Bong insists on excluding evidence on ghost projects

MANILA, Philippines — Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. has insisted that some evidence of the prosecution team from the Office of the Ombudsman are irrelevant to his plunder case, and thus, must no longer be presented at the trial proper set to start on June 1.

In his 18-page motion for reconsideration filed before the Sandiganbayan First Division, Revilla, through his legal counsels led by former Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza, said prosecution's evidence and witnesses pertaining to the supposed the fictitious nature of non-government organizations allegedly owned by the alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles are “irrelevant” to his case.

In its April 21 ruling, the First Division said the prosecution must be allowed to present evidence pertaining to the supposed fictitious nature of the Napoles-linked NGOs as it will also help establish whether there is truth in the prosecution's allegation that the livelihood and agricultural projects funded by Revilla's Priority Development Assistance Fund or pork barrel were “ghost” or never implemented.

In his motion for reconsideration, however, Revilla maintained that the issue of whether or not his PDAF-funded projects were implemented is already immaterial to his case.

Revilla pointed out that the amended case information filed by the ombudsman in 2014 alleges that he received P224.512-million of kickbacks from Napoles in exchange for endorsing the latter's NGOs as the beneficiaries of his PDAF.

The senator said the information of the case never mentioned that he received the kickbacks for the fake implementation of the projects.

Revilla further pointed out that the evidence pertaining to the alleged the fictitious nature of Napoles' NGOs “does not apply to him” as the the information of the case states that it was Napoles who “misappropriate the PDAF proceeds for her personal gain”.

“The said Resolution must be reconsidered because the accused cannot be placed on trial based on matters that are not found in the Information [of the case],” Revilla's motion read.

In its seven-page comment, the ombudsman's Office of the Special Prosecutor maintained that it was stated in the information of the case that the respondents acted in “conspiracy”, thus, the court should not give any merit on Revilla's claim that the misappropriation of his PDAF and the supposed non-implementation of his PDAF-funded projects resides solely to Napoles.

“The intent to siphon off his PDAF allocations to benefit himself in fact resides in accused Revilla—an elected Senator—and accused Napoles and [chief-of-staff Richard] Cambe aided him in doing so, not the other way around,” the prosecution said.

“Moreover, while Napoles acted as the facilitator of the PDAF scheme...Revilla and Cambe also received their fair share of the loot,” it added.