Enrile Rule 116 PDF
Enrile Rule 116 PDF
CASES REPORTED
____________________
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.
_______________
* EN BANC.
2
3
4
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
6
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
9
10
11
12
13
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
14
15
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
16
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
17
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
18
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
19
BRION, J.:
We resolve the “petition for certiorari with prayers (a)
for the Court En Banc to act on the petition; (b) to expedite
the proceedings and to set the case for oral arguments; and
(c) to issue a temporary restraining order to the
respondents from holding a pretrial and further
proceedings in Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0238”1 filed
by petitioner Juan Ponce Enrile (Enrile) challenging the
July 11, 2014 resolutions2 of the Sandiganbayan.
I.
The Antecedents
On June 5, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman filed an
Information3 for plunder against Enrile, Jessica Lucila
Reyes, Janet Lim Napoles, Ronald John Lim, and John
Raymund de Asis before the Sandiganbayan.
_______________
21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 21/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
22
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
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),4 and (2) a supplemental
opposition to issuance of warrant of arrest and for dismissal
of Information,5 on June 10, 2014, and June 16, 2014,
respectively. The Sandiganbayan heard both motions on
June 20, 2014.
On June 24, 2014, the prosecution filed a consolidated
opposition to both motions.
On July 3, 2014, the Sandiganbayan denied Enrile’s
motions and ordered the issuance of warrants of arrest on
the plunder case against the accused.6
On July 8, 2014, Enrile received a notice of hearing7
informing him that his arraignment would be held before
the Sandiganbayan’s Third Division on July 11, 2014.
On July 10, 2014, Enrile filed a motion for bill of
particulars8 before the Sandiganbayan. On the same
date, he filed a motion for deferment of arraignment9 since
he was to undergo medical examination at the Philippine
General Hospital (PGH).
On July 11, 2014, Enrile was brought to the
Sandiganbayan pursuant to the Sandiganbayan’s order
and his motion
_______________
23
_______________
10 Id., at pp. 167A-169; see also Annexes “B,” “B-1,” and “B-2” at pp.
93-166.
24
xxxx
In today’s consideration of accused Juan Ponce Enrile’s Motion
for Bill of Particulars, the Court heard the parties on oral
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
25
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 25/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
26
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
27
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
28
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 28/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
29
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 29/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
30
_______________
31
B. Enrile’s Reply
In his Reply, Enrile essentially claims that the right to
move for a bill of particulars is “ancillary to and in
implementation” of an accused’s rights to due process, to be
heard, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. He maintains that the
Sandiganbayan’s denial of his motion for bill of particulars
is not “a mere denial of a procedural right under the Rules
of Court, but of rights vested in an accused under the
Constitution to ensure fairness in the trial of the offense
charged.” Enrile also adds that there could only be a fair
trial if he could properly plead to the Information and
prepare for trial.
Enrile further argues that the People’s Comment did not
dispute the relevance of the details sought in the motion for
bill of particulars. He likewise claims that the “desired
details” could not be found in the bundle of
documents marked by the prosecution during the
preliminary conference. Finally, Enrile maintains that
his motion for bill of particulars was not dilatory.
III.
The Court’s Ruling
After due consideration, we resolve to partially
GRANT the petition under the terms outlined below.
32
_______________
33
The objective, in short, is to describe the act with
sufficient certainty to fully appraise the accused of the
nature of the charge against him and to avoid possible
surprises that may lead to injustice. Otherwise, the
accused would be left speculating on why he has been
charged at all.18
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 33/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
17 Id., at p. 226.
18 See Burgos v. Sandiganbayan, 459 Phil. 794, 806; 413 SCRA 385,
392 (2003).
19 150-B Phil. 78, 89-90; 46 SCRA 88, 90-91 (1972).
20 See City of Manila v. Laguio, Jr., 495 Phil. 289, 311; 455 SCRA 308,
330 (2005), citing 16 C.J.S., pp. 1150-1151.
34
This Court has been liberal in giving the lower courts the
widest latitude of discretion in setting aside default orders
justified under the right to due process principle. Plain justice
demands and the law requires no less that defendants must know
what the complaint against them is all about.
x x x In the interest of justice, we need to dispel the impression
in the individual respondents’ minds that they are being
railroaded out of their rights and properties without due process
of law.23
B. Procedural Sufficiency of the Information
An Information is an accusation in writing charging a
person with an offense, signed by the prosecutor and filed
with
35
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 35/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
36
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 36/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
28 People v. Romualdez, 581 Phil. 462, 479-480; 559 SCRA 492, 508
(2008).
29 See Salita v. Magtolis, G.R. No. 106429, June 13, 1994, 233 SCRA
100, 105.
30 See Philippine Bank of Communications v. Trazo, 531 Phil. 636,
653; 500 SCRA 242, 256-257 (2006).
31 See Brundage v. KL House Construction Company, 396 P.2d 731
(N.M. 1964).
32 Tantuico, Jr. v. Republic, G.R. No. 89114, December 2, 1991, 204
SCRA 428, 437, citing Womack v. Industrial Comm., 168 Colo. 364, 451
P.2d 761, 764.
33 Id., citing Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed., p. 500.
37
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 37/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
While it is fundamental that every element of the
offense must be alleged in the Information, matters of
evidence — as distinguished from the facts essential to the
nature of the offense — do not need to be alleged. Whatever
facts and circumstances must necessarily be alleged are to
be determined based on the definition and the essential
elements of the specific crimes.36
C. Arraignment
The procedural due process mandate of the Constitution
requires that the accused be arraigned so that he may be
fully informed as to why he was charged and what penal
offense he has to face, to be convicted only on showing that
his
_______________
34 413 Phil. 159; 360 SCRA 618 (2001). This case involved a violation
of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. The Court held that knowledge of insufficiency
of funds is the ultimate fact, or element of the offense that needs to be
proved, while dishonor of the check presented within ninety (90) days is
merely the evidentiary fact of such knowledge.
35 Id., at p. 175; p. 629.
36 Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, 479 Phil. 265, 288-289; 435 SCRA
371, 389 (2004).
38
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 38/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
39
_______________
40
The rule requires the information to describe the offense
with sufficient particularity to apprise the accused of the
crime charged with and to enable the court to pronounce
judgment. The particularity must be such that persons
of ordinary intelligence may immediately know what
the Information means.50
The general function of a bill of particulars, whether in
civil or criminal proceedings, is to guard against
surprises during trial. It is not the function of the bill to
furnish the
_______________
47 Virata v. Sandiganbayan, 339 Phil. 47, 62; 272 SCRA 661, 676
(1997).
48 Remmer v. United States, 9 Cir., 1953, 205 F.2d 277, 281; United
States v. Caserta, 3 Cir., 1952, 199 F.2d 905.
49 See US v. Kelly, 92 F. Supp. 672, 673 (W.D. Mo. 1950).
50 Supra note 36.
41
C.2. Origin of bill of particulars in criminal
cases52
Even before the promulgation of the 1964 Rules of
Court, when the applicable rules for criminal procedure
was still General Order No. 58,53 the Court had already
recognized the need for a bill of particulars in criminal
cases. This recognition came despite the lack of any specific
provision in General Order No. 58 setting out the rules for a
bill of particulars in criminal cases.
In U.S. v. Schneer,54 the issue presented was whether a
bill of particulars was available in a criminal case for estafa
after the accused had already been arraigned. The Court
essentially ruled that there was no specific provision of law
expressly authorizing the filing of specifications or bills of
particulars in criminal cases, and held that:
In U.S. v. Cernias,55 however, the Court formally
recognized the existence and applicability of a bill of
particulars in criminal cases. In this case, the prosecution
filed an informa-
_______________
42
_______________
56 Id., at p. 690.
57 See People v. Abad Santos, 76 Phil. 746 (1946).
58 Id., at p. 745.
59 Id., at pp. 746-747.
43
_______________
44
_______________
45
Notably, the failure of the accused to move for the
specification of the details desired deprives him of
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 45/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
46
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 46/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
47
_______________
48
_______________
49
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 50/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
51
52
_______________
53
_______________
93 Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 427 Phil. 820, 860; 377 SCRA 538, 565
(2002).
94 354 Phil. 372; 292 SCRA 360 (1998).
95 Id., at pp. 388-389; pp. 376-377.
54
and
These matters will simply establish and support the
ultimate fact that Enrile’s PDAF was used to fund fictitious
or nonexistent projects. Whether a discretionary fund (in
the form of PDAF) had indeed been made available to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 54/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
We also deny Enrile’s plea for details on who “the
others” were (aside from Napoles, Lim and De Asis) from
whom he allegedly received kickbacks and commissions.
These other persons do not stand charged of conspiring
with Enrile and need not therefore be stated with
particularly, either as specific individuals or as John Does.
The Court cannot second-guess the prosecution’s reason for
not divulging the identity of these “others” who may
potentially be witnesses for the prosecution.
What the Constitution guarantees the accused is simply
the right to meet and examine the prosecution witnesses.
The prosecution has the prerogative to call witnesses other
than those named in the complaint or information, subject
to the
56
D.2.a. Reason for Requirement
for Particulars of Overt
Acts
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 56/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
Plunder is the crime committed by public officers when
they amass wealth involving at least P50 million by means
of a combination or series of overt acts.97 Under these
terms, it is not sufficient to simply allege that the amount
of ill-gotten wealth amassed amounted to at least P50
million; the manner of amassing the ill-gotten wealth —
whether through a combination or series of overt acts
under Section 1(d) of R.A. No. 7080 — is an important
element that must be alleged.
_______________
96 See Section 1(a), Rule 116, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
The last sentence reads: The prosecution may call at the trial witnesses
other than those named in the complaint or information.
97 Boado, Leonor, Notes and Cases on the Revised Penal Code (Books 1
and 2) and Special Penal Laws, 2004 edition, p. 554.
57
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 57/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
98 Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 421 Phil. 290, 351; 369 SCRA 394, 438
(2001).
58
_______________
59
_______________
CHAIRMAN TAÑADA:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 59/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
Yes.
HON. ISIDRO:
So, in other words…that’s it. When we say combination, we
mean two different acts, it cannot be a repetition of the same act.
CHAIRMAN GARCIA:
That will refer to series.
HON. ISIDRO:
No, no supposing one act is repeated, so there are two.
x x x x
See also Rodriguez, Rufus B., The Crime of Plunder in the Philippines,
1st edition, 2002.
60
_______________
62
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 62/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
The government agencies to whom Enrile endorsed
Napoles’ NGOs are also material facts that must be
specified, since they served a necessary role in the crime
charged — the alleged conduits between Enrile and
Napoles’ NGOs. They were indispensable participants in
the elaborate scheme alleged to have been committed.
63
_______________
64
a civil case and did not involve the crime of plunder, the
Court’s ruling nonetheless serves as a useful guide in the
determination of what matters are indispensable and what
matters may be omitted in the Information, in relation
with the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 64/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
102 See Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 170122, October 12, 2009,
603 SCRA 349, 361.
65
_______________
66
not the same. This is the only way that the accused can
properly prepare for his defense during trial.
D.3. Paragraph (b) of the Information
As his last requested point, Enrile wants the prosecution
to provide the details of the allegation under paragraph (b)
of the Information (i.e., x x x by taking undue advantage, on
several occasions, of their official position, authority,
relationships, connections, and influence to unjustly enrich
themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice,
of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines) in
the following manner:
Our ruling on Enrile’s desired details — specifically, the
particular overt act/s alleged to constitute the
“combination” and “series” charged in the Information; a
breakdown of the amounts of the kickbacks and
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 66/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
106 Berger v. State, 179 Md. 410 (1941); Hunter v. State, 193 Md. 596
(1949).
69
70
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 70/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
108 State v. Canova, 278 Md. 483, 498-99, 365 A.2d 988, 997-98 (1976).
109 State v. Lassotovitch, 162 Md. 147, 156, 159 A. 362, 366 (1932).
110 Republic v. Sandiganbayan (2nd Division), supra note 21.
71
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 71/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
72
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 73/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
74
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 75/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
112 See Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 197293, April 21, 2014, 722 SCRA
647.
76
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 76/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
78
DISSENTING OPINION
CARPIO, J.:
I dissent from the ponencia which partially grants
petitioner’s motion for a bill of particulars and directs the
Ombudsman to file an Amended Information
containing the following particulars:
79
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 78/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
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.
Information Filed Against Petitioner Sufficient
An Information charging a person with an offense is
sufficient if, among others, it states “the acts or omissions
complained of as constituting the offense,” using “ordinary
and concise language.”2 The minimum requirement is that
the allegations in the Information state the basic, ultimate
facts constituting the elements of the offense (and
aggravating or qualifying circumstances3) such that if the
accused is later on prosecuted for the same offense, he can
claim prior jeopardy.4 All other details can be left out, to be
supplied during the presentation of the prosecution’s case
during trial. After all, what the Constitution guarantees to
the accused is that he is informed of the “nature and cause
of the accusation against him”5 and not of the “dates,
names, amounts, and other sundry details” relating to the
offense charged. If “a person of common understanding x x
x [can] know what offense is being
_______________
80
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 79/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
In relation to the second element, the six modes of
accumulating ill-gotten wealth under Section 1(d) of RA
7080 are:
_______________
81
xxxx
In 2004 to 2010 or thereabout, in the Philippines, and within
this Honorable Court’s jurisdiction, above named accused JUAN
PONCE ENRILE, then a Philippine Senator, JESSICA LUCILA
G. REYES, then Chief of Staff of Senator Enrile’s Office, both
public officers, committing the offense in relation to their
respective offices, conspiring with one another and with JANET
LIM NAPOLES, RONALD JOHN LIM, and JOHN RAYMUND
DE ASIS, did then and there willfully, unlaw-
82
_______________
83
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 82/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
84
_______________
85
_______________
17 Miguel v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 172035, 4 July 2012, 675 SCRA
560; Go v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, 619 Phil. 306; 604 SCRA 322
(2009); Lazarte, Jr. v Sandiganbayan, 600 Phil. 475; 581 SCRA 431
(2009); People v. Romualdez, 581 Phil. 462; 559 SCRA 492 (2008); People
v. Batin, 564 Phil. 249; 539 SCRA 272 (2007); Caballero v.
Sandiganbayan, 560 Phil. 302; 534 SCRA 30 (2007); Cruz v. San-
diganbayan, 504 Phil. 321; 467 SCRA 52 (2005); Domingo v.
Sandiganbayan, 379 Phil. 708; 322 SCRA 655 (2000); Socrates v.
Sandiganbayan, 324 Phil. 151; 253 SCRA 773 (1996); Gallego v.
Sandiganbayan, 201 Phil. 379; 115 SCRA 793 (1982). For the application
of the rule to determine the crime charged, see People v. Sanico, G.R. No.
208469, 13 August 2014, 733 SCRA 158; People v. Banzuela, G.R. No.
202060, 11 December 2013, 712 SCRA 735; Pielago v. People, G.R. No.
202020, 13 March 2013, 693 SCRA 476; People v. Rayon, G.R. No. 194236,
30 January 2013, 689 SCRA 745; People v. Subesa, G.R. No. 193660, 16
November 2011, 660 SCRA 390; Flordeliz v. People, 628 Phil. 124; 614
SCRA 225 (2010); People v. Sumingwa, 618 Phil. 650; 603 SCRA 638
(2009); People v. Anguac, 606 Phil. 728; 588 SCRA 716 (2009); Los Baños
v. Pedro, 604 Phil. 215; 586 SCRA 303 (2009); People v. Abello, 601 Phil.
373; 582 SCRA 378 (2009); Olivarez v. Court of Appeals, 503 Phil. 421; 465
SCRA 465 (2005); Malto v. People, 560 Phil. 119; 533 SCRA 643
(2007); Reyes v. Camilon, G.R. No. 46198, 20 December 1990, 192 SCRA
445; People v. Mendoza, 256 Phil. 1136; 175 SCRA 743 (1989).
18 Miguel v. Sandiganbayan, supra.
19 Go v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, supra.
20 People v. Romualdez, supra.
86
mations filed in those cases did not suffer from any defect
as they alleged the ultimate, material facts of the offense
for which the accused stood charged. The accused in
Miguel, who stood charged with violation of Section 3(e) of
Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019), had argued that the
Information filed against him was defective because the
allegation of “evident bad faith and manifest partiality”
within the contemplation of such provision referred to his
co-accused. We rejected such claim, noting that the
allegation in question “was merely a continuation of the
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 85/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
87
_______________
88
_______________
89
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 88/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
90
_______________
91
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 90/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
92
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 91/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
93
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 92/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
That this Court had no occasion to review the clarity of
the allegations in the Estrada Information45 for purposes of
issuing a bill of particulars is no argument to ignore the
import of such allegations to resolve the case at bar. On the
contrary, Estrada’s decision not to seek a bill of particulars
can only mean that he considered such allegations clear
enough to allow him, with the aid of his counsel, now
petitioner’s counsel, to “properly x x x plead and prepare for
trial.”46
_______________
94
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 93/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
95
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 94/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
50 Id., at pp. 172-226. Petitioner assailed the contents of the affidavits
and other public documents in question not because they lacked the
details substantiating the charge filed against him but because he
considered them either hearsay or without probative value.
51 Balitaan v. CFI of Batangas, 201 Phil. 311, 323; 115 SCRA 729, 739
(1982).
52 See Section 5(5), Article VIII, Constitution. This provision reads:
“SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
x x x x
96
_______________
97
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 96/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 97/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
98
_______________
x x x x
60 Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code pertinently
provide:
Article 266-A. Rape, When And How Committed.—Rape is committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any
of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be
present.
x x x x
Article 266-B. Penalty.—Rape under paragraph 1 of the next
preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
61 Presidential Decree No. 1689, dated 6 April 1980, increased the
penalty for certain forms of swindling or estafa. Section 1 thereof provides:
Section 1. Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other
forms of swindling as defined in Articles 315 and 316 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, shall be punished by life imprisonment to death if the
swindling (estafa) is committed by a syndicate consisting of five or more
persons formed with the intention of carrying out the unlawful or illegal
act, transaction, enterprise or scheme, and the defraudation results in the
misappropriation of money contributed by stockholders, or members of
rural banks, cooperatives, samahang nayon(s), or farmers associations, or
of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.
x x x x
62 Republic Act No. 10364, or the “Expanded Anti-Trafficking in
Persons Act of 2012” amended Sections 6 and 10 of Republic Act No. 9208
to pertinently read as follows:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 98/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
99
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 99/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
100
_______________
64 Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and
Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as amended by Republic Act No. 10022,
pertinently provides:
x x x x
(b) The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two
million pesos (P2,000,000.00) nor more than Five million pesos
(P5,000,000.00) shall be imposed if illegal recruitment constitutes
economic sabotage as defined therein.
Section 5(m) of the same law states that: “Illegal recruitment when
committed by a syndicate or in large scale shall be considered as offense
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 100/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
101
_______________
102
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 102/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
offense x x x.” Rule 110, Section 6 states the rule on the sufficiency of an
Information: “A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the
name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the
statute; the acts or omissions complained of as 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.” (Emphasis supplied)
68 G.R. Nos. 212140-41, 21 January 2015, 748 SCRA 1.
103
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 103/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
104
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 104/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
105
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 105/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
106
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 106/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
107
Annex “A”
OMB-C-C-13-0318
FOR: VIOLATION OF RA 7080 (PLUNDER)
(Criminal Case)
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NBI)
REP. BY: Asst. Dir. MEDARDO DE LEMOS, ATTY.
LEVITO D. BALIGOD, complainants, vs. JUAN PONCE
ENRILE, Senator Senate of the Philippines, JESSICA
LUCILA GONZALES REYES, Former Chief of Staff, Office
of Senator Enrile, JOSE ANTONIO EVANGELISTA II,
Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of Senator Enrile, ALAN A.
JAVELLANA, President, National Agribusiness
Corporation, GONDELINA G. AMATA, President, National
Livelihood Development Corporation, ANTONIO Y. ORTIZ,
Director General, Technology Resource Center, DENNIS
LACSON CUNANAN, Deputy Director General Technology
Resource Center, VICTOR ROMAN COJAMCO CACAL
Paralegal National Agribusiness Corporation, ROMULO
M. RELEVO, General Services Unit Head, National
Agribusiness Corporation, MARIA NINEZ P. GUAÑIZO,
Bookkeeper/OIC-Accounting Division, National
Agribusiness Corporation, MA. JULIE A. VILLARALVO-
JOHNSON, Former Chief Accountant, National
Agribusiness Corporation, RHODORA BULATAD
MENDOZA, Former Director for Financial Management
Services/Former Vice President for Administration and
Finance, National Agribusiness Corporation, GREGORIA
G. BUENAVENTURA, Division Chief, Asset Management
Division, National Livelihood Development Corporation,
EMMANUEL ALEXIS G. SEVIDAL, Director IV, National
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 107/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
108
_______________
109
_______________
110
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 110/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
111
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 111/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
112
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 112/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
113
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 113/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
114
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 114/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
115
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 115/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
Having arisen from the same or similar facts and
transactions, these cases are resolved jointly.
I. The Factual Background
On March 22, 2013, agents of the NBI, acting on a
complaint from the parents of Benhur Luy (Luy) that Luy
had been illegally detained, swooped down on the South
Wing Gardens of the Pacific Plaza Tower in Bonifacio
Global City,
116
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 116/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
7 Still at large.
8 Presently detained at Fort Sto. Domingo, Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
9 Luy, Sula and Suñas have been admitted into the Department of
Justice’s Witness Protection Program.
117
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 117/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
118
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 118/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
119
_______________
120
The following table discloses the details of Senator
Enrile’s utilization of his Php345,000,000.00 PDAF:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 120/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
121
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 121/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
122
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 122/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
123
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 123/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
124
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 124/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
125
126
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 126/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
127
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 127/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
128
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 128/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
129
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 129/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
130
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 130/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
131
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 131/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
132
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 132/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
133
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 133/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
134
_______________
135
most all of the NGOs that received PDAF releases did not
have a track record on the implementation of government
projects, and their addresses were dubious; (e) the selection
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 135/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 136/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
and the DBM should have strictly complied with laws and
rules on government expenditures to prevent possible
misuse or irregularities; IAs were responsible for ensuring
that the NGOs tasked to implement the projects were
legitimate; and his only involvement in the utilization of
the PDAF was to endorse specific projects for local
government units.
He maintains that he did not persuade, influence or
induce any official or employee of the IAs concerned to
violate existing procurement or audit laws and rules; as a
member of the legislative branch, he has no power of
control or supervision over IAs, which are part of the
executive branch; he did not endorse any NGO as conduit
for the implementation of the
_______________
139
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 139/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
140
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 140/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
141
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 141/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
142
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 142/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
106 In OMB-C-C-13-0318.
107 Records, pp. 727-760, Folder 21, OMB-C-C-13-0396.
143
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 143/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
144
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 144/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
145
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 145/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
146
_______________
147
_______________
148
_______________
149
_______________
151
_______________
152
Other Respondents
In his 15 January 2014 Counter-Affidavit,120 DE ASIS
admits having been an employee of the JLN Group of
Companies from 2006-2010 in various capacities as either
driver, bodyguard or messenger, and that he received a
salary of P10,000/month for serving as the driver and
“errand boy” of Napoles. He alleges that he picked up
checks for Napoles- affiliated NGOs but only because he
was instructed to do so; he has no knowledge in setting up
or managing corporations such as CARED, which he
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 152/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
153
records because “he has not seen them before, nor had prior
knowledge about them”; and there are discrepancies
between his actual signature and the signature appearing
in the PDAF documents that allegedly belong to him.
In their Joint Counter-Affidavit124 dated 21 February
2014, Jo Christine and James Christopher Napoles,
children of Janet Napoles, cite the FIO complaint’s
insufficiency in form and substance for failing to specify the
acts or omissions committed by them which constitute the
offenses charged, thereby failing to allege and substantiate
the elements of Plunder and violation of Section 3(e) of RA
3019; and the affidavits of complainant’s witnesses contain
nothing more than hearsay, self-serving statements which
are “not worthy of credence.”
IV. Discussion
Procedural Issues
Respondents Relampagos,
Bare, Nuñez and Paule
were properly impleaded
_______________
154
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 154/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
155
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 155/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
156
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 156/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
Based on the above provision, the complainant or
initiating party is duty bound only to disclose the existence
of an earlier action or claim filed by him or her, and which
involves the same issues. He or she is not required to
disclose the existence of pending suits or complaints
previously filed by another party.
In this case, the FIO had no obligation to disclose the
existence of OMB-C-C-13-0318 for the simple reason that it
was not the initiating party of this complaint. Rather, as
Sevidal himself admits, the NBI, and not the FIO, is the
complainant in OMB-C-C-13-0318. The FIO is not even a
party to OMB-C-
_______________
157
C-13-0318. Thus, this Office fails to see why the FIO should
be faulted for not mentioning the existence of this
particular complaint.
The filing of the complaints
was not premature
Sevidal and Ordoñez proceed to argue that the filing of
the criminal charges against them and their corespondents
is premature because the COA had yet to issue notices of
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 157/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
158
As reflected in the above elements, the concept of a
prejudicial question involves both a civil and a criminal
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 158/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
159
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 159/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
Moreover, nothing in existing laws or rules expressly
state that a disallowance by the COA is a pre-requisite for
the filing of a criminal complaint for Plunder,131
Malversation132 or violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019. In
fact, an audit disallowance is not even an element of any of
these offenses.
Sevidal and Ordoñez’s reference to Rule XIII, Section 6
of the 2009 COA Rules also fails to impress. This provision
reads:
_______________
160
_______________
162
_______________
163
_______________
164
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 164/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
11. . . . It starts with a call or advise from Atty. Gigi Reyes or
Mr. Jose Antonio Evangelista (also from the Office of Senator
Enrile) informing me that a budget from Senator Enrile’s PDAF is
available. I would then relay this information to Janet
Napoles/Benhur Luy.
12. Janet Napoles/Benhur Luy would then prepare a listing of
the projects available indicating the implementing agencies. This
listing would be sent to Atty. Gigi Reyes who will endorse the
same to the DBM under her authority as Chief of Staff of Senator
Enrile.
13. After the listing is released by the Office of Senator Enrile
to the DBM, Janet Napoles would give me a down payment for
delivery for the share of Senator Enrile through Atty. Gigi Reyes.
14. After the SARO and/or NCA is released, Janet Napoles
would give me the full payment for delivery to Senator Enrile
through Atty. Gigi Reyes.
_______________
165
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 165/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
Aside from Tuason’s statement, the following set of
documentary evidence supports the modus operandi
described by witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas: (a) the
business ledgers prepared by witness Luy, showing the
amounts received by Senator Enrile, through Tuason and
Reyes, as his “commission” from the so-called PDAF
scam;142 (b) the 2007-2009 COA Report documenting the
results of the special audit undertaken on PDAF
disbursements — that there were serious irregularities
relating to the implementation of PDAF-funded projects,
_______________
166
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 166/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
167
supervision.
Encarnita Certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF
Cristina P. releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under
Munsod her direct supervision.
Certified in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF
Romulo M.
releases were necessary, lawful and incurred under
Relevo
his direct supervision.
Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds were
Ma. Ninez
available and supporting documents were complete
P. Guañizo
and proper.
Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds were
Ma. Julie V.
available and supporting documents were complete
Johnson
and proper.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 168/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
NLDC
RESPONDENT PARTICIPATION
Signatory to MOAs with APMFI, CARED and
Gondelina G. MAMFI; approved disbursement vouchers
Amata relating to PDAF disbursements; and cosigned
the corresponding checks issued to the NGOs.
Chita C. Cosigned the corresponding checks issued to the
Jalandoni NGOs.
Certified in disbursement vouchers that the
Emmanuel
PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and
Alexis G. Sevidal
incurred under his direct supervision.
Ofelia E. Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds
Ordoñez were available.
Certified in disbursement vouchers that
Sofia D. Cruz supporting documents were complete and
proper.
Checked and verified the endorsement letters of
Gregoria
respondent Enrile; confirmed the authenticity of
Buenaventura
the authorization
169
RESPONDENT PARTICIPATION
Signatory to MOAs with CARED and APMFI;
approved disbursement vouchers relating to
Antonio Y. Ortiz
PDAF disbursements; and cosigned the
corresponding checks issued to the NGOs.
Certified in disbursement vouchers that the
Dennis L.
PDAF releases were necessary, lawful and
Cunanan
incurred under his direct supervision.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 169/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
RESPONDENT PARTICIPATION
Assisted in the preparation/review of
memoranda of agreement with NGOs; certified
Francisco B. in disbursement vouchers that the PDAF
Figura releases were necessary, lawful and incurred
under his direct supervision; and cosigned the
corresponding checks issued to the NGOs.
Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds
Marivic Jover were available and supporting documents were
complete and proper.
Oversaw the processing of PDAF releases to
Ma. Rosalinda
NGOs; and assisted in the preparation/review of
Lacsamana
memoranda of agreement with NGOs.
Consuelo Lilian Certified in disbursement vouchers that funds
Espiritu were available.
170
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 170/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
To be actionable under Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act, partiality must be manifest. There
must be a clear, notorious and plain inclination or
predilection to favor one side rather than the other. Simply
put, the public officer or employee’s predisposition towards
a particular person should be intentional and evident.
That Napoles and the NGOs affiliated with/controlled by
her were extended undue favor is manifest.
_______________
146 G.R. Nos. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010, 614 SCRA 670.
171
National Budget Circular (NBC) No. 476,147 as amended
by NBC No. 479, provides that PDAF allocations should be
directly released only to those government agencies
identified in the project menu of the pertinent General
Appropriations Act (GAAs). The GAAs in effect at the time
material to the charges, however, did not authorize the
direct release of funds to NGOs, let alone the direct
contracting of NGOs to implement government projects.
This, however, did not appear to have impeded Senator
Enrile’s direct selection of the Napoles-affiliated or
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 171/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
172
The aforementioned laws and rules, however, were
disregarded by public respondents, Senator Enrile having
just chosen the Napoles-founded NGOs. Such blatant
disregard of public bidding requirements is highly suspect,
especially in light of the ruling in Alvarez v. People:148
The essence of competition in public bidding is that the
bidders are placed on equal footing. In the award of
government contracts, the law requires a competitive
public bidding. This is reasonable because “[a] competitive
public bidding aims to protect the public interest by giving
the public the best possible advantages thru open
competition.” It is a mechanism that enables the
government agency to avoid or preclude anomalies in the
execution of public contracts. (underlining supplied)
Notatu dignum is the extraordinary speed attendant to
the examination, processing and approval by the concerned
NABCOR, NLDC and TRC officers of the PDAF releases to
the Napoles-affiliated or controlled NGOs. In most
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 172/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
148 G.R. No. 192591, June 29, 2011, 653 SCRA 52.
173
15. In most instances, Boxes “B” and “C” were already signed
wherein the herein Respondent was required to sing (sic) Box “A”
of the Disbursement Vouchers. Most of the times the Box “B”
and/or Box “C” of the Disbursement Vouchers were already
signed ahead by Niñez Guanizo and/or Rhodora B. Mendoza and
ALAN A. JAVELLANA respectively.
16. In other instances, the checks for PDAF releases were
already prepared and signed by NABCOR President ALAN
A. JAVELLANA and VP for Finance RHODORA B. MENDOZA
attached to the Disbursement Voucher before the herein
Respondent were made signs Box “A” of the said
Disbursement Vouchers. This is indicative of the target5 (sic)
Municipalities and immediately stern instructions of herein
Respondent’s superiors to sign the Disbursement Voucher
immediately for reasons that it is being followed up by the
concerned NGO. Furthermore, the herein Respondent relied on
the duly executed Memorandum of Agreement by and between
NABCOR, NGO and the Office of the Legislator. According to the
said MOA, initial release of funds will be undertaken by NABCOR
upon signing thereof. Hence, payment and/or release of fund to
the NGO became a lawful obligation of NABCOR.
xxx
18. On many instances, sternly ordered [sic] the NABCOR
VP for Admin. and Finance RHODORA B. MENDOZA to
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 173/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
xxx
b) In the course of my review of PDAF documents, DDG
Dennis L. Cunanan would frequently personally followup
in my office the review of the MOA or my signature on the
checks. He would come down to my office in the third floor and
tell me that he had a dinner meeting with the First Gentleman
and some legislators so much that he requested me to fast
track processing of the PDAF papers. Though I hate name-
dropping, I did not show any disrespect to him but instead told
him that if the papers are in order, I would release them before
the end of working hours of the same day. This was done by
DDG many times, but I stood my ground when the papers on
PDAF he’s following up had deficiencies…. (emphasis, italics
and underscoring supplied)
Worth noting too is the extraordinary speed Relampagos
and his corespondents from the DBM processed the
documents required for the release of the PDAF as
witnesses Luy and Suñas positively attest to, viz.: the
DBM’s expedited processing of the requisite SAROs and
NCAs was made possible through the assistance provided
by Nuñez, Paule and Bare. Relampagos being their
immediate superior, they could not have been unaware of
the followups made by Napoles’ staff with regard to the
SARO and NCA.
The concerned officials of NABCOR, NLDC and TRC did
not even bother to conduct a due diligence audit on the
selected NGOs and the suppliers chosen by the NGO to
provide the livelihood kits, which supply thereof was, it
bears reiteration, carried out without the benefit of public
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 174/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
175
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 175/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
149 People v. Atienza, G.R. No. 171671, June 18, 2012, 673 SCRA 470.
150 Records, p. 392, OMB-C-C-13-0318.
176
Witness Sula, in her Affidavit dated 12 September
2013151 also identified Amata as among those who
benefited from the PDAF disbursements:
Indubitably, repeatedly receiving portions of sums of
money wrongfully diverted from public coffers constitutes
evident bad faith.
Third, the assailed PDAF-related transactions caused
undue injury to the Government in the amount of
Php345,000,000.00.
Based on the 2007-2009 COA Report as well as the
independent field verifications conducted by the FIO, the
projects supposedly funded by Senator Enrile’s PDAF were
“ghost” or inexistent. There were no livelihood kits
distributed to beneficiaries. Witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas
declared that, per directive given by Napoles, they made up
lists of fictitious
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 176/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
177
_______________
152 Llorente, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, 350 Phil. 820; 287 SCRA 382
(1998).
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 177/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
153 Gallego v. Sandiganbayan, No. L-57841, July 30, 1982, 115 SCRA
793 and Cabrera v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 162314-17, October 25,
2004, 441 SCRA 377.
178
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 178/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
154 Sison v. People, G.R. No. 170339, 170398-403, March 9, 2010, 614
SCRA 670.
179
180
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 179/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
181
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 180/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
182
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 181/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
183
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 182/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
184
Probable cause for
Plunder exists.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 183/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
155 Republic Act No. 7080, July 12, 1991, as amended by R.A 7659,
December 13, 1993.
156 Section 1(d) of the same statute stated in Section 2 above reads:
d) Ill-gotten wealth means any asset, property, business enterprise or
material possession of any person within the purview of Section Two (2)
hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees,
agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or
series of the following means or similar schemes:
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of
public funds or raids on the public treasury;
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share,
percentage, kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any
person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or
project or by
185
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 184/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
As laid down in Joseph Ejercito Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan,157 the elements of Plunder are:
_______________
186
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 185/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
188
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 187/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
159 He was a Senator from 2004 to 2010 and was reelected in 2010; his
term ends in 2016.
160 To repeat, these NGOs were MAMFI, POPDF, PSDFI, AMPFI,
CARED, PASEDFI, SDPFFI, AEPPF and KPMFI.
161 As narrated by Tuason, who admitted having acted as a liaison
between private respondent Janet Napoles and the office of respondent
Enrile:
Napoles, through respondent Tuason, initially approached Reyes
regarding a “business proposition” relating to respondent Enrile’s PDAF;
and Reyes, who had Enrile’s full confidence, accepted Napoles’ proposition
to transact the PDAF of Senator Enrile with Janet Napoles.
162 This “listing” is a letter from the legislator containing a program
or list of implementing agencies and the amount of PDAF to be released as
to guide the DBM in its preparation and release of the corresponding
SARO. This is also a formal request of the legislator to the DBM for the
release of his or her PDAF.
189
_______________
163 Upon receipt of the SARO, respondent Janet Napoles would direct
her staff, then including witnesses Luy, Sula and Suñas, to prepare the
PDAF documents for the approval of the legislator and reflecting the
preferred NGO to implement the undertaking, including: (a) project
proposals by the identified NGO/s; and (b) indorsement letters to be
signed by the legislator and/or his staff.
Enrile’s trusted staff, Reyes and Evangelista, then signed the
indorsement letters and other communications relating to the PDAF
disbursements addressed to the DBM and the implementing agencies
(NABCOR, TRC and NLDC). They also participated in the preparation
and execution of memoranda of agreement with the NGO and the
implementing agency, inspection and acceptance reports, disbursement
reports and other PDAF documents.
190
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 189/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
releases the NCA to the implementing agency concerned, the latter would
expedite the processing of the transaction and the release of the
corresponding check representing the PDAF disbursement.
Once the funds are deposited in the NGO’s account, respondent Janet
Napoles would then call the bank to facilitate the withdrawal thereof. Her
staff would then withdraw the funds involved and remit the same to her,
thus placing said amount under Napoles’ full control and possession.
From her 50% share, Napoles then remits a portion (around 10%)
thereof to officials of the implementing agencies who facilitated the
transaction as well as those who served as her liaison with the legislator’s
office.
165 Section 1. Definition of terms.—As used in this Act, the term:
d. “Ill-gotten wealth” means any asset, property, business
enterprise or material possession of any person within the purview of
Section two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through
dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business associates by
any combination or series of the following means or similar schemes:
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share,
percentage, kickbacks or any other form of
191
_______________
pecuniary benefit 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 concerned.
166 Section 1. Definition of terms.—As used in this Act, the term:
d. “Ill-gotten wealth” means any asset, property, business enterprise or
material possession of any person within the purview of Section two (2)
hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees,
agents, subordinates and/or business associates by any combination or
series of the following means or similar schemes:
6) By taking undue 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.
192
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 191/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
193
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 192/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
169 Id.
170 Id.
171 Counter-Affidavit dated 15 January 2014.
172 Counter-Affidavit dated 27 January 2014.
194
195
_______________
174 It is noted that Luy and Suñas claimed that the total commissions
received by Senator Enrile was Php363,276,000.00, representing 50% of
Php726,550,000.00 of Enrile’s PDAF allocations. However, Luy was only
able to record in his ledger the aggregate amount Php172,834,500.00. He
explained that sometimes transactions are not recorded in his ledger
because Napoles herself personally delivers the commissions to the
legislators or their representatives outside the JLN Corporation office.
Hence, there are no signed vouchers presented to him (Luy); nevertheless,
in these cases, Napoles merely informs him that the lawmaker’s
commission has been paid completely. See Pinagsamang Sinumpaang
Salaysay dated 11 September 2013, Records, p. 8, OMB-C-C-13-0318.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 194/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
175 According to witnesses Luy and Suñas: De Asis and Lim, along
with witnesses Luy and Suñas, prepares the money to be delivered to the
legislators and/or their representatives. See p. 3 of Pinagsamang
Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 11 September 2013, Records, (OMB-C-C- 13-
0318).
176 Id.
196
_______________
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 195/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
197
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 196/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
180 People v. Teston, G.R. No. 134938, June 8, 2000, 333 SCRA 404.
198
200
It bears noting at this juncture that the Senator has not
disclaimed authorship of the 21 March 2012 letter. That
the Senator readily authenticated Reyes and Evangelista’s
signa-
201
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 199/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
202
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 200/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
Regarding affiant Azores’ assertion that the signatures
of Reyes in the PDAF documents were forgeries because
they and Reyes’ standard signatures had “significant
differences in habit handwriting characteristics,” the same
deserves scant consideration.
Mere variance of the signatures in different documents
cannot be considered as conclusive proof that one is forged.
As Rivera v. Turiano186 teaches:
Moreover, the observations of affiant Azores in his
Affidavit and Examination Report dated 10 October 2013
do not meet the criteria for identification of forgery as
enunciated in Ladignon v. Court of Appeals:187
_______________
203
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 201/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
In his Affidavit and Examination Report, affiant Azores
simply concluded that the signatures in the PDAF
documents and Reyes’ sample signatures “were not written
by one and the same person.”
AT ALL EVENTS, this Office, after a prima facie
comparison with the naked eyes of the members of the
Panel of Investigators between the signatures appearing in
the PDAF documents that are attributed to respondents
Senator Enrile, Reyes and Evangelista and their signatures
found in their respective counter-affidavits, opines that
both sets of signatures appear to have been affixed by one
and the same respective hands.188 In the absence of clear
and convincing evidence, this Office thus finds that the
questioned signatures on the relevant documents belong to
respondents Enrile, Reyes and Evangelista.
The Arias doctrine is
not applicable to these
proceedings.
Javellana argues that he cannot be held accountable for
approving the PDAF releases pertaining to those projects
assigned to NABCOR because he only issued such approval
_______________
188 Vide Fernando v. Fernando, G.R. No. 191889, January 31, 2011,
641 SCRA 202.
204
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 202/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
205
The above pronouncement readily shows that the Arias
doctrine does not help the cause of Javellana and Cunanan.
First, the Arias doctrine applies only if it is undisputed
that the head of the agency was the last person to sign the
vouchers, which would show that he was merely relying on
the prior certifications and recommendations of his
subordinates. It will not apply if there is evidence showing
that the head of agency, before a recommendation or
certification can be made by a superior, performs any act
that would signify his approval of the transaction. In other
words, the Arias doctrine is inapplicable in cases where it
is the head of agency himself or herself who influences,
pressures, coerces or otherwise convinces the subordinate
to sign the voucher or recommend the approval of the
transaction.
In Javellana’s case, Cacal stated in his Counter-
Affidavit that he signed the disbursement vouchers
pertaining to PDAF disbursements because Javellana
directed him to do so. In support of his claim, Cacal
submitted a document entitled “Authorization” issued and
signed by respondent Javellana which states:
In order to facilitate processing of payments and in the
exigency of the service, MR. VICTOR ROMAN CACAL,
Paralegal, this Office is hereby authorized to sign
_______________
190 Id.
206
Cacal, in his Supplemental Affidavit, also claimed that
Javellana, among others, already signed the checks and
other documents even before he (Cacal) could sign Box “A”
of the disbursement vouchers:
15. In most instances, Boxes “B” and “C” were already signed
wherein the herein Respondent was required to sing (sic) Box “A”
of the Disbursement Vouchers. Most of the times the Box “B”
and/or Box “C” of the Disbursement Vouchers were already
signed ahead by Niñez Guanizo and/or Rhodora B. Mendoza and
ALAN A. JAVELLANA respectively.
16. In other instances, the checks for PDAF releases were
already prepared and signed by NABCOR President ALAN
A. JAVELLANA and VP for Finance RHODORA B. MENDOZA
attached to the Disbursement Voucher before the herein
Respondent were made signs Box “A” of the said
Disbursement Vouchers. This indicative of the target5 (sic)
Municipalities and immediately stern instructions of herein
Respondent’s superiors to sign the Disbursement Voucher
immediately for reasons that it is being followed up by the
concerned NGO. Furthermore, the herein Respondent relied on
the duly executed Memorandum of Agreement by and between
NABCOR, NGO and the Office of the Legislator. According to the
said MOA, initial release of funds will be undertaken by NABCOR
upon signing thereof. Hence, payment and/or release of fund to
the NGO became a lawful obligation of NABCOR.
xxx
18. On many instances, sternly ordered [sic] the NABCOR
VP for Admin. and Finance RHODORA B. MENDOZA to
herein Respondent to
207
Cacal added that he was constrained to sign the
disbursement vouchers due to pressure exerted by his
superiors:
Since the subordinate himself vehemently disputes
having recommended the approval of the fund release to
his superior, this Office in not inclined to apply the Arias
doctrine. Note that the Arias doctrine is only applied in
cases where it is undisputed that the recommendation of
the subordinate preceded the superior’s approval, and not
in situations where it is the superior who persuades or
pressures the subordinate to favorably recommend
approval.
Second, the Arias doctrine, even assuming that it is
applicable, does not ipso facto free the heads of agencies
from criminal, civil or administrative liability. The ruling
merely holds that the head of agency cannot be deemed to
be a co- conspirator in a criminal offense simply because he
signed and/or approved a voucher or document that
facilitated the release of public funds.191
_______________
191 Vide Jaca v. People, G.R. Nos. 166967, 166974 and 167167,
January 28, 2013, 689 SCRA 270.
208
Likewise, witness Luy in his Sworn Statement dated 12
September 2013192 stated that Javellana and Cunanan
were
_______________
209
Furthermore, this Office takes note of the fact that
witness Luy, during the legislative inquiry conducted by
the Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers
and Investigations (the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee) on
7 November 2014, testified that he personally knew
Javellana as among those who benefited from Napoles for
his role in the PDAF releases, viz.:
_______________
210
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 208/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
net/522831/benhur-luy-upstages-napoles-in-senate-
hearing#ixzz2wqP0PnoP on November 8, 2013.
194 Macon Ramos-Araneta, “Cunanan got pork cuts,” electronically
published by Manila Standard Today at its website located at
http://manilastandardtoday.com/2014/03/07/-cunanan-got-pork-cuts-i-saw-
him-carry-bag-with-p-9m-benhur/ last March 7, 2014 and last accessed on
24 March 2014.
211
There is no probable cause
to indict public respondent
Montuya.
Montuya, an Accounting Assistant at NABCOR, is
impleaded for allegedly preparing the inspection reports
pertaining to livelihood projects funded by PDAF and
covered by SARO Nos. ROCS-08-0516,195 ROCS-08-
07211196 and ROCS-08-00804.197 She, however, denies
having participated in the misuse of the PDAF and insists
that she actually did conduct physical inspections of the
agricultural packages at warehouses and prepared the
corresponding reports. She alleges that she was supervised
in her inspection by her superior, respondent Mendoza.
This Office finds in favor of Montuya.
The Office takes note that her inspection of the
livelihood kits took place after NABCOR released the
PDAF disbursements to SDPFFI. In other words, her
actions were unrelated, let alone necessary, to NABCOR’s
improper transfer of public funds to SDPFFI.
Indeed the Office finds no fault in Montuya’s actions.
Her inspection reports simply reflect what she saw during
the
_______________
212
_______________
198 Rule IV, Section 2(b)(1) and (2), A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.
199 A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.
214
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 212/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
215
216
It bears reiterating that, indeed, preliminary
investigation is a merely inquisitorial mode of discovering
the persons who may be reasonably charged with a
crime.203 It is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 214/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
202 Id.
203 Paderanga v. Drilon, G.R. No. 96080 April 19, 1991, 196 SCRA 93,
94.
204 Drilon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115825, July 5, 1996, 258
SCRA 280.
217
218
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 217/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
222
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 221/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
SPECIAL PANEL
PER OFFICE ORDER NO. 349, SERIES OF 2013
(Sgd.)
M.A. CHRISTIAN O. UY
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 222/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
Copy Furnished:
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Complainant
NBI Bldg., Taft Avenue, Ermita, Manila
LEVITO D. BALIGOD
Complainant
Villanueva & Baligod, 3/F The Lydia Bldg.
39 Polaris St., Bel-air, Makati
FIELD INVESTIGATION OFFICE
Complainant
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 223/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
RHODORA B. MENDOZA
Respondent
Lot 2, Block 63, Bright Homes Subd., Bgy. Cay Pombo,
Sta. Maria, Bulacan
ENCARNITA CRISTINA P. MUNSOD
Respondent
14 Saturn St., Meteor Homes Subdivision,
Bgy. Fortune, Makati City
VICTOR ROMAN C. CACAL
Respondent
4 Milkyway St., Joliero Compound, Phase 1-D,
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 225/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ
Respondent
JLN Corporation Offices, Discovery Suites,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City
FERNANDO RAMIREZ
Respondent
635 San Isidro St., Ayala Alabang,
Muntinlupa City
NITZ CABILAO
Respondent
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 227/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
MARGARITA GUADINES
Block 24, Lot 9, Iligan St., Phase I, EP Village,
Taguig City or Block 23, Lot 1, Road 18 Street,
AFPOVAI, Phase 2, Western Bicutan, Taguig City
DORILYN A. FABIAN
Respondent
Block 34, Lot 27 Iligan Street, South City Homes,
Biñan, Laguna
HERNANI DITCHON
Respondent
Bgy. Sta. Fe, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental
RODRIGO B. GALAY
Respondent
Block 23, Lot 24 Dumaguete Street,
South City Homes,
Biñan, Laguna or
5270 Romero St., Bgy. Dionisio,
Parañaque City
LAARNI A. UY
Respondent
Block 23, Lot 24 Dumaguete Street,
South City Homes,
Biñan, Laguna or
5270 Romero St., Bgy. Dionisio,
Parañaque City
232
AMPARO L. FERNANDO
Respondent
14-O Samson St., Baritan, Malabon City
AILEEN P. PALAMA
Respondent
16-A Guevarra St., Paltok, Quezon City or
712 San Gabriel Compound,
Llano Novaliches, Caloocan City
RENATO S. ORNOPIA
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 229/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
Respondent
495 ME Ilang-Ilang St., T. S. Cruz,
Almanza 2, Las Piñas or
A. Calauan St., Cataingan, Masbate
JESUS B. CASTILLO
Respondent
Block 23, Lot 59, Phase 2, EP Village,
Taguig City or Alim, Hinobaan,
Negros Occidental
NOEL V. MACHA
Respondent
Unity Drive, Crispin Atilano St.,
Tetuan, Zamboanga City or
2502 Discovery Center,
25 ADB Avenue,
Ortigas, Pasig City or
Block 40, Lot 28 Iligan St.,
South City Homes, Biñan, Laguna
MYLENE T. ENCARNACION
Respondent
Blk. 4, Lot 18, Almandite St., Golden City,
Taytay, Rizal
JOHN RAYMOND DE ASIS
Respondent
Blk. 20, Lot 9, Phase III, Gladiola St.,
TS Cruz, Almanza 2, Las Piñas
233
234
The remedy against an insufficient Information in that
it fails to allege the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense is a motion to quash on the ground
that the allegations of the Information do not constitute the
offense charged, or any offense for that matter,1 under
Section 3(a), Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. Its civil case counterpart is a motion to dismiss
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 231/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
235
In order to give full meaning to the right of the accused
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, not only should the Information state the acts
or omissions complained of as constituting the offense (or
the ultimate facts that comprise the crime’s component
elements), the rules also require certain facts to be stated
in the Information to be deemed sufficient, namely, the
name of the accused, the designation of the offense given by
the statute, the name of the offended party, the
approximate date of the commission of the offense, and the
place where the offense was committed9 (other requisite
facts). Absent any of these essen-
_______________
5 Id.
6 413 Phil. 159; 360 SCRA 618 (2001).
7 Entitled “An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and Issuance of
a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and for Other Purposes”
(approved on April 3, 1979).
8 Bautista v. Court of Appeals, supra at p. 175; p. 629.
9 Section 6, Rule 110, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
236
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 233/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
Section 9, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure explicitly states the motion’s two-fold objective:
Note that a motion under the foregoing rule is different
from a motion for bill of particulars filed in a civil case
under Rule 12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which
purpose is for a party (whether plaintiff or defendant) to
properly prepare his responsive pleading.11 In a criminal
case, there is no need to
_______________
237
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 234/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
238
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 235/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
12 Tan v. Sandiganbayan, 259 Phil. 502, 513; 180 SCRA 34, 43 (1989),
citing 71 C.J.S. Pleading S 376.
13 Section 1. Arraignment and plea; how made.—
239
_______________
x x x x
(c) when the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a
plea of not guilty shall be entered for him.
14 Section 6, Rule 13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states:
Section 6. Bill a part of pleading.—A bill of particulars becomes part
of the pleading for which it is intended.
15 See Information; Rollo, pp. 170-171.
240
Plunder’s peculiar nature as a composite scheme
employed by a public officer to loot the coffers of the
government translates into the proposition that the
accused should be able to “dissect” the parts which make
up the whole. Thus, only by affording the accused a
reasonable opportunity to intelligently refute each
component criminal act would he then be able
_______________
16 “An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder” (approved
on July 12, 1991).
17 As amended by RA 7659 entitled “An Act to Impose the Death
Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending for that Purpose the
Revised Penal Laws, as Amended, Other Special Penal Laws, and for
Other Purposes” (approved on December 13, 1993).
18 In Estrada v. Sandiganbayan (421 Phil. 290, 351; 369 SCRA 394,
436 [2001]), it was explained:
Combination — the result or product of combining; the act or process of
combining. To combine is to bring into such close relationship as to
obscure individual characters.
Series — a number of things or events of the same class coming one
after another in spatial and temporal succession.
That Congress intended the words “combination” and “series” to be
understood in their popular meanings is pristinely evident from the
legislative deliberations on the bill which eventually became RA 7080 or
the Plunder Law.
241
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 238/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
19 Section 1(a), Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
states:
Section 1. Arraignment and plea; how made.—
(a) The accused must be arraigned before the court where the
complaint or information was filed or assigned for trial. The arraignment
shall be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the
accused with a copy of the complaint or information, reading the same in
the language or dialect known to him, and asking him
242
_______________
whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may call at the
trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information.
243
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 240/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
With the Information merely confined to these
allegations and to the end that the accused may properly
plead and prepare his defense during trial, I, similar to the
ponencia, therefore find it proper to partially grant
Enrile’s motion for bill of particulars, and
concomitantly have the prosecution submit such bill
to reflect the following matters:
This should not be construed as a particular, but rather
a broad statement that encapsulates the motion’s prayer.
Each “overt act” pertains to each PDAF transaction which
particulars are sought for in the more specific statements
below.
_______________
244
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 241/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
The amount of kickbacks and commissions is essential to
each PDAF transaction, which, in turn, forms part of the
whole Plunder scheme alleged by the prosecution. In order
for the accused to identify the PDAF transaction attributed
to him, for which he bases his plea during arraignment, he
must be informed of the amount involved in each
transaction. Because a Plunder conviction necessitates that
the total PDAF transactions breach the P50,000,000.00
threshold, knowledge of such amounts is vital to the
defense. It also guides the trial court to render the proper
judgment.
There is no need to specify the nature of the ill-gotten
wealth the accused allegedly amassed, accumulated, or
acquired. As I see it, the type of ill-gotten wealth is only an
evidentiary fact which supports the ultimate fact that the
accused had amassed, accumulated, or acquired more than
P50,000,000.00 in kickbacks and commissions. What is
essential is that the ill-gotten wealth, regardless of its
form, breaches the P50,000,000.00 threshold, the necessary
details of which may be sufficiently supplied by the
breakdown above discussed.
_______________
21 Id.
22 Id.
245
Project identification stands at the core of every PDAF
transaction: it is the preliminary and necessary step to cast
a veil of ostensible legitimacy to the scheme. Because it is
the transaction’s primary identifier, it is essential that the
accused, during his arraignment, be informed of what
project the PDAF transaction he is charged of is connected
to. In this
_______________
246
The Napoles’ NGOs were used basically as shell entities
to which the PDAF kickbacks were fraudulently funneled.
As such, they figure into a significant role in each PDAF
transaction. Stating the vehicle of facilitation provides the
accused basic information of the means by which the PDAF
transaction in which he was supposedly involved was
employed. The ponencia correctly pointed out that “only
after a project has been identified could Enrile endorse
Napoles’ NGOs to the appropriate government agency that,
in turn, would implement the supposed project using
Enrile’s PDAF.”28 The alleged interplay of Enrile’s office
and Napoles’ NGO’s was taken judicial notice by the Court
in Belgica v. Ochoa, Jr.:29
_______________
27 Id.
28 Id., at p. 62.
29 G.R. Nos. 208566, 208493 & 209251, November 19, 2013, 710 SCRA
1.
247
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 244/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
Accordingly, an identification of the NGOs (and, as
below discussed, the government agencies) involved in each
PDAF transaction is therefore integral to the defense.
As aptly observed by the ponencia,32 government
agencies have been allegedly used as conduits between
Enrile and the Napoles’ NGOs. The justification behind
their inclusion is the same as that of the above.
_______________
248
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 245/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
249
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 246/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
250
_______________
1 Ponencia, p. 74.
2 Id., at pp. 76-77. In J. Perlas-Bernabe’s Concurring and Dissenting
Opinion, she qualified her agreement with the following matters:
1. The particular overt act/s alleged to constitute the “combination”
and “series” charged in the Information.
2. A breakdown of the amounts of the kickbacks and commissions
allegedly received, stating how the amount of P172,834,500.00 was
arrived at.
251
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 248/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
252
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 249/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
253
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 250/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
_______________
254
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 251/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
In addition, I am of the view that the nature of the
privileges that petitioner enjoyed while allegedly
committing the offense puts him in a different class from
other accused.
The Constitution is a document that necessarily
contains the fundamental norms in our legal order. These
norms are articulated in various provisions. These
provisions are not
_______________
255
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 252/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
At the same time, Section 1 of Article XI of the
Constitution unequivocally mandates:
This is a unique feature of our Constitution. These
words are not empty rhetoric.
Those who qualify for public office hold their title in
trust. Their tenure is defined but not inherently
entrenched in their person. Their temporary occupation of
these offices is not a right vested in them but a privilege
from the sovereign.
Public officers carry this privilege with an additional
burden. “At all times[,]”9 they are required “to be
accountable to the people.”10 They are to serve in their
position with “utmost”11 integrity.
_______________
256
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 253/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 255/256
3/19/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 766
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016993ff968dd4aa76bf003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 256/256