REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

Quezon CityTHIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,Crim Case No.SB-14-CRM-0238For: Plunder (Violation ofR.A. No. 7080, asamended)

-versus-

JUAN PONCE ENRILE,ET AL.,

Accused.

Present:Cabotaje-Tang, PJ.,ChairpersonFemandez, B. R., J. andMoreno, R. B., J.

PROMULGATED:

~~~

)( - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - )(

RESOLUTION

Moreno, J.:

For resolution are the Manifestation 1 dated August 9, 2019 filed bythe Office of the Special Prosecutor; and the Counter-Manifestation' datedAugust 23,2019 filed by accused Juan Ponce Enrile.

In its Manifestation, the prosecution brought to this Court's attentionthe following:

(a) it received a copy of the Court's July 9, 2019 Minute Resolutionon August 8, 2019/ /?

~

I

2Record, pp. 629-646.Id. at 673-678.

DecisionPeople v. Juan Ponce Enrile, et al.Crim Case No. S8-14-0238Page 2 of4

x--------------------------------------------x

(b) it has already manifested to the counsel of the accused as early asMay 2, 2019 - via a letter dated June 26, 2019 - that it(prosecution) is allowing the defense to "copy the pieces ofevidence that are still in the possession of the prosecution incompliance with the Resolution of the Honorable Court";' and

(c) "the accused is yet to implement their prayer which was grantedby the Honorable Court"? despite their repeated manifestations tohim.

In his Counter-Manifestation, Enrile claimed that the prosecution'scompliance with the Court's April 24, 2019 Resolution was 'inadequate' and'impossible to implement.' He recalled that in the exchange of lettersbetween his counsel and the prosecutors, the latter maintained that "Enrilemust find the material evidence for himself in the Office of the Clerk ofCourt because the prosecution already formally offered its evidence duringthe bail hearings of all the other accused", and; "the remaining pieces ofevidence may be found in the office of the prosecution, and Enrile or hisrepresentative may visit and copy them."

As regards the pieces of evidence with the Office of the Clerk ofCourt, Enrile explained that he was not aware of the evidence offered in thebail bearings of his other eo-accused because he was not involved in thesehearings. Enrile further argued that he would not know which evidence ismaterial since the offered evidence had no indication as to their exhibitnumbers and their relation to Annex "A" (bill of particulars). He alsopointed out that the documents formally offered were voluminous.

With regard to the remaining pieces of evidence that may be found inthe office of the prosecution, Enrile claimed that he would not be able todistinguish which evidence is material because the production merely "listedsome exhibit numbers" without indicating their relation to the mattersspecified in the bill of particulars.

Enrile maintained that the prosecution has not yet complied with theCourt's April 24, 2019 resolution: it has not produced any material evidencein accordance with Annex 'A" of his (Enrile's) Motionfor the Production ofMaterial Evidence in the Possession of the Prosecution; or any evidencewhich the Court specifically required to have relation to matters specified inthe matrix appended to the prosecution's bill of particulars; or evidencewhich corresponds to the details which the Supreme Court permitted to bedisclosed via a bill of particulal r"?

Ib4Id. at 629.Ibid.

DecisionPeople v. Juan Ponce Enrile, et al.Crim Case No. S8-14-0238Page 3 of4x--------------------------------------------x

THE COURT'S RULING:

We point at the outset that the Court's April 24, 2019 Resolution andits July 9, 2019 Minute Resolution - the subject matters of the parties'respective Manifestation and Counter-Manifestation - were clear andunambiguous in the sense that the order for the prosecution to produce andpermit the inspection and copying of photographing of any writtenstatement of the complainant or any witness, as well as any document,papers, books, etc. not privileged, was qualified by condition that theevidence is in the possession or under the control of the prosecution.Notably, even the accused's motion (which was granted by this Court) hadbeen captioned Motion for the Production of Material Evidence in thePossession of the Prosecution.

For clarity, the Court's July 9, 2019 Minute Resolution reads:

On April 24, 2019, the Court promulgated its Resolution in thiscase, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the CourtGRANTS the Motion for the Production of Material Evidence inthe Possession of the Prosecution filed by accused Juan ponceEnrile which is limited to the evidence corresponding to thedetails which the Supreme Court permitted to be disclosed via abill of particulars.

Accordingly, the prosecution is given a non-extendible period often (10) days from notice hereof within which to comply with the directiveof the Court in its aforesaid resolution. [Emphasis and italics in theoriginal]

Corollarily, aside from the prosecution's prayer for the Court to 'dulynote' its Manifestation, the parties' submissions (i.e., manifestation andcounter-manifestation) contained no other prayer for the Court to actupon. At any rate, the Court duly takes into account the matters brought toour attention via these submissions.

The records also bear out that this case has been dragging on for quitesome time already. In order to avoid further delays, we order that the trial beset on October 16, 2019, without prejudice to any motion (not made withintent to delay the proceedings) that the parties may submit for the Court'sconsideration.

We note, too, that the Motion for the Production of MaterialEvidence x x x had been filed at the instance of the accused himself throughhis counsel. Accordingly, they must bear whatever inconvenience(voluminous documents, etc.) that may arise out of the granting of themotiOj /J

/1)

DecisionPeople v. Juan Ponce Enrile, et al.Crim Case No. S8-14-0238Page 4 of4

x--------------------------------------------x

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, the Court herebyresolves to:

(1) NOTE the prosecution's Manifestation' dated August 9,2019; and

(2) NOTE accused Juan Ponce Enrile's Counter-Manifestation x x xdated August 23, 2019.

The continuation of the proceedings is set on October 16, 2019.

SO ORDERED.

Quezon City, Metro Manila.-- ---

WE CONCUR:

TO R. FERNANDEZA~ociate Justice

~AROp=~-TANG

Chairperson

Record, pp. 629-646.