“If there is a defect in the criminal information or if the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the court shall order an amendment of the information instead of quashing it”
Pleadings in civil cases must contain “in a methodical and logical form, a plain, concise and direct statement of the ultimate facts, including the evidence on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defense” (Section 1, Rule 8, 2019 Rules of Civil Procedure).
The purpose of this provision is to make the parties’ litigants aware of the facts in controversy and the issues sought to be resolved by the courts.
In criminal cases, “[a] complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed” (Section 6, Rule 110, Rules of Criminal Procedure).
The requirement of sufficiency of information goes back to the constitutional right of the accused “to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him” (Section 14 [2], Article III, 1987 Constitution).
It is the duty of the State in indicting the accused to apprise him or her of the crime allegedly committed, its elements, the manner of its commission, and the jurisdiction of the court to hear, try, and decide the case.
There are instances, however, in both civil and criminal cases, when the drafting of the complaint or information is defective or vague.
In such a situation, before responding to a pleading or before the accused is arraigned, a party may file a motion for a bill of particulars identifying the defects in the subject pleading and the details desired. (see Section 1, Rule 12 and Section 9, Rule 116).
To be clear, in civil cases, the Motion for Bill of Particulars points out the defects and the details desired in a Complaint before the filing of an Answer, in an Answer before the filing of a Reply, or in a Reply before the filing of a Rejoinder.
This is in contrast to a Bill of Particulars that is submitted by a party whose pleading is being complained about after the court orders the submission of the details requested.
The “purpose of a bill of particulars [is] to amplify or limit a pleading, specify more minutely and particularly a claim or defense set up and pleaded in general terms, [and to] give information, not contained in the pleading, to the opposite party and the court as to the precise nature, character, scope, and extent of the cause of action or defense relied on by the pleader…”(Virata v. Sandiganbayan et al., G.R. 106527, April 6, 1993 citing Tan v. Sandiganbayan).
Put simply, its purpose it to “apprise the opposite party of the case which he has to meet, to the end that the proof at the trial may be limited to the matters specified, and in order that surprise at, and needless preparation for, the trial may be avoided, and that the opposite party may be aided in framing his answering pleading and preparing for trial” (G.R. 106527, April 6, 1993).
“It is not the office of a bill of particulars to supply material allegations necessary to the validity of a pleading, or to change a cause of action or defense stated in the pleading, or to state a cause of action or defense other than the one stated… [nor] to set forth the pleader’s theory of his cause of action or a rule of evidence on which he intends to rely, or to furnish evidential information…” (G.R. 106527, April 6, 1993).
It must be noted that in the 2019 amendment to the Rules on Civil Procedure, every pleading stating a party’s claims or defenses shall state the names of witnesses, summary of the witnesses’ testimonies with their respective judicial affidavits, and documentary and object evidence (Section 6, Rule 7).
Hence, some say that today, a Motion for Bill of Particulars has been rendered toothless.
While this view may be partly true, judicial affidavits and evidence attached to the pleadings may be vague, defective, or completely irrelevant.
The Motion for Bill of Particulars, therefore, remains to be a potent procedural tool to address vague, indefinite, uncertain or general allegations in pleadings, thereby preventing surprises during trial.
In contrast, the Motion for Bill of Particulars is submitted in criminal cases before arraignment by the accused or before the reading of the criminal information to him or her.
“The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired” to allow the prosecution to remove any defects in the information (Section 9, Rule 116).
“During arraignment, the accused is granted the opportunity to fully know the precise charge that confronts him and [is] made fully aware of possible loss of freedom, even of his life, depending on the nature of the crime imputed to him… thus [it] ensures that an accused [is] fully acquainted with the nature of the crime imputed to him in the Information…” (Enrile v. People et al. G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015).
“A concomitant component of this stage of the proceedings is that the Information should provide the accused with fair notice of the accusations made against him, so that he will be able to make an intelligent plea and prepare a defense… the Information must [also] provide some means of ensuring that the crime for which the accused is brought to trial is in fact one for which he was charged…” (Enrile v. People et al. G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015).
“In other words, the Information must permit the accused to prepare his defense, ensure that he is prosecuted only on the basis of facts presented, enable him to plead jeopardy against a later prosecution, and inform the court of the facts alleged so that it can determine the sufficiency of the charge” (Enrile v. People et al. G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015).
“If the Information fails to comply with this basic standard, it would be quashed on the ground that it fails to charge an offense. Of course, an Information may be sufficient to withstand a motion to quash, and yet insufficient [to] inform the accused of the specific details of the alleged offenses” (Enrile v. People et al. G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015).
“In such instances, the Rules of Court allow the accused to move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and to prepare for trial… [A] bill of particulars details items or specific conduct not recited in the Information but nonetheless pertain to or are included in the crime charged” (Enrile v. People et al. G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015).
“Its purpose is to enable an accused [to accomplish the following]: to know the theory of the government’s case; to prepare his defense and to avoid surprise at the trial; to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same offense; and to compel the prosecution to observe certain limitations in offering evidence” (Enrile v. People et al. G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015).
If there is a defect in the criminal information or if the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the court shall order an amendment of the information instead of quashing it, as is stated under Rule 117 on the Motion to Quash.
The Motion to Quash shall be granted only in the event that the prosecution fails to make the amendment or cure the defect despite the amendment (see Section 4, Rule 117).
Hence, “the general function of a bill of particulars, whether in civil or criminal proceedings, is to guard against surprises during trial. It is not the function of the bill to furnish the accused with the evidence of the prosecution… [nor] to include in the bill of particulars matters of evidence relating to how the people intend to prove the elements of the offense charged…” (Enrile v. People et al., G.R. 213455, August 11, 2015)
