Pork barrel scam: Revilla acquitted; Cambe, Napoles guilty of plunder
In a landmark decision, the Sandiganbayan acquitted former Sen. Bong Revilla of plunder but convicted his legislative officer, Richard Cambe, and businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles, saying the two had pocketed P124.5 million from his pork barrel funds.
Friday’s decision was the first ever handed down by the antigraft court in connection with the P10-billion pork barrel scam in which legislators’ Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocations were funneled to bogus foundations linked to Napoles.
“For failure of the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused Ramon ‘Bong’ Revilla Jr. received, directly or indirectly, the rebates, commission and kickbacks from his PDAF, the court cannot hold him liable for the crime of plunder. Accordingly, he is acquitted,” the decision read.
In a 3-2 vote, the Special First Division ruled against prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman who accused Revilla of getting a P224.5-million kickback in exchange for diverting his PDAF proceeds to the ghost projects of Napoles’ foundations from 2006 to 2010.
Prosecutors, however, were able to establish that Cambe received P124.5 million from Napoles, citing records from the financial ledgers kept by star witness Benhur Luy.
The court sentenced Napoles and Cambe to “reclusion perpetua,” or imprisonment of up to 40 years, and perpetually disqualified them from holding public office.
MOMENT OF TRIUMPH Former Sen. Bong Revilla celebrates with a supporter as the clerk of court reads the decision acquitting him of plunder charges by the slimmest of margins in the Sandiganbayan’s Special First Division. —NIÑO JESUS ORBETA
Napoles, Cambe stunned
It ordered Napoles held at the Correctional Institution for Women and Cambe at New Bilibid Prison.
The decision came four and a half years after Revilla surrendered in June 2014 and was detained at Camp Crame.
He wore a blue rolled-up long-sleeved shirt and denim pants, and appeared relaxed inside the courtroom. His wife, Mayor Lani Mercado of Bacoor City, Cavite, and his children, including Cavite Vice Gov. Jolo Revilla, attended the promulgation with a few supporters who clapped when the court announced its decision.
Revilla, who has always expressed confidence he would be acquitted, was jubilant and smiled broadly as he hugged people near him. In contrast, Cambe and Napoles were stunned.
COLLARED FOR PLUNDER Pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles scurries to the court room with her security escorts minutes before the Sandiganbayan promulgation. —NIÑO JESUS ORBETA
Cambe, who is a lawyer, had defended himself. He ignored reporters’ requests for comment and had a blank stare on his face as he walked out of the courtroom with his wife.
At least three other Sandiganbayan justices also were present at the promulgation.
In its 186-page decision, the court said the “accused are held solidarily and jointly liable” to return the P124.5-million kickback to the national treasury.
It did not specifically name the “accused,” so it wasn’t immediately clear whether Revilla, who was exonerated, would still have to give his share of the amount. His lawyer, Ramon Esguerra, said he should be excluded because he was acquitted.
The decision, penned by Associate Justice Geraldine Faith Econg, cited the Ombudsman’s failure to clearly establish that the former senator actually received the kickbacks.
“The fact that these sums received by Cambe for Revilla was received by the latter is just a mere possibility. On the other hand, the opposite scenario that the monies received by Cambe was not given to Revilla but was kept by him is also a possibility,” the ruling said.
Lawyer Richard Cambe, the former chief of staff of ex-Sen. Bong Revilla, drew the same penalty as Napoles.
Forged signatures
The court said the Ombudsman’s case suffered a “great blow” after it found that the “Bong” signatures in the endorsement letters authorizing the release of Revilla’s PDAF funds to the Napoles foundations were forged.
The court considered as “appropriate” the analysis by document examiner Desiderio Pagui, a witness for the defense, who said the signatures could not have been made by the former senator.
Another blow to the prosecution was whistleblower Marina Sula’s “recantation” of her statement during the 2014 bail hearings that Cambe brought the documents with him when he visited Napoles’ office.
Testifying as a defense witness in June, Sula said the endorsement letters were prepared by Napoles’ employees and Luy signed them with Revilla’s name.
The court said the forgery discredited “the only evidence that would be considered as Revilla’s strong links to Napoles and of his involvement in the scam.”
“There is now nothing on record any evidence, direct or circumstantial, to establish that Atty. Cambe is an authorized representative of Revilla in the implementation of his PDAF projects,” the court said.
Another evidence presented against Revilla was the Anti-Money Laundering Council’s report, which stated that from April 6, 2006, to April 28, 2010, he and members of his family made numerous deposits amounting to P87.63 million within 30 days of dates mentioned in Luy’s ledgers.
But the court did not give weight to this circumstantial evidence because it was not established that the deposits were from the money given by Napoles to Cambe.
“The prosecution left so many gaps in the data that it should have plugged in order for us to reach a certain degree of certainty that the monies deposited in the account did not come from any other source,” the decision read.
Case’s weak point
The fact that Luy, Sula, or their fellow whistleblowers Merlina Suñas and Mary Arlene Baltazar never handed any money to Revilla personally was another weak point in the prosecution’s case.
“No other concrete evidence can be alluded to in order to support any finding of [Revilla’s] liability other than he is a seasoned senator who may presumably not allow substantial transactions involving his PDAF through his longtime employee right under his nose,” it said.
Associate Justices Edgardo Caldona and Georgina Hidalgo concurred with the ponente, Econg. Associate Justices Efren de la Cruz and Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta were the dissenters who voted for Revilla’s conviction.
Not unanimous
Econg, Caldona and De la Cruz presided over the trial from June 2017 to August this year. Hidalgo and Estoesta were brought in as additional members after the three regular members did not reach a unanimous decision. Sandiganbayan rules require a majority vote of at least three.
Revilla’s legal troubles are not yet over as he still faces 16 graft charges in connection with the diversion of P517 million in pork barrel funds to the Napoles foundations.
These were bailable cases for which Revilla posted a P480,000 bond.
Assistant Special Prosecutor Mariter Delfin-Santos told reporters they were “disappointed,” while Deputy Special Prosecutor Manuel Soriano said they would have to “study” the decision.
But Ombudsman Samuel Martires said his office had no plans to appeal Revilla’s acquittal. If the 15-day deadline lapsed without the prosecution filing an appeal, the decision would be affirmed.
“It is an elementary doctrine in law that you cannot appeal a judgment of acquittal. The policy is based on double jeopardy or the prohibition ‘against being twice put in jeopardy,’” Martires said.
Early Friday night, Revilla was all smiles when he finally walked out of detention at the Philippine National Police Custodial Center.
“God is good,” he told reporters waiting for him. “After more than four years and six months, finally I am free. The truth has come out … I am thankful that there is still justice in our country.”
After Revilla’s release, his family had planned thanksgiving prayers at the Imus cathedral, and a visit to his mother’s grave at Angelus Memorial Gardens and to his ailing father before heading to their home in Bacoor. —WITH A REPORT FROM JAYMEE T. GAMIL
RELATED VIDEO
