PEOPLE VS RAMON “BONG” REVILLA, JR.
, (now the dissent) by making a parallel comparison of the facts
SB-14-CRM-0240
DECEMBER 07, 2018
J. GOMEZ-ESTOESTA’S DISSENTING OPINION
“One need only turn a discerning eye, and not look the other
way.”
I vote for conviction, and without reservation, join the dissent
of Justice De la Cruz. The avalanche of an acquittal will soon
fall, but let it not resound without these few words that hope to
pierce through what is about to come.
With the majority opinion, Senator Revilla’s general defense of
denial, in the guise of forgery, was given the most credence, but
to a great fault. This consequential ruin runs deep, and may
eventually free a man once accused of having conspired in
raiding the public treasury to hundreds of millions. His imminent
freedom has dismally thrown away all evidence that once
forebode of repelling the scathing tale that never before of such
magnitude has been told. The whistleblower’s revelations of the
PDAF scandal is the Pandora’s box that started it all. Yet, the ease
which the main accused could be extricated from all this
complicity is one with far-reaching consequences.
Majority opinion chose to focus in downplaying the
circumstantial evidence found as “proven” in the ponencia
it found as “not sufficiently established”
The conspiracy can best be fathomed by not just fixating on
isolated acts of the scam but by weaving them as a whole to
complete the entire picture on how the vast network congruently
worked together to achieve their purpose of amassing,
accumulating, and acquiring wealth od such magnitude. The
revelations of primary whistleblower Benhur Luy was only the
tip of the iceberg. While it may have started it all, provoking even
the most indifferent it was the astounding and overwhelming
investigation, verification, and confirmation process exhausted
by different government agencies which concretized its
implications. Soon, the complicity of the PDAF scam was tested
and uncovered to great lengths in: 1) FIO’s fact finding
investigation, as highlighted in the testimonies of the supposed
beneficiaries who denied having received any of the agricultural
products or farm inputs and implements, per project listing in the
PDAF allocation; 2) the government wide performance audit
under COA Special Audit Report No. 2012-03; and the AMLC
Inquiry Report on the Bank Transactions Related to the Alleged
Involvement of Sen. Ramon B. Bong Revilla Jr. in the PDAF Scam
submitted by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).
The weight of the evidence unveiled by these fact-finding
agencies are undeniably relevant and material in stabling the
cause of the prosecution. Too potent, as a matter of fact, that it is
no wonder the even the majority opinion did not take these into
1|Page
considerations. The purpose of such investigations, however, is
not to lay them buried, but to have them assessed and evaluated.
A handwriting examination is not simple matter of making
comparisons in the writing style, naked variations, strokes,
loops, and alignment in the signatures.
In Lorenzo v. Diaz, the factors involved in examining
handwritings were identified and explained in these words:
x x x [T]he authenticity of questioned signature cannot be
determined solely upon its general characteristics, similarities or
dissimilarities with the genuine signature. Dissimilarities as
regards spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of the pen, loops in the
strokes, signs of the stops, shades, etc., that may be found
between the questioned signature and the genuine one are not
decisive on the question of the former’s authenticity. The result
of examinations of questions handwriting, even with the benefit
of aid of experts and scientific instruments, is, at best,
inconclusive. There are other factors that must be taken into
consideration. The position of the writer, the condition of the
surface on which the paper where the questioned signature is
written is placed, his state of mind, feelings and nerves, and the
kind of pen and/or paper used, play an important role on the
general appearance of the signature. Unless, therefore, there is, in
a given case, absolute absence, or manifest dearth, or direct or
circumstantial competent evidence on the character of a
questioned handwriting, much weight should not be given to
characteristic similarities, or dissimilarities, between that
questioned handwritten and an authentic one.
This is the reason why such writing examplars should first be
“admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the
evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of
the judge” as provided by Section 22, Rule 132 of the Revised
Rules on Evidence.
Thus, before a court resorts to its own independent examination
of the handwriting, therefore, the ideal examplars should have
been sufficiently introduced for purposed of comparison of the
genuine signatures as against that of the questions ones. Verily,
forgery cannot be presumed. It must be proved by clear,
positive and convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies in
the party alleging forgery. Did Senator Revilla thus succeed in
proving that his signatures appearing in the questioned documents has
been forged?
Without the foundation having been sufficiently laid which
documents were the ideal examplars, the court could not have
resorted to its own independent examination. The findings
made in the majority opinion, therefore, are only inconclusive.
It is next to impossible to cite direct positive acts or writings
showing that Senator Revilla authorized Atty. Cambe to
receive his commissions, rebates or kickbacks or that Senator
Revilla himself received his PDAF kickbacks direct from Atty.
Cambe. Conspiracy only thrives in secrecy.
2|Page
The PDAF scheme would have gone undetected, absent any
positive act to admit to its commission, had it not been for the
miscalculated slip committed by the grand designer which cut
loose one tongue, then another, until all there is to know had been
revealed. The tell-all of whistleblowers Benhur K. Luy and
Merlina P. Sunas was enough to unhook the secret that bled the
public treasure for years. It is not, therefore, in the testimonial
accounts of primary whistleblower Benhur K. Luy from which
the crime of Plunder was alone established. There are virtually
much more. The manifold layers which hubbed from the
conspiracy may have been complex and great, but none too
intricate to avoid detection and validation.
As a whole, the unexplained wealth of Senator Revilla is one
glaring fact, left unrefuted, to gloss over. If this should not be
considered as the end-all to the PDAF conspiracy, where
should this lead to instead?
Why should be doubted that the various sums of money
deposited in the accounts of Revilla are the “very same money
from Napoles” comes as a little off. Was it not Napoles herself
who caused the recording of these commissions, rebates or
kickbacks, found in Benhuy K. Luy’s ledgers?
Moreover, Benhur K. Luy’s DDRs found in his computed files are
covered by the Rules on electronic Evidence which provide that
these data entries, being business records, are expressly exempt
from the hearsay rule. Since the recorded entries indicate the
money trail to which the PDAF allocations were apportioned to,
it strongly remains that it is the very same funds from the PDAF
allocation received by Napoles through her bogus NGOs which
were sourced and given to Senator Revilla. The majority opinion
even gave its full assent to Napoles; conviction.
Oddly, while the majority opinion thrived on speculating
whether the “various sums of money deposited in the accounts
of Revilla as found by the Anti-Money Laundering Council
(AMLC) are the very same money from Napoles,” it did not
extricate Senator Revilla from civil liability found for all accused
in the [re-computed] amount of P124,500,000.00 which they
should answer for in the joint and several capacity. It only goes
to say, therefore, that since all three accused were made to
answer for the same civil liability, the source of the
accumulation of wealth as found in the criminal liability should
only be the same.
I maintain therefore, that the judgment of conviction found in the
original ponencia could not have been titled to favor Senator
Revilla’s acquittal since the Prosecution has presented solid
evidence to prove his guilt for the crime of Plunder beyond
reasonable doubt.
3|Page