The Supreme Court (SC) has allowed government prosecutors to present all the pieces of evidence in their possession on the P172.8 million plunder case filed against former Senate president Juan Ponce Enrile and the other accused before the Sandiganbayan.
In 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) charged Enrile, now Presidential Legal Counsel, and his then chief of staff Jessica Lucila “Gigi” Reyes, businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles, Ronald John Lim, and John Raymund de Asis with plunder.
Enrile, Reyes and Napoles were also charged in 15 graft cases.
Enrile was accused of allegedly receiving P172.8 million in "kickbacks" from his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) that were reportedly endorsed to Napoles' non-government organizations. The alleged kickbacks were reportedly received by Enrile allegedly through " Reyes.
Enrile filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars with the Sandiganbayan to allow him to request specific details from the prosecution to properly prepare for trial.
The Sandiganbayan denied Enrile’s motion.
However, the SC in a decision dated Aug.11, 2015, ordered the prosecution to submit a Bill of Particulars on some of the items in Enrile’s motion.
The SC found that some of the requested information was necessary while some were not. OMB prosecutors complied with the SC’s directive.
But Enrile objected to the contents of the Pre-Trial Order which contained the actions taken during the pre-trial, the facts agreed upon by the parties, the issues to be tried, and the evidence marked.
Enrile pointed out that the prosecution’s evidence should be limited to those defined in the prosecution's Bill of Particulars.
When the Sandiganbayan decided to proceed with the trial, Enrile filed with the SC a petition for prohibition.
In dismissing Enrile’s petition in a decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Public Information Office (SC PIO) said: “The Court ruled that the prosecution’s evidence should not be limited to what is stated in the Bill of Particulars. A bill of particulars supplements the Information in criminal cases, providing details necessary for the accused to understand the prosecution's theory and prepare for their defense.”
The SC PIO also said: “While a bill of particulars can limit the prosecution’s evidence, this means that such evidence must relate to the specific crime charged in the Information.
“The Court further clarified that a bill of particulars does not and should not narrate the prosecution’s trial plan. Thus, it is expected that the prosecution, during the trial, will present evidence not mentioned in the bill of particulars.
“While some information was not included in the Bill of Particulars, as ordered by the Court in its 2015 Decision, some of it was actually relevant to the case. These are considered evidentiary matters that need not be in the Bill of Particulars because they are to be tackled during trial.
“The Court added that while a bill of particulars, together with the Information, is useful in identifying the main issues and ultimate facts, it is not an exhaustive list of the evidence the prosecution may present.”
Earlier, the Sandiganbayan has allowed Enrile to file a demurrer to evidence, a pleading that seeks an accused’s acquittal based on alleged weakness of the prosecution’s evidence.
A grant of a demurrer to evidence is tantamount to the acquittal of an accused.
The motions to file demurrer to evidence by Enrile’s co-accused Reyes and Napoles had been denied by the anti-graft court.
The Sandiganbayan had decided to resolve Enrile’s demurrer to evidence simultaneously with its main decision involving the other accused.
While the anti-graft court had announced it will resolve the plunder case last May, the issuance of the resolution was reset to June 21, 2024.
However, a check with the Sandiganbayan showed that the case has not been resolved as of posting.