JUAN PONCE ENRILE vs.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

[G.R. No. 213455. August 11, 2015.]

The Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information for plunder against Enrile, Jessica Lucila Reyes, Janet
Lim Napoles, Ronald John Lim, and John Raymund de Asis before the Sandiganbayan.

Enrile filed a motion for bill of particulars before the Sandiganbayan. On the same date, he filed a
motion for deferment of arraignment since he was to undergo medical examination at the Philippine
General Hospital (PGH).

The Court denied Enrile’s motion for bill of particulars.

ISSUE:

W/N Motion to Quash the proper remedy if the information is vague or indefinite resulting in the
serious violation of Enrile’s constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.

HELD:

NO. When allegations in an Information are vague or indefinite, the remedy of the accused is not a
motion to quash, but a motion for a bill of particulars.

A bill of particulars presupposes a valid Information while a motion to quash is a jurisdictional defect on
account that the facts charged in the Information does not constitute an offense.

A bill of particulars does not presuppose an invalid information for it merely fills in the details on an
otherwise valid information to enable an accused to make an intelligent plea and prepare for his
defense.

If the information does not charge an offense, then a motion to quash is in order.

But if the information charges an offense and the averments are so vague that the accused cannot
prepare to plead or prepare for trial, then a motion for a bill of particulars is the proper remedy.

Thus viewed, a motion to quash and a motion for a bill of particulars are distinct and separate remedies,
the latter presupposing an information sufficient in law to charge an offense.