Title
Enrile vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 213455
Decision Date
Aug 11, 2015
Philippine Senator Enrile challenged plunder charges, alleging insufficient details in the Information. Supreme Court ruled in his favor, mandating a bill of particulars to uphold his constitutional right to due process.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 213455)

Facts:

  • Background
    • On June 5, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman filed Information for plunder (Republic Act No. 7080) against Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and co-accused—including Jessica Reyes, Janet Lim Napoles, and others—alleging a scheme to divert Enrile’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) through ghost projects and NGOs controlled by Napoles.
    • A second complaint charged Enrile and 40 others with violation of Section 3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) for granting unwarranted benefits and causing undue injury to the government.
  • The PDAF scheme
    • From 2007–2009, nine Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs) totaling ₱345 million were issued for projects ostensibly funded by Enrile’s PDAF through three government-owned corporations: NABCOR, NLDC, and TRC.
    • Enrile’s office (via Reyes and Evangelista) indorsed Napoles-linked NGOs to implement the projects; memoranda of agreement (MOAs) were signed; disbursement vouchers were certified and approved; checks were issued to the NGOs; but the goods were never delivered—these were ghost projects.
  • Kickbacks and ill-gotten wealth
    • Witness Benhur Luy’s ledger (and testimony) shows Enrile received at least ₱172.8345 million in commissions or kickbacks (approximately 50 percent of the diverted PDAF).
    • Napoles and her associates (including Ruby Tuason, John Raymund de Asis, Ronald John Lim) withdrew NGO funds and delivered kickbacks to Enrile (via Reyes) and to implementing-agency heads.

Issues:

  • Did the Sandiganbayan abuse its discretion in denying Enrile’s motion for a bill of particulars?
  • Does the Information sufficiently allege the elements of plunder and RA 3019 violations?
  • Is there probable cause to charge Enrile and co-accused with plunder and violations of Section 3(e), RA 3019?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.