FORMER senator Ramon “Bong” B. Revilla, Jr. and the prosecution may still ask the Sandiganbayan for clarification on whether the acquitted ex-solon is required to remit P124.5-million to the government in connection with the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam, according to Integrated Bar of the Philippines President (IBP) Abdiel Dan Elijah S. Fajardo.
The anti-graft court’s special first division on Dec. 7 acquitted Mr. Revilla of plunder after he was accused of gaining P224.5-million in pork barrel funds, but convicted the former senator’s chief-of-staff, Richard A. Cambe, and alleged pork barrel mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles.
At the same time, it ordered the “accused are held solidarity and jointly liable to return to the National Treasury” the amount of P124.5-million.
“(I)t seems clear in the dispositive portion of the decision that it requires the accused, without distinction, to remit to government the amount of 124M which was shown by the prosecution to have been taken from the PDAF funds,” Mr. Fajardo said in a statement yesterday.
“Nonetheless, the parties have the option to file motions for clarification or reconsideration with the Sandiganbayan,” he added.
Mr. Fajardo also said that despite the acquittal of Mr. Revilla from his criminal charge, “it does not necessarily follow that he is likewise absolved of civil liability.”
“(T)he majority acquitted Senator Revilla on the ground that the prosecution was unable to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But while the Court entertained reasonable doubt, it would seem that it was convinced that the prosecution was able to submit a preponderance of evidence that Senator Revilla must be held as equally accountable to the People of the Philippines with respect to the return of the money lost by virtue of the PDAF scam,” he said.
The IBP president also said that the prosecution may appeal the civil aspect of the case such as the award of P124 million to the government, but not the acquittal as it would expose the accused to double jeopardy, which is not allowed under the law.
“The prosecution may move for a partial reconsideration of the decision, and insist that it was able to adduce evidence showing that the accused are liable to pay P185M as discussed in the dissenting opinion. Recovery of P60M more is certainly a worthy cause that the prosecution may opt to bring up to the Supreme Court once reconsideration is denied in the Sandiganbayan,” he said. — Vann Marlo M. Villegas

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR