Former senator Bong Revilla is briefly out of jail after the Sandiganbayan third Division granted his bail petition on his malversation case.
Revilla is dealing with graft and malversation circumstances over a P92.8-million flood management ghost challenge in Bulacan. He was arrested in January and spent over six months in detention on the New Quezon Metropolis Jail in Payatas.
Whereas graft is bailable, malversation will not be, so the previous senator needed to file a petition for bail and attended weeks-long hearings on the Sandiganbayan. In the end, the third division justices determined to grant Revilla non permanent liberty in a decision made public on July 31.
The courtroom, nonetheless, didn’t grant the petition for bail of Revilla’s co-accused, which incorporates former Division of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engineers Brice Hernandez, Jaypee Mendoza, and Arjay Domasig, amongst others.
The three justices — Chairperson Affiliate Justice Karl Miranda, Affiliate Justice Ronald Moreno, and Affiliate Justice Fritz Bryn Anthony delos Santos — have been unanimous in denying the motions of virtually all of Revilla’s co-accused. Moreno needed to grant Christina Mae Pineda’s bail, however was outvoted.
Nevertheless, Miranda was the lone dissenter in granting Revilla’s bail. Each Moreno and Delos Santos believed that the previous senator have to be given non permanent liberty.
Revilla not but acquitted
For grave offenses like malversation of public funds, bail will not be computerized. An accused like Revilla has to file a petition for bail.
The courtroom then holds abstract hearings the place the prosecution presents its proof and witnesses, solely for the aim of figuring out whether or not the proof of guilt is powerful. This threshold is vital as a result of if the courtroom, after the bail hearings, finds that the proof is weak, it grants the bail petition of the accused.
That is what occurred to Revilla. The proof in opposition to him, in as far as the bail hearings are involved, was discovered to be weak, that’s the reason his petition was granted.
For his fellow accused, nonetheless, the courtroom discovered the proof to be sturdy. Their request was denied.
Bear in mind, these abstract hearings and proof have been supposed just for the bail petition, and excluded the precise malversation case.
Revilla is out of jail for now, however this doesn’t imply he’s fully off the hook. His non permanent liberty means he received’t have to stay underneath the custody of the Bureau of Jail Administration and Penology in Payatas, however he’ll nonetheless should attend his graft and malversation hearings.
His innocence will solely be decided on the finish of courtroom’s trial. The prosecution can also current extra proof in the course of the trial correct.
“A discovering of sturdy proof of guilt after the conclusion of a bail listening to will not be equal to a discovering of guilt past cheap doubt. It’s based on proof being initially established by the prosecution previous to resting on the presentation of its evidence-in-chief,” the 176-page decision penned by Delos Santos stated.
“It’s not at all an exhaustive inquiry of guilt — particularly as to the weather of the crime and the diploma of participation. It’s restricted solely to the evaluation of a subset or pattern of the whole thing of the prosecution’s proof,” it added.
The prosecution robotically adopts its proof introduced in the course of the bail hearings for its mom case. It might additionally current extra proof in the course of the trial correct.
“As a matter of observe, the proof introduced in help of a bail utility are adopted as a part of the evidence-in-chief. Though the prosecution might current extra proof,” Nationwide Union of Peoples’ Legal professionals president Ephraim Cortez informed Rappler.
Proof vs Revilla is weak
Moreno and Delos Santos discovered that the prosecution failed to point out sturdy proof of guilt on the a part of Revilla.
Revilla was dubbed by the Workplace of the Ombudsman a proponent, or a politician whose job is to make sure that a selected DPWH challenge might be funded by the nationwide finances. In change, a public official will get a fee or alleged kickback from the scheme.
This was how the supposed “kalakaran” or corruption scheme contained in the DPWH labored.
To show their allegations, the prosecution introduced state witnesses former DPWH undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, former DPWH engineer Henry Alcantara, and DPWH Metro Manila regional director Gerard Opulencia, in addition to some DPWH workers. In addition they introduced documentary printouts that bear the initials “SBR,” supposedly standing for “Senator Bong Revilla.”
This proof was presupposed to show that Revilla allegedly:
- Obtained an inventory of initiatives from DPWH officers and staff to fund them
- Facilitated and brought about the inclusion of those initiatives within the nationwide finances
- Acquired kickbacks from doing all of those
In the meantime, Philippine courts have recognized the weather of malversation. They’re as follows:
- The offender is a public officer
- She or he had custody or management of funds or property by motive of the duties of his or her workplace
- These funds or property have been public funds or property for which she or he was accountable
- She or he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, by way of abandonment or negligence, permitted one other particular person to take them
Nevertheless, the courtroom stated there was no proof narrating how Revilla allegedly facilitated the challenge’s inclusion within the nationwide finances. It defined that being the chairperson of the Senate committee on public works didn’t imply that he had the facility to writer a finances “that’s binding not solely on stated Committee however even on the Senate itself as a plenary physique in addition to the Bicameral Committee of Congress.”
The courtroom stated that the testimony about Revilla allegedly acquiring an inventory of initiatives from the DPWH didn’t show the malversation’s final ingredient that “he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, by way of abandonment or negligence, permitted one other particular person to take them.”
Based on the courtroom, the prosecution additionally did not current an iota of proof that Revilla expressly or impliedly agreed that, on the time of allegedly receiving the kickbacks, his co-accused would commit malversation sooner or later.
“At greatest, accused Revilla’s alleged receipt of the kickbacks (as testified to by the witnesses within the bail hearings) might solely help a mere assumption that he might have had predicted that the identical funds would afterward be recovered by personal contractors (and a few of his co-accused who might have had personal contractors as dummies) from the sum appropriated for the challenge on this case),” the ruling defined.
“Extra importantly, on the time accused Revilla allegedly acquired his ‘commitments,’ the money supposedly concerned within the deliveries got here from personal individuals as testified. At the moment, the funds concerned insofar as accused Revilla is anxious weren’t public in character,” it added.
The courtroom additionally defined {that a} authorities challenge has 4 levels: planning or proposal; funding; implementation; and post-auditing. It stated that the crime of malversation, a minimum of based mostly on the proof to date, occurred in the course of the implementation stage.
The Sandiganbayan stated Revilla’s alleged receipt of advance commissions occurred earlier than the implementation stage.
“This essentially implies that the funds he acquired coming from the personal contractors didn’t come from public coffers to be thought-about as ‘public funds’ underneath the definition of the crime of malversation,” stated the courtroom.
Miranda dissents
Miranda, who dissented within the resolution to grant Revilla bail, stated he disagreed with the conclusions that there was no proof that the previous senator facilitated the inclusion of the funding and that he had no alleged participation within the malversation.
On prime of this, Miranda additionally disagreed with the conclusion that there was nothing connects the act of acquiring the listing of initiatives and facilitating the funding of the topic challenge “to the eventual understanding that the restoration of the advance kickbacks allegedly paid to Revilla might be recovered by his co-accused by means of malversation.”
The chairperson believes that the prosecution was in a position to current sturdy proof in opposition to Revilla, explaining that the previous senator’s alleged acts might solely be appreciated when contextualized throughout the “kalakaran” scheme contained in the DPWH.
The chairperson believes that it was flawed to deal with the advance fee as an unbiased and remoted offense, because the contractor should depend on future offenses to get well the dedication by way of public funds.
“In the end, it’s the authorities that’s charged for the bribe that the contractor has paid the challenge proponent,” stated Miranda.
The Justice of the Peace additionally stated that the testimonies of Bernardo, Alcantara, Opulencia, and Bernardo’s aides show that commitments have been collected for 2025 initiatives, the place Revilla acted as proponent. He additionally added that there was “sturdy proof” that these kickbacks have been delivered to Revilla in his white home compound in Cavite within the first quarter of 2025.
For Miranda, there was no must show that Revilla personally intervened within the congressional deliberations to make sure that the challenge could be funded. Miranda defined that the DPWH challenge wouldn’t have been included within the nationwide finances regulation had it not been for the next causes:
- Revilla’s allocation supplied by former DPWH secretary Manuel Bonoan
- Revilla’s request from Bernardo for the listing of initiatives for “allocation”
- Alcantara’s “transmittal of the listing of initiatives to Undersecretary Bernardo, which listing included the topic challenge, as a part of initiatives for funding from Revilla’s allocation”
- Bernardo’s transmittal of the listing of initiatives for funding from Revilla’s allocation to Bonoan and the late DPWH undersecretary Cathy Cabral
- Revilla’s follow-up with Bernardo, Bonoan, and Cabral for the inclusion of initiatives
“Miranda thus concludes that it’s troublesome to justify that the accused who personally benefited from the scheme is granted provisional liberty, whereas his co-accused are stored incarcerated regardless of lack of proof that they gained something from the fee of the crime charged,” stated the Justice of the Peace in his dissenting opinion. – Rappler.com
