LAST Dec. 7, 2018, the Sandiganbayan released Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. from detention, saying he cannot he held liable for the crime of plunder.
The prosecution, the anti-graft court said, failed to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that Bong received, “directly or indirectly,” kickbacks from the infamous pork barrel.
Bong was “acquitted,” which to you and most of us, means he was not guilty. Why then should he be ordered to return P124.5 million to the national treasury? The prosecutors last Monday (Jan. 28) moved that the judgment against his civil liability be enforced.
Nuance of the law
That has revived the public uproar for Revilla, who’s running for senator, to pay up. People don’t see him punished by keeping him locked up; at least they want to see him return part of the loot.
To understand the legal gibberish, one must appreciate this nuance in law: Bong could not be held criminally liable but he could be held civilly liable. There was not enough evidence that he committed the crime. The law requires “proof beyond reasonable doubt.” The evidence against Bong fell short of the requirement–-or at least three justices against two decided the standard was not met. But the ruling also did not mean he was innocent. He was not guilty to be jailed. He also wasn’t so innocent as to keep the money.
Unexplained pile of wealth
On the civil aspect, did he benefit from the transaction? There was evidence of unexplained wealth that he concealed. His bank accounts in 2010, the Anti-Money Laundering Council report said, piled up a total of P170.9 million when he declared only P81.16 million in his statement of assets and liabilities for that year.
That would be the basis for the seizure. The Sandiganbayan didn’t see enough proof he stole the money from pork barrel. It saw evidence of wealth he could not explain which must have been unlawfully obtained.
Prosecutors’ argument
The Ombudsman prosecutors rely on these for their motion to make Revilla return the money:
All the accused, including Janet Napoles and the senator’s chief of staff, were held by the court as “jointly and severally liable.” Anyone could be held to pay the P124.5 million. The Revised Penal Code says “every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.” It does not say, the prosecutors argue, that only those who are criminally liable are civilly liable.
The ruling that acquitted Bong referred to him as the accused in the “dispositive” portion. The collective term “accused” was used without exception. It could have easily named the Revilla staffer and Napoles but did not. That put Bong in the same lot with the other accused, as regards the pay-back part.
In other decisions of the court’s first division acquitting individuals, it made clear in the ruling that “no civil liability may be assessed against the accused.” It was not done in the Revilla ruling.
As pure as snow
The justices could’ve been explicit. With the prosecutors’ motion for Bong to refund, they could be clear. They would’ve the chance to appease those who’re convinced that Revilla was guilty as sin but just managed to get away with it.
Or they could back him all the way, including a line that Bong, contrary to what the prosecutors allege, was “as pure as driven snow” and as heroic as “Ang Panday” and other characters he portrayed on film.
Return no funds. PDAF money like water from a leaking barrel is lost forever. Should people send the movie actor back to the Senate instead?