SC defers ruling on Revilla petition vs Ombudsman’s ‘pork’ probe

By: Tetch Torres-Tupas - 11 years ago

The Supreme Court building in Manila. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court has deferred ruling on a petition by Senator Ramon Revilla Jr. to stop the Ombudsman from investigating the controversial Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

Instead, the high court ordered Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales to comment on Revilla’s petition within 10 days before determining whether or not a restraining order should be issued.

“Without necessarily giving due course thereto, resolves to require respondents to comment thereon,” the high court’s resolution made public Thursday said.

Revilla went to the Supreme Court after the Ombudsman denied his bid to stop the inquiry because of the existing case he filed against whistle blower Benhur Luy, citing the existence of prejudicial question.

Luy is a key witness against Revilla and several lawmakers who have been linked to the illegal use of PDAF or pork barrel funds for bogus non-government organizations created by alleged mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles.

But Morales in her order dated Jan. 28 and which was upheld in March said there was “no prejudicial question existing to warrant the suspension of the preliminary investigation.”

There is a prejudicial question when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and there exists in the civil action an issue which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed. The issue raised in the civil action would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.

In this case, however, the Ombudsman said the civil case for declaration of nullity of documents of sum of money and damages which Revilla filed against Luy before the Cavite regional trial court “has no bearing to the outcome of the criminal cases filed with the Ombudsman.”

Revilla, together with Senators Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada and Juan Ponce Enrile have been charged with plunder in connection with the questionable use of PDAF.

The Joint Order explained that the issues in the criminal and civil cases were neither similar nor intimately related to one another, considering that “forgery or falsification, which is the gist of [the civil case], is not a necessary element of the [mentioned crimes].”

It added that the PDAF documents were not the sole or exclusive determinant of the existence of probable cause for plunder, malversation, or violation of the anti-graft law, as there appear to be other pieces of evidence (e.g., sworn statements of other witnesses, business records of companies controlled by Napoles, and reports from the on-site verification conducted by investigators in various provinces where the PDAF-funded projects were implemented).

The Joint Order considered the civil suit as an afterthought and ploy to delay the criminal proceedings, since Revilla knew about the PDAF documents and the issue of authenticity or genuineness of his signature on the documents as early as 2011 when upon the Commission on Audit’s request for confirmation. Instead of questioning the signature, he confirmed the signatures appearing in the PDAF documents.