Seares: Cebu’s Geraldine Faith Econg chose ‘to be unpopular’: she freed Revilla

“YES, I know it’s unpopular. I would have loved to be a heroine that I convicted him. But at the end of the day, I’m bound to rule based on evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense.”---Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Geraldine Faith Econg

Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Geraldine Faith Econg was one of three, in a panel of five jurists, who voted for the acquittal of former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. Why does she think she could’ve been the heroine and win accolades? If she had voted against Revilla; there would have been three others to honor in a four to one vote.

AJ Econg stood out because she was the “ponente” or writer of the decision that said Bong Revilla did not commit plunder. And she was the one who, hours after the Sandiganbayan promulgated the decision that shook the country last Friday, Dec. 7, used that argument in trying to make herself less the villain that she, with two other justices, appeared to be. The one who stood up and spoke out.

‘Beyond reasonable doubt’

The majority of three--Econg with AJ Edgardo Caldona and AJ Georgina Hidalgo--decided the prosecution failed to “establish beyond reasonable doubt” that Revilla received, directly or indirectly, kickbacks from his pork barrel called the Prior Development Assistance Fund, or PDAF. Accordingly, it ruled, he is acquitted.

Apparently, from the uproar that met the decision, the public would not be appeased with the premise and conclusion. They didn’t prove the crime, ergo Bong is innocent.

Public skepticism

In the court of public opinion, people asked:

--How Revilla could not have known what was being done about the huge amount of P224 million PDAF allocated to him. He must not be naïve, stupid or reckless if he had not known about the use of government funds. In assessing knowledge, courts don’t just look at actual knowledge; they look at circumstances that amount to knowledge.

--Why Bong neglected or, worse, gave away “commissions and rebates” from his PDAF and left the largesse to his chief aide who was not even his blood relative.

Ludicrous, the dissenting justices said.

Signatures authenticated

On the supposed evidence that the signatures on Revilla’s endorsement were forged, Bong himself in a letter to COA confirmed they were his signature. The recantation of two witnesses to the signatures became dubious with Revilla’s word that they were genuine.

The two justices who dissented--Division chairman Efren de la Cruz and AJ Ma. Theresa Doloren Gomez-Estoesta–-said Bong’s aide Richard Cambe and pork barrel broker Janet Napoles could not have fooled “a seasoned man” like Revilla. A cynical public cannot accept the explanation that Revilla was kept in the dark when the pork barrel and its dark secret was the buzzword in Congress at the time.

Unexplained P87 million

“Circumstantial evidence” that Econg and her majority allies dismissed included the fact that Bong failed to explain how he and his family amassed in various deposits and investments totaling P87.6 million in 30 days.

People slam the sophistry that the money was not explained but neither was it proved that it came from Revilla’s pork barrel.

Plain reasoning

That must tell us why Econg’s defense, which involves nuances of the law, can do little to deflect public hostility to the ruling, which involves plain reasoning.

A massive theft was committed. Two people were found guilty and meted the penalty “reclusion perpetua” in jail. Why should Revilla, the public official responsible for the money and reasonably believed to have profited most from it, get away?

Econg said she could’ve been a heroine. That chance is totally out, of course. Increasingly, as the fallout from the ruling intensifies, she is regarded instead as the villain up front.