Revilla acquittal draws surprise, scorn

Filipino actor and former Philippine Senator Ramon ‘Bong’ Revilla Jr., right, hugs his lawyer during the promulgation of a plunder case at the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court in metropolitan Manila, Philippines on Friday, Dec. 7, 2018. Revilla was cleared of plunder by the court but two other co-accused, Revilla’s former chief of staff Richard Cambe and businesswoman Janet Lim Napoles, were found guilty of the charge in a scandal that broke out years ago that involved huge government funds intended for anti-poverty projects being stolen by several accused legislators. (AP Photo/Aaron Favila)

The briber is guilty but not the bribed?

The Sandiganbayan decision acquitting former Sen. Bong Revilla while convicting his two coaccused in the plunder case stemming from the P10-billion pork barrel scam case drew perplexed reactions and sighs of dismay from the political opposition and legal circles.

Sen. Francis Pangilinan said “it is difficult to understand the decision” handed down by the antigraft court on Friday to end the four-year trial of one of his former Senate colleagues.

“How could the briber be guilty and the bribed not guilty?” the Liberal Party president said, apparently referring to the convicted Janet Lim-Napoles, the businesswoman who was convicted for devising a racket that allowed pork barrel funds to be funneled to ghost projects, and Revilla who was accused of amassing P224 million in kickbacks in exchange for endorsing Napoles-linked foundations that received the allocations.

Like Napoles, Revilla’s former chief of staff, Richard Cambe, was found guilty by the Sandiganbayan and sentenced to up to 40 years in prison.

Lawyer Theodore Te, a former spokesperson for the Supreme Court, commented on  why the antigraft court included Revilla among those who must pay P124 million as civil liability.

“[I] haven’t read the Revilla acquittal decision yet; but if he was made to pay P124 million as civil liability, it means that the Sandiganbayan only found reasonable doubt as to his guilt but that the act of plunder, from which civil liability might arise, exists and was proven,” Te said in a post on Twitter.

Beyond reasonable doubt

Te noted that the ruling reflected Section 2, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, which states that in case of an acquittal, the judgment should state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

“In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist,” according to the provision.

A staunch critic of the pork barrel system, Sen. Panfilo Lacson said the court decision left him feeling “weak and defeated.”

But “as former colleague and friend, I am happy for ex-Sen. Bong Revilla,” Lacson said in a text message to reporters.

“As a legislator who knows the justice system, I respect the decision of the Sandiganbayan for (the justices), more than anyone, have [a] better appreciation of the evidence. At the end of the day, life goes on. Same is true with our individual battles,” he said.

ACT Teachers Representatives Antonio Tinio and France Castro said Revilla’s acquittal “only showed the hypocrisy of the Duterte administration’s campaign against corruption.”

“President Duterte stated many times that he will not allow corruption during his term. He should also make sure that those charged with corruption serve their time and pay for their crimes against the people,” Castro said.

“(Revilla’s) acquittal … shows the insincerity of the Duterte administration’s campaign against corruption (as) big fishes are allowed to wriggle free.”

Lawyer Levito Baligod, who earlier served as legal counsel to pork barrel scam whistleblower Benhur Luy and stood as private complainant in the plunder case, said he accepted the decision “as it is the result of the judicial process that we have.”

‘Manner so detestable’

“(It) doesn’t erase the fact, though, that the PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) of then Sen. Bong Revilla was misused in a manner so detestable,” Baligod said.

The Supreme Court in 2013 declared the PDAF, or pork barrel, unconstitutional and nullified the laws that provided lawmakers lump-sum allocations to fund their chosen projects.

In Malacañang, presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo said the executive branch had “consistently respected the independence of the judiciary” and would abide by the antigraft court’s decision.

“Regardless of the sentiments to the contrary, we have to bow down to the judgment of the Sandiganbayan,” Panelo said in a statement.

“While justice grinds so slow most of the time, it does grind, and when it stops, it renders a verdict that is exacting and immutable,” the Palace official said. “Nevertheless, we note that either party, whether for the prosecution or the defense, who feels aggrieved of the decision may still pursue remedies available under our procedural laws.”

Panelo stressed that the Duterte administration “takes stock of the lessons learned from cases involving unconstitutional discretionary funds” and that the government “has implemented measures to ensure the integrity of the national budget and its proper utilization for our people.”

For Revilla’s allies, Friday’s historic ruling spelled vindication for the movie star-turned politician.

Cavite Rep. Strike Revilla, the ex-senator’s younger brother, called it the best Christmas gift for the family. “We are very happy that truth prevailed.”

Big boost

Former Leyte Rep. Martin Romualdez, president of the Lakas-Christian Muslim Democrats (CMD) party, considered the acquittal a big boost to Revilla’s comeback bid in the 2019 midterm elections.

While still in detention in October, Revilla, the Lakas-CMD chair, filed his certificate of candidacy for senator through his wife, Bacoor, Cavite Mayor Lani Mercado.

“The verdict is a timely justice to (Revilla), a victim of political persecution by the previous administration,” Romualdez said.

“His acquittal only validates and proves that the plunder case against him is politically motivated. Sadly, the plunder case took away more than four years of his life,” he added. —REPORTS FROM DJ YAP, JEROME ANING, MARLON RAMOS AND JULIE M. AURELIO

RELATED VIDEO