SC green lights continuation of JPE plunder trial

THE Supreme Court (SC) has denied a bid by former Senate president and now Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile to stop proceedings in his plunder case before the Sandiganbayan and to limit the prosecution’s presentation of evidence.

The 32-page SC en Banc decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh held that it found no proof that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it ruled against Enrile’s motion to limit the prosecution’s evidence only to matters stated in the prosecution’s Bill of Particulars.

Enrile stands accused of plunder through conspiracy with his former chief of staff Jessica Lucille “Gigi” Reyes, businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles, and Napoles’ employee John Raymund de Asis, to defraud the government by funneling his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or “pork barrel” allocations to bogus foundations.

Based on the information for plunder and multiple counts of graft filed in 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman alleged Enrile amassed P172.83 million ill-gotten wealth from the PDAF transactions.

The Enrile petition argued that the Sandiganbayan violated his constitutional rights by refusing to limit the prosecution’s evidence based on the Bill of Particulars, insisting that any evidence outside the parameter should be barred admission for being irrelevant.

“The Court rules that the Sandiganbayan did not act with grave abuse of discretion in this case. The Sandiganbayan correctly ruled that there is no basis nor necessity to include the Bill of Particulars decision in the Pre-Trial Order and to limit the prosecution’s evidence,” the SC declared.

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 and does not narrate the prosecution’s trial plan.

It said the defense should expect that during trial, the prosecution will present evidence not mentioned in the Bill of Particulars, which, it said, is allowed so long as such evidence is related to the specific crime charged in the complaint.

“Clearly, to