THE Supreme Court has allowed the Sandiganbayan to proceed with the plunder charges filed against Chief Presidential Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile.
The Supreme Court en banc stressed in a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh that the prosecution should be allowed to present evidence at its discretion and in compliance with the law and regulations.
In 2014, the Ombudsman charged Enrile with plunder and graft for allegedly amassing P172 million from his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) when he was still a senator.
Chief Presidential Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile
Enrile subsequently filed a motion for a bill of particulars with the Sandiganbayan, which allows an accused person to request specific details from the prosecution to properly prepare for trial.
Get the latest news
delivered to your inbox
Sign up for The Manila Times newsletters
By signing up with an email address, I acknowledge that I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
The Sandiganbayan later denied Enrile’s motion.
However, in a decision dated Aug. 11, 2015, the Supreme Court ordered the prosecution to submit a bill of particulars on some of the items in Enrile’s motion after it found that some of the requested information was necessary while some were not.
The prosecution complied, and the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan continued.
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.
He argued that the prosecution’s evidence should be limited to those defined in the prosecution’s bill of particulars.
The Sandiganbayan proceeded with the trial, prompting Enrile to file a petition for prohibition with the Supreme Court.
In dismissing Enrile’s petition, 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 Court noted that 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 pointed out.
It 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.
>>> Read full article>>>
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source : The Manila Times – https://www.manilatimes.net/2024/07/30/news/national/supreme-court-lets-enrile-plunder-case-proceed/1960599
