‘Greater than the wastage of public funds, what is de facto concerned on this case is the betrayal by accused Revilla and his co-accused of the belief reposed on them as public officers,’ the prosecutors say
The Sandiganbayan third Division not too long ago granted former senator Bong Revilla’s petition for bail, permitting him to avail of momentary liberty.
This implies Revilla is out of Bureau of Jail Administration and Penology detention, whereas his malversation and graft circumstances are pending with the anti-graft courtroom. Revilla is already out on bail for his graft; the most recent decision was for the malversation case.
However the prosecutors from the Workplace of the Ombudsman should not giving up the struggle.
They filed an enchantment on Wednesday, August 5, to ask the third Division to rethink its decision on Revilla’s bail.
“Wherefore, it’s respectfully prayed that the Decision dated 31 July 2026 be partially reconsidered insofar because it granted the Petition for Bail filed by accused Ramon ‘Bong’ Bautista Revilla, Jr., and a brand new one be rendered denying the mentioned Petition,” the 15-page movement mentioned.
However how are the prosecutors making an attempt to persuade the anti-graft courtroom to reverse its earlier choice on Revilla?
Errors from the decision
The prosecution argued that Revilla was a part of the conspiracy to commit malversation of public funds by way of falsification of public paperwork, and that the proof, when taken as an entire, established Revilla’s presumptive guilt.
That is additionally the purpose of third Division chairperson Affiliate Justice Karl Miranda, who dissented on the grant of bail.
For non-bailable offenses equivalent to Revilla’s malversation, it’s the power of the proof that determines whether or not a petition for bail will likely be granted. If weak, the petition will likely be granted. This was what occurred to Revilla’s case.
“Within the current case, accused Revilla’s participation within the legal design was not inconsequential nor peripheral. Quite the opposite, he was the main hyperlink who set in movement the legal chain,” the prosecutors mentioned.
Revilla is on the middle of the case involving a P92.8-million Bulacan flood management challenge as a result of he allegedly acted as proponent for this Division of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) contract. Within the alleged DPWH corruption scheme, a proponent is a lawmaker who ensures {that a} challenge will likely be funded and will get a “commitments” in change.
For the prosecution, Revilla’s act of requesting the listing of DPWH tasks for funding and demanding “commitments” confirmed that he was not solely an energetic participant within the conspiracy, “but in addition a beneficiary within the diversion of public funds, with information that the tasks would serve solely as autos for the disbursement of public funds.”
“No much less necessary, the ruling failed to understand the prosecution’s proof exhibiting the scheme or ‘kalakaran‘ system which is prevailing and prevalent within the DPWH,” the Ombudsman argued.
“The prosecution’s proof clearly reveals that accused Revilla was the proponent of the flood management challenge topic of this case. [Engineer Henry] Alcantara testified that the mentioned challenge was included within the challenge lists he submitted to [Undersecretary Roberto] Bernardo, which ultimately was included within the errata of the DPWH and supplied a price range allocation within the GAA (Normal Appropriations Act),” it added.
Nonetheless liable
The courtroom defined in its July 31 decision {that a} authorities challenge has 4 levels: planning or proposal; funding; implementation; and post-auditing. It mentioned that the crime of malversation, at the very least based mostly on the proof thus far, occurred in the course of the implementation stage.
The Sandiganbayan mentioned that Revilla’s alleged receipt of commissions occurred earlier than the implementation stage.
For the prosecution, whereas Revilla had no direct participation within the implementation, he’s nonetheless liable. The Ombudsman, citing previous circumstances, agued {that a} conspirator shouldn’t be required to take part in each stage of the legal act.
Revilla’s demand for “dedication” earlier than the challenge’s implementation already confirmed his alleged information of, and settlement to, the legal design, mentioned the Ombudsman.
“Whereas accused Revilla could have been incognito within the implementation of the challenge, it should be remembered that he acquired the lion’s share of the proceeds,” the physique added.
In its decision, the courtroom additionally defined that the funds Revilla had acquired from personal contractors weren’t public funds underneath the definition of malversation.
The prosecution mentioned it didn’t say that the cash Revilla had acquired had been from the identical public funds concerned within the challenge. The previous senator was as a substitute concerned within the conspiracy to divert public funds, and the commitments not being “public funds” shouldn’t be sufficient to clear him from the alleged conspiracy.
“It’s a non sequitur to permit accused Revilla to submit bail due to a simplistic characterization that his ‘commitments’ should not ‘public funds,’ since his legal responsibility emanates from his being a co-conspirator within the misappropriation of P76,916,337.42,” mentioned the prosecutors.
“In parting, greater than the wastage of public funds, what is de facto concerned on this case is the betrayal by accused Revilla and his co-accused of the belief reposed on them as public officers,” mentioned the movement.
“Certainly, to counterpoint themselves on the expense of public service is sheer ethical callousness. Whereas it’s an evil that can not be simply found, it can’t be hidden nor go unpunished without end.” – Rappler.com
