The Sandiganbayan has cleared Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. of his excess unite cases comparable to his supposed support in the Priority Development Assistance Fund trick or the pork barrel trick.
The Sandiganbayan Special First Division on July 1 excused 16 counts of unite cases as a detriment to Revilla on grounds of inadequacy of proof against him. The counter unite court conceded his protest to prove, which prompted the trashing of the case without the guard expecting to introduce proof.
Related Posts
The court additionally excused the argument against Revilla’s associate, Richard Cambe, by reason of his passing. The court nonetheless denied the challenge to prove documented by Janet Lim-Napoles, asserted minds behind the pork barrel trick. This implies that Napoles will keep on being investigated for this situation.
The Sandiganbayan said that Napoles’ contentions in her arguing are just a repeat of the contentions she brought up in her Motion to Suppress Evidence and the Motion for Reconsideration, which were both recently settled by this Court.
Partner Justice Geraldine Faith Econg wrote the decision, with concurrences from Associate Justices Rafael Lagos and Edgardo Caldona. Partner Justices Efren Dela Cruz and Bayani Jacinto disagreed in the award of Revilla’s protest.
The Sandiganbayan Special First Division in December 2018 got Revilla free from loot charge documented over abuse of over P224.5 million worth of public assets. The counter join court indicted Cambe and Napoles. In view of this, Revilla has since organized an effective political rebound and is right now an officeholder representative.
Revilla refered to this exoneration in his challenge to confirm, as he contended that the over acts affirmed in the join cases are something very similar with the excused loot case, “consequently, he ought not have been independently charged for infringement of Section 3(e) of [Republic Act 3019].”
The representative additionally said it was not demonstrated that he supported Napoles’ non-administrative association and he over and over got payoffs from the finance manager. This, Revilla said, shows that there is no plain demonstration to “show prejudice” or “apparent dishonesty.” He added that the arraignment neglected to demonstrate that he schemed with his co-charged.
During preliminary, the indictment introduced 11 underwriting letters, where NGOs made adhering to Napoles’ directions were named, endorsed by Revilla or his assistant Cambe. Morever, The Sandiganbayan looked unto the expressions of the said letters and held that these were just recommendatory and didn’t constrain the executing offices to grant the task to the refered to organizations.
