Sie sind auf Seite 1von 12

- 1 -

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


SANDIGANBAYAN
FIRST DIVISION
QUEZON CITY



PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff,


CRIMINAL CASE NOS: SB-14-CRM-0240
& SB-14-CRM-0267 0282
For Plunder (Violation of R.A. 7080, as amended)


versus


RAMON REVILLA, JR., ET. AL.,
Accused.








MOTION TO QUASH





COMES NOW the ACCUSED RAMON REVILLA, JR. through the
undersigned attorneys, and unto this HONORABLE COURT, respectfully avers:

- 2 -

I.
EPIPHANY


1. Last year, the pork barrel scam which triggered a massive public
protest, which paved the way for cases questioning its constitutionality to reach the
SUPREME COURT. The highest court of the land later declared lawmakers
discretionary funds unconstitutional.

2. More than a year later, today, criminal cases were filed before this
HONORABLE COURT against personalities accused of involvement in the pork
barrel scam.


II.
BACKGROUND OF THE
CASE IN BRIEF


3. On September 16, 2013, the National Bureau of Investigation filed
plunder complaints against Janet Napoles y Lim, hereinafter referred to as
Napoles, and Ramon Revilla, Jr., hereinafter referred to as Revilla, and several
co-accused, before the Office of the Ombudsman, hereinafter referred to as
- 3 -

Ombudsman. And on April 1, 2014, the Ombudsman promulgated a resolution,
finding probable cause and warranting the criminal indictment of Napoles, Revilla,
and several co-accused.

4. On June 5, 2014, the Ombudsman denied the motions for
reconsideration filed by Napoles, Revilla, and several co-accused, concluding that
said motions were rehashes of the arguments previously raised by them. And on
June 6, 2014, the Ombudsman formally filed criminal informations charging
Napoles, Revilla, and several co-accused with plunder (violation of R.A. 7080, as
amended) before this HONORABLE COURT.

5. On June 13, 2014, this HONORABLE COURT raffled the INSTANT
CASES to be heard before its FIRST DIVISION. And on June 17, 2014, this
HONORABLE COURT issued a hold departure order against Napoles, Revilla, and
several co-accused.

6. On June 19, 2014, this HONORABLE COURT denied Revillas petition
to suspend the plunder proceedings, pending the resolution of the case before the
SUPREME COURT questioning the Ombudsmans request for two special panels to
handle these instant cases. And on that same day, this HONORABLE COURT
ordered the issuance of warrants of arrests against Napoles, Revilla, and thirty-one
[31] co-accused.

7. On June 20, 2014, this HONORABLE COURT issued warrants of arrest
against Napoles, Revilla, and thirty-one [31] co-accused. The same day, Revilla
- 4 -

arrived before this HONORABLE COURT to surrender. And that same day, Revilla
filed a motion asking this HONORABLE COURT to allow him to post bail for
plunder. He also prayed in the alternative, to be detained at Camp Crame, which
the alternative was granted.

8. On June 25, 2014, the Ombudsman, moved to amend the informations
against Napoles, Revilla, and thirty-one [31] co-accused. The Ombudsman wanted
the informations to reflect that it was Revilla who amassed, accumulated, and
acquired ill-gotten wealth in the alleged pork barrel scam contrary to what was
alleged in the informations, that it was Napoles who misappropriated, amassed,
accumulated, and acquired ill-gotten wealth.

9. On June 26, 2014, during arraignment, Revilla refused to enter his
plea in the INSTANT CASES, and so this HONORABLE COURT entered a PLEA OF
NOT GUILTY. That same day, this HONORABLE COURT denied the Ombudsmans
MOTION TO AMEND the informations.

10. HENCE the INSTANT MOTION TO QUASH the informations filed by
the Ombudsman against Napoles, Revilla, and thirty-one [31] co-accused.


III.
THE INFORMATION
IS QUASHABLE
- 5 -



1. TIMELINESS OF THE MOTION TO QUASH

11. Revillas MOTION TO QUASH although filed after this HONORABLE
COURT entered a PLEA OF NOT GUILTY in his behalf, is allowed under the RULES
OF COURT and relevant JURISPRUDENCE.

12. Time to move to quash. At any time before entering his plea, the
accused may move to quash the complaint or information.
1
Failure to move to
quash or to allege any ground therefore. The failure of the accused to assert any
ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information,
either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said
motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the
grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3 of this Rule.
2


13. HENCE, a MOTION TO QUASH can be filed and entertained at any
stage of the proceedings when:

a.) The complaint or information does not charge an offense;
3

b.) The court has no jurisdiction over the offense charged;
4

c.) The offense or penalty has been extinguished;
5
or

1
Section 1 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court
2
Section 9 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court
3
Section 3 (a) of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court
4
Section 3 (b) of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court
5
Section 3 (g) of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court
- 6 -

d.) The defendant has been in former jeopardy.
6


14. All grounds for a motion to quash are waived if not seasonably raised,
except (a) when the information does not charge an offense, (b) lack of jurisdiction
of the court, (c) extinction of the offense or penalty, and (d) double jeopardy.
These objections may be raised or considered motu proprio by the court at any
stage of the proceedings or on appeal.
7


2. THE FACTS IN THE INFORMATION
DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE

15. The Plunder Law
8
contains ascertainable standards and well-defined
parameters which would enable the accused to determine the nature of his
violation. Section 2 is sufficiently explicit in its description of the acts, conduct
and conditions required or forbidden, and prescribes the elements of the crime with
reasonable certainty and particularity. Thus:

1.) That the offender is a public officer who acts by himself or in
connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity,
business associates, subordinates or other persons;

2.) That he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth
through a combination or series of the following overt or criminal acts: (a) through

6
Section 3 (i) of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court
7
SUY SUI vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. L-5278 (February 17, 1953)
8
Republic Act No. 7080, as amended
- 7 -

misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids
on the public treasury; (b) by receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission,
gift, share, percentage, kickback or any other form of pecuniary benefits from any
person and/or entity in connection with any government contract or project or by
reason of the office or position of the public officer; (c) by the illegal or fraudulent
conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the National Government or any
of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of Government owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries; (d) by obtaining, receiving or
accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other form of
interest or participation including the promise of future employment in any
business enterprise or undertaking; (e) by establishing agricultural, industrial or
commercial monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of decrees
and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests; or (f) by
taking advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection or
influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the
damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines;
and

3.) That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth
amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least P50,000,000.00.
9


16. The informations alleged the phase Thus enabling Napoles to
misappropriate the PDAF proceeds for her personal expense, a factual
circumstance which absolves Revilla from plunder as charged. There was NO

9
ESTRADA vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 148560 (November 19, 2001)
- 8 -

showing, in the informations, that it was Revilla who actually misappropriated, in
order to amass, accumulate, and acquire ill-gotten wealth. The information was
also wanting of allegations that Napoles, thirty-one [31] co-accused, and most
importantly, Revilla, acted in conspiracy. Conspiracy, must be alleged, in order to
string together Napoles, Revilla, and thirty-one [31] co-accused, but that would
require a substantial amendment of the informations, and that has already been
DENIED by this HONORABLE COURT. PRUDENCE in the preparation of ones case
is of supreme importance, so as not to undermine the substantial and procedural
rights of an accused to a fair trial.

3. THE FACTS IN THE INFORMATION
DIVEST THIS COURT OF JURISDICTION

17. All prosecutions under of the crime of plunder shall be within the
original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
10
The facts as alleged in the
informations do not constitute plunder, for it may only be committed by a public
officer, or by a private individual as a co-principal or in conspiracy. Here, the
informations never mentioned that the accused-public officer, Revilla, actually
misappropriated his PDAF, in order to amass, accumulate, and acquire ill-gotten
wealth. It was the Ombudsman, after sufficient time to go through preliminary
investigation, disposition of resolution, drafting and filing of criminal
informations, who actually alleged, that it was Napoles, after all, who actually
misappropriated Revillas PDAF, in order to amass, accumulate, and acquire ill-
gotten wealth, but Napoles is a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, who, according to the

10
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7080, as amended
- 9 -

Ombudsman, NEVER acted in conspiracy with, or is the co-principal of, Revilla in
these INSTANT CASES. The accusations of the Ombudsman, WHICH HAVE
UNDERGONE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR AN INTELLIGENT CONSIDERATION,
CLEARLY, ABSOLVE Revilla from the charges of plunder. The accutions of the
Ombudsman, WHICH HAVE UNDERGONE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR AN
INTELLIGENT CONSIDERATION, CLEARLY, POINTS Napoles, as the ONE who
actually misappropriated Revillas PDAF, in order to amass, accumulate, and
acquire ill-gotten wealth, thus making her, a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, CRIMINALLY
LIABLE of AN OFFENSE, OTHER THAN, BUT NOT, plunder as charged.

18. ULTIMATELY, the ABSENCE OF CONSPIRACY, in the allegations of
the Ombudsman in the informations, WHICH HAVE UNDERGONE SUFFICIENT
TIME FOR AN INTELLIGENT CONSIDERATION, as laid down in the foregoing,
SUMS UP, why this HONORABLE COURT, is WITHOUT JURISDICTION to HEAR the
OFFENSES AS CHARGED.


IV.
PRAYER


19. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is RESPECTFULLY PRAYED unto
this HONORABLE COURT, that the INSTANT CASE be QUASHED WITH
PREJUDICE.
- 10 -


20. ALL OTHER RELIEFS as may be JUST AND EQUITABLE is also
RESPECTFULLY PRAYED unto this HONORABLE COURT.


MAKATI CITY to QUEZON CITY, this 4th day of JULY, 2014.


ALVA, BRUCE, FRANCISCO, AND PESTAO LAW OFFICE
27TH FLOOR AYALA TOWER ONE, AYALA TRIANGLE,
6767 AYALA AVENUE corner PASEO DE ROXAS AVENUE
MAKATI CITY, PHILIPPINES 1226



__________________________________________
ATTY. JEFF JOSHUA AGUILAR ALVA
Lead Counsel

Roll No. 70903
IBP No. 910903, Manila IV, January 21, 2011.
PTR No. 9310903, Manila, January 21, 2011.
MCLE No. III-0010001, April 22, 2014



- 11 -




__________________________________________
ATTY. GABRIEL ANTONIO FRANCISCO
Counsel
Roll No. 71627
IBP No. 911627, Manila IV, January 21, 2011.
PTR No. 9311627, Manila, January 21, 2011.
MCLE No. III-0010001, April 22, 2014



__________________________________________
ATTY. JEREMIAH ISAIAH HERNANDEZ BRUCE
Counsel
Roll No. 72266
IBP No. 912266, Manila IV, January 21, 2011.
PTR No. 9312266, Manila, January 21, 2011.
MCLE No. III-0010001, April 22, 2014


COPY FURNISHED:

OMBUDSMAN
Quezon City Main Office, Ombdusman Bldg.,
Agham Road, Diliman, Quezon City 1109

- 12 -

VERIFICATION


I, RAMON REVILLA, JR. of legal age, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with law, depose and state that:

1.) I am one of accused in the above-stated case;
2.) I caused the preparation of the foregoing motion to quash;
3.) I have read the contents thereof and the facts stated therein are true
and correct of my personal knowledge and/or on the basis of copies of documents
and records in my possession;


__________________________________________
RAMON REVILLA, J.
Affiant-Accused

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 4th day of JULY, 2014 at CAMP
CRAME , QUEZON CITY, affiant-accused exhibiting to me his Community Tax
Certificate No. 1987358356 issued on May 2014 at BACOOR CITY.

Doc. No. ____ ANGELICA C. DY
Page No. ____ NOTARY PUBLIC
Book No. ____
Series of 2014

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen