Supreme Court allows Sandiganbayan to continue hearing Enrile's plunder case | ABS-CBN
Featured:
|
ADVERTISEMENT

Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
Supreme Court allows Sandiganbayan to continue hearing Enrile's plunder case
Supreme Court allows Sandiganbayan to continue hearing Enrile's plunder case
Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile during the sectoral meeting at the Malacañang Palace on Feb. 13, 2024. KJ Rosales, PPA Pool

MANILA – The Supreme Court has allowed the Sandiganbayan to continue hearing the plunder case of former senator and now Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile.
MANILA – The Supreme Court has allowed the Sandiganbayan to continue hearing the plunder case of former senator and now Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Juan Ponce Enrile.
In a decision of the en banc dated Feb. 24, 2024 and released Monday, the high court dismissed Enrile’s petition for prohibition.
In a decision of the en banc dated Feb. 24, 2024 and released Monday, the high court dismissed Enrile’s petition for prohibition.
In 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman filed plunder charges against Enrile, his former chief of staff Gigi Reyes, businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles and others in connection with the controversial Priority Development Assistance Fund scam.
In 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman filed plunder charges against Enrile, his former chief of staff Gigi Reyes, businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles and others in connection with the controversial Priority Development Assistance Fund scam.
Enrile subsequently filed a motion for bill of particulars before the Sandiganbayan 3rd Division, a motion which allows an accused to request for specific details from the prosecution in order to prepare for trial.
Enrile subsequently filed a motion for bill of particulars before the Sandiganbayan 3rd Division, a motion which allows an accused to request for specific details from the prosecution in order to prepare for trial.
The anti-graft court denied Enrile’s motion but was overturned by the Supreme Court in an August 11, 2015 decision.
The anti-graft court denied Enrile’s motion but was overturned by the Supreme Court in an August 11, 2015 decision.
The prosecution complied with the order of the Supreme Court but Enrile then objected to the contents of the pre-trial order, which contains the facts agreed upon by the parties, issues to be tried and pieces of evidence marked.
The prosecution complied with the order of the Supreme Court but Enrile then objected to the contents of the pre-trial order, which contains the facts agreed upon by the parties, issues to be tried and pieces of evidence marked.
Enrile again went to the Supreme Court and filed the petition for prohibition.
Enrile again went to the Supreme Court and filed the petition for prohibition.
In the decision of the Supreme Court dismissing the petition, it said the prosecution should not be limited to what is stated in the bill of particulars.
In the decision of the Supreme Court dismissing the petition, it said the prosecution should not be limited to what is stated in the bill of particulars.
“Because the bill of particulars does not and should not narrate the prosecution’s trial plan, it is to be expected that the prosecution, in the course of the trial, will present evidence not mentioned categorically in the bill of particulars,” the court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.
“Because the bill of particulars does not and should not narrate the prosecution’s trial plan, it is to be expected that the prosecution, in the course of the trial, will present evidence not mentioned categorically in the bill of particulars,” the court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.
The court also noted that if the prosecution presented evidence that is inadmissible, Enrile can still avail of other remedies as he has the right to object against inadmissible evidence.
The court also noted that if the prosecution presented evidence that is inadmissible, Enrile can still avail of other remedies as he has the right to object against inadmissible evidence.
“The court, however, cannot interfere with the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan simply because Enrile suspects that it may allow inadmissible evidence and may disregard the bill of particulars decision,” the court said.
“The court, however, cannot interfere with the proceedings before the Sandiganbayan simply because Enrile suspects that it may allow inadmissible evidence and may disregard the bill of particulars decision,” the court said.
The Supreme Court said that the Sandiganbayan acted in accordance with law and jurisprudence and Enrile’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated was without merit.
The Supreme Court said that the Sandiganbayan acted in accordance with law and jurisprudence and Enrile’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated was without merit.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT