You are on page 1of 7


(Motion for Bill of Particulars)

Defendant, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court, respectfully
1. That the plaintiff's complaint in paragraph 5 alleges:
"From August 3 to December 2003, defendant never paid
anything to herein plaintiff. The check that he issued as
partial payment for the first month also bounced. x x x";
(underscoring supplied)
2. The said allegation is not averred with sufficient definiteness and particularity,
specifically it does not mention the amount of the check therein mentioned, its check
number, date, and the drawee bank;
3. That a more definite statement on the matters as above-indicated is necessary in order to
enable the defendant to prepare its responsive pleading because from the very onset of
this controversy, the main dispute was on what was actually and exactly agreed upon by
the parties as the amount of monthly rentals on the lease of plaintiff's property;
4. However, due to the fact that defendant corporation had to transfer its liaison offices
depending on its project sites, the check stub where the above-mentioned check came
from was probably misplaced and could no longer be found;
5. That a bill of particulars or a more definite statement as to particulars of the said check
which was allegedly issued by the defendants as partial payment for the first month

would definitely simplify the issues in this case, and hopefully uncomplicate the
negotiations between the parties for an amicable settlement.

WHEREFORE, defendant most respectfully prays that an order be issued by this
Honorable Court requiring the plaintiff to make more definite statement as to the particulars of
the check mentioned in paragraph 5 of his complaint, particularly stating its amount, check
number, date, and the name of the drawee bank.
_____________, Philippines, __Date__.




Legal Procedures 10: Pleadings and motions before arraignment;

motion for judicial determination of probable cause

(Note: Please surf to thecomplete list of available PDFs on

legal procedures in criminal and civil cases.)
1. Petition for review - filed with the Department of Justice, the Regional State Prosecutors office,
or the Office of the President, if the prosecutor has committed manifest error or grave abuse of
discretion during the preliminary investigation. Period of suspension of arraignment must not exceed
sixty days from the filing of the petition for review.
2. Motion for reinvestigation - alleges defects or irregularities in the preliminary investigation,
requests that the findings be invalidated and that another investigation be conducted to determine if
there is probable cause.
3. Motion for a bill of particulars (Rule 116, Section 10) - specifies alleged defects of the
complaint or information and requests details that will enable the accused to plead properly to the
charge against him and to adequately prepare for trial.
4. Motion for suspension of arraignment - may be filed on the ground that the accused appears to
be suffering from an unsound mental condition that effectively renders him unable to fully understand
the charge against him and to plead intelligently. In such a case, the court orders a mental
examination of the accused and if necessary, his confinement. Another ground is when the court
finds the existence of a valid prejudicial question (for example, a void first marriage in bigamy

5. Motion to quash the information (a) The accused has been previously convicted or in jeopardy of being convicted, or has been
acquitted of the offense charged.
(b) The criminal action or liability has already prescribed.
(c) The facts charged do not constitute an offense.
(d) The court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the case or over the person of the accused.
(e) The officer who filed the information had no authority to do so
(f)The information contains statements which constitute a legal excuse or justification
(g) It does not conform substantially to the prescribed form.
(h) More than one offense is charged (except in cases where the law prescribes a single punishment
for various offenses).
6. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of prosecution, police or other
law investigating agencies in order to prevent surprise, suppression, or alteration (Sec. 10,
Rule 116).
7. Motion to quash a search warrant or to suppress evidence (Section 14 of Rule 126) - A
motion to quash a search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained thereby may be filed in and
acted upon only by the court where the action has been instituted. If no criminal action has been
instituted, the motion may be filed in and resolved by the court that issued search warrant. However,
if such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is subsequently filed in another court,
the motion shall be resolved by the latter court.
(If I remember correctly, Atty. Oliver Lozano several years ago defended an alleged drug lord by
filing a motion to suppress the States evidence, a shipload of drugs. Atty. Lozano argued that there
was no evidence linking the boatload of drugs to the accused, that the ship was registered in another
persons name, etc. The judge agreed with this contention and dismissed the complaint without a
full-blown trial. I remember reading a column by Justice Isagani Cruz that criticized the dismissal of
the case.)
8. Motion for judicial determination of probable cause: Please read the Supreme Court decision
in Dio v. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 178947, June 26, 2013. The pertinent provisions of the
decision are posted below:

Actions that a judge may

take once the information
is filed with the court and
after evaluating the
evidence on record:
(a) issue a warrant of
arrest, if there is probable
(b) immediately dismiss
the case, if the evidence on
record clearly fails to
establish probable cause;
(c) order the prosecutor to
submit additional
evidence, if the existence
of probable cause is
(a) Determination of probable cause may be either executive or judicial.
Executive determination of probable cause is made by the public prosecutor, during a preliminary
investigation. The prosecutor has broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists for
filing a criminal information in court.
Whether or not the prosecutor has correctly ascertained that probable cause exists is a matter that
the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon.
Judicial determination of probable cause is made by the judge to find out whether a warrant of arrest
should be issued against the accused. The judge must satisfy himself or herself that, on the basis of
the evidence submitted, the accused must be placed under custody in order not to frustrate the ends
of justice.
If the judge, therefore, finds no probable cause, he or she cannot be forced to issue the arrest
(b) Caution for defense lawyers in filing a motion for judicial determination of probable cause:
the judge is already duty-bound to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for
the arrest of the accused immediately upon the filing of the information. The filing of a motion for
judicial determination of probable cause becomes unnecessary, if not deliberately attempts to cut

short the process by asking the judge to weigh in on the evidence without a full- blown trial.
(c) A judge may immediately dismiss a case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish
probable cause. A judges determination of probable cause is generally confined to the limited
purpose of issuing arrest warrants. But Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure explicitly states that a judge may immediately dismiss a case if the evidence on record
clearly fails to establish probable cause.
(d) Caution for judges: So as not to transgress the public prosecutors authority, the judges
dismissal of a case must be done only in clear-cut cases when the evidence on record plainly fails to
establish probable cause that is, when the records readily show uncontroverted, and thus,
established facts that unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of the crime charged.


Complainant OMB-L-C-10-0020-A
-versus- For: Violation of R.A. No 3019
ARNOLD C. MARAMAG, ET. AL.,Respondent/s,
Complainant OMB-L-A-10-0030-A
-versus- For: Violation of R.A. No 6713
Respondent/s, unto this Honorable Office most respectfully states:
SALVADOR in OMB-L-C-10-0020-A, and CECILIO JACINTO in OMB-L-A-10-0030-A,
respectively, received a copy of the Orders issued by this Honorable Office on April 31,
2010, ordering them to submit their respective Counter-affidavits in answer to the attached
Affidavit-complaints and supporting documents.
2. That the respondents have been preparing their respective counter-affidavits, but are
having difficulty in squarely answering the charges against them as the affidavit-complaint
suffers from insufficient definiteness, which necessities this motion for bill of particulars.
3. That as provided in the affidavit-complaints in both OMB-L-C-10-0020-A and OMB-L-A10-0030-A, the charge of the complainant is that the respondents committed a violation of
Republic Act 3019, a violation of Republic Act 6713 and the crime of Falsification under the
Revised Penal Code. Such complaints are not definite and that the respondents are not
being properly informed of the charges against them.
4. That the affidavit-complaint failed to indicate what particular prohibited act under Republic
Act 3019 has been violated. In the same vein, the affidavit-complaint does not indicate