REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SANDIGANBAYAN Quezon City SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, -Vversus - Case No. SB-14-CRM-0240 “BONG” REVILLA, JR., Accused. DISSENTING OPINION GOMEZ-ESTOESTA, J.: One need only turn a discerning eye, and not look the other way. In the face of insurmountable evidence presented against accused former Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr., the original ponencia of Justice De La Cruz was haplessly dissented by Justice Econg and Justice Caldona, the Division's two other regular members, which inevitably resulted in the creation of a Special Division of Five to obtain the majority vote.!' The ponencia has now become the dissent. [vote for conviction, and without reservation, join the dissent of Justice De La Cruz. The avalance 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People v Ramon “Bong Revi, rea apo se.24.cRM 0260 DISSENTING OPINION of repelling the scathing tale that never before of such magnitude has been told. The whistleblowers’ revelations of the PDAF scandal is the Pandora’s box that started it all. Yet, the ease with which the main accused could be extricated from all this complicity is one with far-reaching consequences, The dissent (originally the ponencia) found a judgment of guilt against Senator Revilla and primarily focused on: (i) the credibility of whistleblower Benhur K. Luy, whose testimony of the PDAF scheme never waned, despite the latter recantation made by other whistleblowers Merlina P. Sufias, Marina C. Sula, and Mary Joyce Baltazar; (ii) the “strong links” which tied Senator Revilla’s involvement in the scam, as shown in his “endorsements? of Napoles’ NGOs to the IAs, the MOAs,’ and {his] letter dated July 20, 2011, reply-letter (confirmation letter)’ to the COA,” to establish the conspiracy; (iii) the thrust given to the confirmation letter’ purportedly submitted by Senator Revilla to COA Assistant Commissioner Arcadio B. Cuenco’s letter- request® for authentication of his signatures appearing in several documents submitted by NGOs, to debunk his claim of forgery; and (iv) the authority given by Senator Revilla to Atty. Cambe for his participation to extend to the project implementation, from which the conspiracy is all tangled up so that “Revilla may amass money from his PDAF’” with Napoles as the “ready conduit [through her] bogus NGOs already in place where the funds would be drained off.’ All were deemed as pieces of circumstantial evidence to satisfy the second element of Plunder.” 2 Specified as Exhibits” A-22-d." “A-25-" "A264," "A-27-€," "A-2B-," “A-29-b," "A32-be1," and "A-33AN" > Specified as Exhibits” A-22-€," “A-25-8." "A264" "A274," “A-2B-g." “A296,” “A-B2-G-1,” and "A336" “Exhibit “A-38-2" Common exhibit marked as Exhibit “A-38-a,” Exhibit “291-A-t-Revilla:” and Exhibit "169-8-Cambe” Common exhibit marked as Exhibit “A-38;” “Eshibit 1-Revila;” and “Exhibit 169-Cambe" ? Dissenting Opinion (formerly ponencia) of Justice De La Cruz, p. 118 of 138, 81d, p. 1200f 138 Quoted from Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001, the elements of plunder are: (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: through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury; b. _byreceiving, 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 pasition of the public officer, 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; ©. 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; oF /People v. Ramon “Bong Revi, re are 8-14-caM.0240 DISSENTING OPINION More than that, however, 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 of 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: (i) 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; (ii) the government wide performance audit under COA Special Audits Report No. 2012-03;'' and (iii) 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 establishing the cause of the prosecution. Too potent, as a matter of fact, that it is no wonder that even the majority opinion did not even take these into consideration. The purpose of such investigations, however, is not to lay them buried, but to have them assessed and evaluated. Yet, the majority opinion chose to focus in downplaying the circumstantial evidence found as “proven” in the ponencia (now the dissent) by making a parallel comparison of the facts it found as “not sufficiently established” to break the reliance made on circumstantial evidence. To quote, in part:!* / 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. 18 (Emphasis in the original) +© Testimonies given by Ferdinand 2, Calimlim, Jrs et al. enumerated in pages 57-58 of the Dissenting Opinion (formerly ponencia) of Justice De La Cruz 4 Exhibit “A” identified by COR’s Susan P. Garcia * Exhibit 2! identified by AMLC’s Bank Officer Atty, Leigh Vhon G, Santos; TSN dated October 9, 2014, pp. 18:26 + Decision formerly the Dissenting Opinion), pp. 4-5 (pagination may vary upon finalization)