Ombudsman asks Sandiganbayan to freeze Revilla’s assets

MANILA, Philippines–Seize them now.

Prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman have asked the Sandiganbayan to immediately freeze the assets of Sen. Bong Revilla, saying the detained senator might “conceal, remove or dispose of his properties” following the court’s denial of his bail petition.

In a motion it filed on Tuesday, the prosecution said Revilla might use his position as “a powerful and influential political figure” to prevent the government from confiscating his properties should the antigraft court’s first division order a forfeiture of his assets.

It said the court’s Dec. 1, 2014, ruling, which threw out the senator’s petition for bail, only made urgent the resolution of its Oct. 27, 2014, motion for a writ of preliminary attachment.

The writ of preliminary attachment or garnishment is similar to a freeze order issued by the lower courts.

“The denial of (Revilla’s petition for) bail … signals that there is more than ample substance in the (prosecution’s) case against him, and that the case is neither frivolous nor unmeritorious,” the Ombudsman prosecutors said.

“Therefore, (the prosecution’s) prayer to attach accused Revilla’s properties as security for a judgment of forfeiture that this Honorable Court may render against him has become even more proper and justifiable,” it added.

Revilla is accused of pocketing P224.5 million of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), which he allegedly funneled into the bogus foundations of suspected pork barrel racket brains Janet Lim-Napoles.

Along with Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, Revilla has been locked up at the Philippine National Police Custodial Center at Camp Crame since June last year following their indictment for plunder and graft charges.

Another coaccused, Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, is being held at PNP General Hospital for the same offense.

The prosecution said it was “prudent and necessary” for the court to secure Revilla’s bank deposits, cars, real estate properties and other assets after its ruling made a “categorical, albeit preliminary, finding of strong evidence of guilt” against the senator.

Although the court’s junking of his petition for bail did not prove Revilla’s criminal liability, the prosecution said it was “arguably harmful and prejudicial to his cause.”

“Needless to state, accused Revilla has an interest in placing his properties beyond this Honorable Court’s reach,” the prosecutors said.

“In light of the foregoing, (the prosecution) respectfully moves for the immediate resolution of the instant motion in order to secure the state’s claims against the properties of accused Revilla.”

Revilla earlier opposed the prosecution’s move to freeze his properties, arguing that any order of garnishment covering his assets would be “unfair and unjust.”

The senator also questioned the prosecutors’ use of an Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) report, which discovered that P87.6 million was deposited in his accounts and those of his family members, to justify the garnishment of his assets.

“The very language of the AMLC report denotes inconclusiveness, not to mention uncertainty. These inconclusive allegations cannot be used by the prosecution as basis for its prayer in its motion,” Revilla said.

In seeking the garnishment of Revilla’s assets, the prosecution claimed there was a “prima facie evidence” to prove that the senator used his alleged kickbacks from the pork barrel scam to acquire his properties.

It said the senator, Napoles and their coaccused “abused the ordinary PDAF processes to cloak with a mystique of legality their nefarious scheme of siphoning public” funds.

“It is thus quite logical to believe that he will likewise abuse judicial and legal processes to conceal or dispose any part of his unlawfully acquired wealth,” the prosecution said.