100%(1)100% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (1 Abstimmung)
164 Ansichten12 Seiten
A year ago, the pork barrel scam triggered a massive public protest. Today, criminal cases were filed before this HONORABLE COURT against personalities. The Ombudsman found probable cause and warranted the criminal indictment of Napoles, Revilla, and several co-accused.
A year ago, the pork barrel scam triggered a massive public protest. Today, criminal cases were filed before this HONORABLE COURT against personalities. The Ombudsman found probable cause and warranted the criminal indictment of Napoles, Revilla, and several co-accused.
A year ago, the pork barrel scam triggered a massive public protest. Today, criminal cases were filed before this HONORABLE COURT against personalities. The Ombudsman found probable cause and warranted the criminal indictment of Napoles, Revilla, and several co-accused.
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
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