Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FRANCISCO S. TANTUICO v. REPUBLIC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Evidentiary facts, on the other hand, are the facts necessary to establish the ultimate facts; they are the premises that lead to the ultimate facts as conclusion.[32] They are facts supporting the existence of some other alleged and unproven fact.[33]
	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
In Tantuico v. Republic,[101] the Republic filed a case for reconveyance, reversion, accounting, restitution, and damages before the Sandiganbayan against former President Ferdinand Marcos, Imelda Marcos, Benjamin Romualdez, and Francisco Tantuico, Jr. Tantuico filed a motion for bill of particulars essentially alleging that the complaint was couched in general terms and did not have the particulars that would inform him of the alleged factual and legal bases. The Sandiganbayan denied his motion on the ground that the particulars sought are evidentiary in nature. Tantuico moved to reconsider this decision, but the Sandiganbayan again denied his motion.
	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
In U.S. v. Cernias,[55] however, the Court formally recognized the existence and applicability of a bill of particulars in criminal cases. In this case, the prosecution filed an information charging Basilio Cernias with several counts of brigandage before the Court of First Instance of Leyte. In overruling the accused’s objection, the Court declared that the prosecution’s act of specifying certain acts done by the conspirators in the Information “did no more than to furnish the defendant with a bill of particulars of the facts which it intended to prove at the trial x x x.”[56]
	GR No. 148154 2007-12-17	REPUBLIC v. SANDIGANBAYAN QUISUMBING, J.
In dismissing this petition, Tantuico, Jr. v. Republic[44] also provides us a cogent jurisprudential guide. There, the allegations against former President Marcos were also conclusions of law unsupported by factual premises. The particulars prayed for in the motion for a bill of particulars were also not evidentiary in nature. In that case, we ruled that the anti-graft court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying an alleged crony's motion for a bill of particulars on a complaint with similar tenor and wordings as in the case at bar.