Senator Bong Revilla. INQUIRER file photo.
MANILA, Philippines—The camp of detained Sen. Bong Revilla yesterday expressed the hope that the Sandiganbayan could rule on the senator’s petition for bail next week after wrapping up the proceedings on Thursday.
In an interview, Revilla’s lead counsel Joel Bodegon also expressed confidence the antigraft court’s First Division would grant his client’s plea, saying the prosecution failed to present strong evidence against the senator.
“Our defense is anchored on the truth,” Bodegon told the Inquirer.
48-hour deadline
He said Revilla understood that the court could not meet the 48-hour deadline set by the Supreme Court for all trial courts to resolve petitions for bail which had been submitted for resolution.
Before concluding Revilla’s bail hearing, Associate Justice Efren dela Cruz, chair of the First Division, told the defense and prosecution panels that they would seek an extension from the high court.
“Maybe the court would be given three days or five days because the Supreme Court is very conscious about the 48-hour deadline,” Bodegon said.
“But it’s the discretion of the Supreme Court because they know about the complicity of this case and the volumes of documents that the Sandiganbayan justices had to pore over. After all, this is not an ordinary case,” he added.
Handwriting expert’s fee
In its March 18 administrative circular, the high court said: “Within 48 hours after the hearing, the court shall issue an order containing a brief summary of the evidence adduced before it, followed by its conclusion of whether or not the evidence of guilt if strong.”
Meanwhile, Bodegon clarified that the money they gave to handwriting expert Disiderio Pagui was not meant to defend Revilla, but to give his expert opinion on the documents he examined.
Pagui, a retired National Bureau of Investigation document examiner, admitted during Thursday’s hearing that he received P200,000 as payment for his service. He said Revilla’s signatures which appeared in some pork barrel documents were forged.
‘No bribe’
“That amount was for his professional fee as an expert document examiner. It was not a bribe or payment for him to lie,” Bodegon said.
In concluding Revilla’s defense, Bodegon said what the prosecution presented during the four-month long hearing were “suppositions, conjectures and hearsay evidence.”
“In sum, the prosecution failed to meet its burden to prove a ‘strong evidence’ of the guilt that may override Senator Revilla’s right to liberty and to be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise,” he argued.
But Director Joefferson Toribio, head of the prosecution panel, said the testimonial and documentary evidence against Revilla were overwhelming for the court to deny his plea.
“We, therefore, urge the honorable court to make the right step towards making the accused accountable for their crime. And that right step is to deny their petition for bail,” he said.