SEN. Ramon “Bong” Revilla is officially off the hook where the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam cases are concerned.
The Office of the Ombudsman yesterday announced that government prosecutors have no intention of seeking a review of the July 1 resolution of the Sandiganbayan Special First Division that granted Revilla’s demurrer to evidence, effectively acquitting him of his remaining 16 graft cases.
“The Sandiganbayan acquitted him for insufficiency of evidence on the remaining 16 graft cases in relation to the pork barrel scam. The SB First Division voted 3-2 to grant Senator Revilla’s Demurrer to Evidence, and we respect its decision,” the anti-corruption body said.
Ombudsman Samuel Martires said the decision not to appeal the ruling is consistent with the defendant’s constitutional right against double jeopardy.
The Ombudsman also said that the only valid ground to challenge a ruling of acquittal is when the “People of the Philippines” was clearly deprived of due process or where there was mistrial.
Associate Justices Geraldine Faith A. Econg, Rafael R. Lagos and Edgardo M. Caldona ruled in favor of Revilla while Associate Justices Efren N. de la Cruz and Bayani H. Jacinto dissented.
In their separate opinions, De la Cruz and Jacinto disputed the pronouncement of the majority that the acts cited in the graft charges are predicate acts of the plunder case that was previously dismissed as against Revilla on December 7, 2018.
The dissenting justices said that as a criminal offense, violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is distinct from Plunder which is punishable under RA 7080.
They noted that the primary element of a plunder charge is the amassing of ill-gotten wealth amounting to P50 million or more, whereas a graft charge penalizes certain acts or omissions by a public officer that would constitute corruption.
Jacinto likewise pointed out that prosecution evidence clearly established that alleged scam mastermind Janet Napoles created private foundations or non-government organizations (NGOs) for a singular purpose — to siphon away PDAF or congressional pork barrel funds.
“Notwithstanding the readiness of the facility provided by Napoles, the same remains inert until she, either personally or through her associates, acquires the complicity of lawmakers,” he said.
On this premise, Jacinto disagreed with the majority’s stand that when Revilla selected the Napoles NGOs to implement his PDAF-funded projects, he was only performing his regular functions.
De la Cruz, for his part, said the majority resolution disregarded the evidence submitted by the prosecution that substantiated conspiracy among all the accused.
He pointed out that Revilla held the key for the release of his PDAF totaling P515.5 million.
“His involvement was not merely to endorse the NGOs. The prosecution adequately presented proof that he was among the criminal masterminds who orchestrated this scheme,” De la Cruz said.
The Ombudsman however said the 3-2 ruling is a finding on insufficiency of evidence.
“The grant of the court of the demurrer is tantamount to an acquittal because the defendant is cleared of the criminal case and is no longer required to present his evidence,” it said.
