
MANILA—The Office of the Ombudsman has asked the Sandiganbayan Third Division to reconsider its decision granting bail to former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. in his malversation case involving an alleged ghost flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan.
In a motion for reconsideration filed, Ombudsman prosecutors argued that the anti-graft court erred in concluding that the alleged advance kickbacks or “commitments” supposedly received by Revilla were not public funds and therefore did not establish his participation in the alleged conspiracy to misappropriate government money.
According to the prosecution, it never alleged that the supposed “commitments” were the same public funds involved in the project. Instead, it maintained that Revilla’s alleged receipt of advance kickbacks indicated his agreement to the scheme.
“The circumstance that the ‘commitments’ were not public funds is not tantamount to him not having a hand in the conspiracy to commit the crime subject of this case. His receipt of the ‘commitments’ is nothing but proof of his implied concurrence to the furtive and devious design to commit the crime charged,” the motion read.
The prosecution also argued that Revilla facilitated the inclusion of the questioned flood control project in the appropriations bill and the 2025 General Appropriations Act.
“While accused Revilla may not be the one who personally misappropriated the amount alleged in the Information, he, nevertheless, consented or allowed the embezzlement thereof by his co-accused,” the prosecution said.
It added that documentary evidence presented in the case showed incomplete requirements and false representations that led to the release of project funds.
“The documents on which the disbursement of funds was based represented that the subject project was implemented and 95.17% accomplished, when in truth and in fact, no such work was actually undertaken,” the motion read.
The prosecution likewise disputed the Third Division majority’s finding that there was insufficient evidence directly linking Revilla to the alleged advance kickbacks.
“It is a doctrine of long standing that direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy. Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary to prove conspiracy,” the prosecution said in their motion.
It further argued that the collective acts of the accused demonstrated a “deliberate and coordinated course of conduct,” citing their alleged participation in including the project in the 2025 national budget and in the processing and disbursement of government funds.
Revilla was granted provisional liberty on July 31 after the Sandiganbayan Third Division ruled that the prosecution failed to establish that the evidence of his guilt was strong. The former senator later posted a P1-million cash bail following the court’s 107-page resolution granting his application for bail.
The charges stem from the alleged diversion of at least P76.9 million in government funds intended for a flood control project in Barangay Bunsuran, Pandi, Bulacan, which prosecutors said was declared completed despite never being implemented.
In its ruling, the Sandiganbayan majority said there was no proof that Revilla participated in the implementation of the project or that his alleged acts in securing project lists and facilitating funding were linked to an explicit agreement to recover kickbacks through the alleged malversation of public funds.
The court emphasized that its ruling pertained only to Revilla’s application for bail and did not determine his guilt or innocence.
Meanwhile, Revilla’s co-accused, former Department of Public Works and Highways Bulacan First District engineer Jaypee Mendoza and former cashier Christina Pineda, also filed separate motions for reconsideration seeking to reverse the denial of their bail petitions.
Sandiganbayan Third Division Clerk of Court Atty. Dennis Pulma confirmed that the motions were filed Wednesday. He said both the prosecution and the defense were given five days to submit their respective comments on the motions.




Leave a comment