
premature Enrile should not
disclosure of be left speculating
evidence which ones from
What are the Yes The several acts his numerous
overt acts must be stated PDAF
constituting the with enough transactions were
combination or particularity to covered by the
series and who allow Enrile and indictment to
committed the the co-accused to avoid difficulty in
acts prepare evidence preparation of the
to refute each defense and
alleged overt act. possible
The prosecution surprises.
made little effort Projects Yes Without the
to particularize funded and the project
and clustered the NGOs involved identification,
general view of Enrile couldn’t

 have released the par. (b) as the
funds to Napoles, overt acts and the
hence these are specification of
material facts material facts
needed to allow already answer
Enrile to prepare the question.
his defense
evidence on the • Plunder is a crime composed of several
specific predicate criminal acts. To prove plunder,
transaction the prosecution must weave a web out of
pointed to. the six ways of illegally amassing wealth and
Government Yes While the show how the various acts reveal a
agencies to particular persons combination or series of means or schemes
which Enrile are evidentiary, that reveal a pattern of criminality. The
endorsed the the identification interrelationship of the separate acts must
Napoles NGOs of the agency w/c be shown and be established as a scheme
to is an to accumulate ill-gotten wealth amounting to
indispensable at least P50 million.
participant in the • There is nothing wrong with transforming
PDAF scheme the information from an accusation in
will inform Enrile writing to an initiatory pleading alleging a
of the transaction cause of action. We see nothing wrong
referred to. This with such treatment, for a motion for a bill of
together with the particulars in criminal cases is designed to
previous two will achieve the same purpose as the motion for
allow the pattern a bill of particulars in civil cases. In fact,
of overt and certainty, to a reasonable extent, is an
criminal acts to essential attribute of all pleadings, both civil
indicate the and criminal, and is more especially needed
overall unlawful in the latter where conviction is followed by
scheme. penal consequences. More process is due,
Details on par. No The ruling not less.
(b) (how Enrile renders it • The two pleadings (dismiss/bill of
enriched unnecessary to particulars) are different contexts so
himself to the require the there is no reiteration of previously
prejudice of the prosecution to raised grounds. In the first, Enrile says that
People) submit further the information did not state the crime, in the
particulars on the latter, he asserts that it does state a crime
allegations but is ambiguous.
contained under

 • That every element constituting the representatives LIM, DE ASIS,
offense had been alleged in the and others, kickbacks or
Information does not preclude the commissions under the following
accused from requesting for more circumstances: before, during
specific details of the various acts or and/or after the project
omissions he is alleged to have identification, NAPOLES gave,
committed. The request for details is and ENRILE and/or REYES
precisely the function of a bill of received, a percentage of the cost
particulars. of a project to be funded from
ENRILE'S Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF), in
DISPOSITION: Motion partially granted/Sandiganbayan ruling set consideration of ENRILE'S
aside, bill of particulars to be furnished within 15 days to Enrile. endorsement, directly or through
REYES, to the appropriate
government agencies, of
NAPOLES' non-government
NOTES: organizations which became the
recipients and/or target
implementors of ENRILE'S PDAF
• INFORMATION
projects, which duly-funded
In 2004 to 2010 or thereabout, in the projects turned out to be ghosts or
Philippines, and within this Honorable Court's fictitious, thus enabling NAPOLES
jurisdiction, above-named accused JUAN to misappropriate the PDAF
PONCE ENRILE, then a Philippine Senator, proceeds for her personal gain;
JESSICA LUCILA G. REYES, then Chief of Staff (b) by taking undue advantage, on several
of Senator Enrile's Office, both public officers, occasions, of their official
committing the offense in relation to their positions, authority, relationships,
respective offices, conspiring with one another connections, and influence to
and with JANET LIM NAPOLES, RONALD unjustly enrich themselves at the
JOHN LIM, and JOHN RAYMUND DE ASIS, did expense and to the damage and
then and there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally prejudice, of the Filipino people
amass, accumulate, and/or acquire ill-gotten and the Republic of the
wealth amounting to at least ONE HUNDRED Philippines.
SEVENTY TWO MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED
THIRTY FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED CONTRARY TO LAW.
PESOS (Php172,834,500.00) through a
• (re: contents of information) To be considered as sufficient
combination or series of overt criminal acts, as
and valid, an information must state the name of the
follows:
accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute,
(a) by repeatedly receiving from the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of
NAPOLES and/or her the offended party, the approximate date of the commission

 of the offense and the place where the offense was
committed. If there is no designation, reference should be
made to the section of the stattue penalizing it. The acts
must be stated in ordinary and concise language. The Rules
do not require an exact allegation of the date unless the date
and the place are material ingredients or essential elements
of the offense or are necessary for its identification.
• 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.
• Elements of Plunder: The elements of plunder are:
(1) That the offender is a public officer who acts by
himself or in connivancewith members of his family,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates, or other persons;
(2) That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten
wealth through acombination or series of the
following overt or criminal acts:
(a) through misappropriation, conversion, misuse,
or malversation of public funds or raids on the
public treasury;
(b) by receiving, directly or indirectly, any
commission, gift, share, percentage, kickback or
any other form of pecuniary benefits from any
person and/or entity in connection with any
government contract or project or by reason of
the office or position of the public officer;
(c) by the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or
disposition of assets belonging to the National
Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies
or instrumentalities of Government-owned or -
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries;
(d) by obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or
indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other
form of interest or participation including the
promise of future employment in any business
enterprise or undertaking;
(e) by establishing agricultural, industrial or
commercial monopolies or other combinations
and/or implementation of decrees and orders
intended to benefit particular persons or special
interests; or
(f) by taking advantage of official position,
authority, relationship, connection or influence to
unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the
expense and to the damage and prejudice of the
Filipino people and the Republic of the
Philippines; and,
(3) That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-
gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is at
least P50,000,000.00.
• CARPIO DISSENT: These particulars do not refer to
ultimate facts, but rather to evidentiary matters which unduly
expand the details specifically required in Section 6, Rule
110 of the Rules of Court for a sufficient Information.
Petitioner and the ponencia have transformed the nature of
an Information from "an accusation in writing charging a
person with an offense" to an initiatory pleading alleging "a
cause of action." Unlike a complaint in civil proceedings
which must contain all the details constituting a cause of
action, an Information only needs to state, in ordinary and
concise language, "the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense" such that the accused understands
the crime he is being charged with and that when he pleads
to such charge, first jeopardy attaches. In other words, the
Information only needs to allege the ultimate facts
constituting the offense for which the accused stands
charged, not the finer details of why and how the illegal
acts alleged were committed. This is a longstanding and
deeply entrenched rule, applied by this Court in an unbroken
line of ever growing jurisprudence. The information, taken
together with the resolution from the ombudsman,
provide petitioner with the details to enable him properly
to plead and prepare for trial. As an inseparable
complement to the Information, the Resolution must be
read together with the allegations in the Information to
determine whether the allegations in the Information are
vague. It is only when the allegations in the Information,
taken together with the Resolution, leave ambiguities in the
basic facts constituting the elements of the offense of
plunder that a bill of particulars should issue.