Lawyers of Senator Revilla, gov’t prosecutors set to argue on April 1, says SC
Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines—Lawyers of Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla and the government prosecutors will argue before the Supreme Court if there is a need to stop the formal probe on the pork barrel scam while the case filed by the senator against whistle-blower Benhur Luy in Cavite is still pending.
High Court’s spokesman Theodore Te told reporters Wednesday that the high court’s third division set the oral argument on April 1, the start of the justices’ summer session in Baguio City.
The high court has also set three issues that will be tackled in the oral argument namely: (1) Whether or not the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion when it denied petitioner’s motion to suspend the preliminary investigation; (2) whether or not the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion when it dismissed petitioner’s plunder charges against Dennis Cunanan, Antonio Ortiz, Alan Javellana, Gondelina Amata, Salvador Salacup, Mylene Encarnacion, Nemesio Pablo, Evelyn De Leon, Jocelyn Piorato, John Raymond de Asis, Ronaldo John Lim, Benhur Luy, Merlina Sunas, and Marina Sula despite the presence of clear evidence against them, in violation of petitioner’s right to due process, and (3) whether or not the issuance of a TRO is proper.
Revilla earlier asked the high court to stop the Ombudsman’s formal probe. Instead of issuing a restraining order, 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.
Revilla went to the Supreme Court after the Ombudsman denied his bid to stop the probe because of the existing case he filed against whistle-blower Benhur Luy citing the existence of prejudicial question.
But Morales in her order dated Jan. 28, which was upheld in March said there is “no prejudicial question exists 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 in the outcome of the criminal cases filed with the Ombudsman.”
Revilla, together with Senators Jinggoy Estrada and Juan Ponce Enrile have been slapped with a case for plunder in connection with the questionable use of PDAF.
The Joint Order explained that the issues in the criminal and civil cases are 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 are 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 Janet Lim 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 already 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.
RELATED STORIES
Bong Revilla condemns alleged Vhong Navarro mauling
Jinggoy Estrada banking on Ombudsman to be fair in ‘pork’ case
SC defers ruling on Revilla petition vs Ombudsman’s ‘pork’ probe
Janet Lim Napoles and the pork barrel scam
