AGUILAR, Krystalynne F.

2018890203

The Case of People of Philippines vs. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr.

The unconstitutionality of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF

for brevity) has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Belgica vs. Ochoa,
decided on November 19, 2013. A separate criminal charge branching from the said
case was the plunder case against Former Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. who
was said to have connived with Janet Lim Napoles, owner of several ghost NGO’s
from the mother franchise named “JLN Corporation” culled under her initials.
Several whistleblowers surfaced and testified against Napoles and Former Senator
Revilla. The whistleblowers were placed under the ‘Witness Protection Program’
and has been relieved of their respective criminal charges had it not been for their
affidavits and testimonies, they would have been charged of the same criminal
offense with that of the accused. Benhur Luy instigated the criminal case when he
was rescued by the authorities from his captivity from Napoles. He confessed the
whole fraud from the transactions up to the amount of money amassed. Luy was
tagged as the key whistleblower in the multi-million-dollar scam, he was appointed
president of a non-government organization named Social Development Program
for Farmer’s Foundation, one of the many dummy NGO’s created under Napoles’
instructions. Other whistleblowers are Marina Sula, Arlene Baltazar, Simonette
Briones and Merlina Sunas some of which are also appointed presidents of other
dummy NGO’s under Napoles’ control.

These whistleblowers actively took part in the fraud transactions. Under

Napoles’ instructions, they would deliver or withdraw money from banks and use
1
Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica v. Hon. Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, 19
November 2013
these great amounts of money amounting to millions of pesos begotten from
lawmakers’ own PDAF and would give back a portion of these amounts to the said
legislators in the form of kickbacks or commissions. Former Senator Revilla
allegedly took part in the grand scam. Richard Cambe, his former legislative officer
personally took part and received money from these transactions claiming that he
was under the Former Senator’s authority and that he was an approved representative
to receive money. On December 7, 2018, in a ruling of the Supreme Court, Revilla,
Cambe and Napoles were charged of the crime of plunder under Section 2 of RA
7160. It has been proven according to sufficient evidence that Revilla himself
triggered the release of funds from the Department of Budget and Management and
his request was accompanied with a list of projects that are to be funded by his PDAF
and the names in Implementing Agencies found in the DBM menu to implement
them which was identified by the witnesses from CoA and DBM in the 12 different
SARO’s culled from Revilla’s PDAF. The only evidence which makes Revilla
highly culpable in the case was his indorsements of Napoles NGO’s to the IA’s
reply-letter to the Commission on Audit. Even with the various circumstantial
evidence at hand, there was no single direct evidence that criminalizes the former
Senator that he indeed received a rebate, commission or kickback in connection with
his PDAF project. According to the rules of evidence, circumstantial evidence may
suffice to criminalize an accused but even there existed numerous circumstantial
evidences to do so, most of them has not been proven as facts to cite are:

 the 2011 letter purportedly signed by Revilla addressed to the COA Assistant
Commissioner
 that Cambe was Revilla’s authorized representative to receive kickbacks,
commissions in his behalf
  that the sums of money are handed to Revilla
 that the money in the account of Revilla was from Napoles
 the endorsement letter addressed to the IA’s requesting the release of PDAF
to one of the NGO’s of accused Napoles, as a partner in the implementation
of the livelihood program

The testimonies of Luy and Sunas proved that accused Cambe received a total of
Php 238, 447, 500, 000 but cannot ascertain whether or not the money was really
received by accused Revilla. The endorsement letter that had been signed allegedly
by Revilla was not enough evidence because of the defense that the signature was
forged.

In my opinion, the ruling was correct in the sense that Revilla might have been
guilty of plunder but because there was no sufficient evidence to indict him of such,
the presumption of innocence until proven guilty applies in the case at bar. Yes,
Revilla might have connived with Napoles but that was not proven in the evidences
mentioned in the case. If Cambe was really Revilla’s authorized representative and
that he would only answer to his instructions, the money he received should have
been reflected in Revilla’s bank accounts but the prosecution had no direct evidence
to establish that the money in Revilla’s account was the money he received from
transactions in the form of kickbacks or commissions through his business with
Napoles. Cambe received and entered into transactions as the alleged representative
of Revilla and since there was no evidence indicting Revilla, Cambe should be solely
responsible. Accused Napoles is the mastermind of this grand scheme, she laid out
the necessary platforms for the scam to work. Napoles created numerous dummy
NGO’s and appointed her employees as presidents of several different NGO’s.
Napoles would fake liquidation reports so her illegal service would not be
interrupted. She would take pictures of fake projects for documentation and one of
the said scam NGO’s was the agriculture-related one. She would only present those
which are fresh products and hide the wasted ones. She also created a dollar account
using the proceeds she amassed and would wire it to the benefit of her own family—
her brother and daughter namely. The dummy NGO’s which was funded from
Revilla’s PDAF did not redound to the benefit of the supposed NGO because it was
not real in the first place instead, the proceeds was pocketed by accused Napoles in
pursuance of her own endeavors. The primary evidence had been wiped up by the
cautious accused Napoles in fear of a warrant arrest and so circumstantial evidence
were only established such as the secondary evidence of ledgers. It is undeniable
that Revilla may have had a hand in the transactions and benefit may have redounded
to him in the process but there was no sufficient evidence to prove him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt. I therefore find no wrong in the ruling of the court. Cambe and
Napoles are properly sentenced for the crime of plunder for they are the main
perpetrators and their participation has been proved by direct evidence.
REFERENCE LIST

Greco Antonious Beda B. Belgica v. Hon. Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa,

G.R. No. 208566, 19 November 2013