MANILA – The Sandiganbayan has granted a motion for bill of particulars filed by former Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) executive director Samuel Jardin, in connection with the graft complaint against him arising from allegations that he sought money from an applicant for a certificate of public convenience (CPC).
In a 13-page resolution written by Associate Justice Sarah Jane T. Fernandez dated Feb. 19, the anti-graft court directed the prosecution to submit a bill of particulars sought by Jardin for his defense.
A defendant who believes that he is not sufficiently informed of the crime with which he is charged and is not in a position to defend himself properly could move for a bill of particulars or specifications to allow the accused to prepare for his defense.
It should specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired.
The particulars sought by the defense sought details of the particular time and place when and where the alleged offense was committed; date of filing of the CPC, as well as details of the application and route covered by the CPC sought.
"The accused is entitled to the particulars of the application for a CPC. He may have acted on other such applications, and may not be able to adequately prepare his defense if the application involved in this case is not sufficiently specified," the court said.
In November, the Sandiganbayan ruled to continue with the trial of Jardin despite the prosecutors’ motion to withdraw the graft case.
Jardin was charged with violating Section 3 (c) of Republic Act 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for allegedly demanding and receiving PHP4.6 million from Michelle Sapangila, in exchange for helping her secure a CPC or route measured capacity, which is a pre-requisite for the operation of a public utility vehicle.
In June, the anti-graft court's Sixth Division dismissed a case of violation of Section 7 (d) of RA 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees against Jardin for being similar in nature with his graft case. (PNA)
