By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA — A Sandiganbayan associate justice said prosecutors failed to present strong and direct evidence linking former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. to the alleged conspiracy behind the controversial Pandi, Bulacan flood control project, reinforcing the anti-graft court’s decision to grant him bail.
In a separate concurring opinion attached to the Sandiganbayan Third Division’s July 31, 2026 resolution, Associate Justice Ronald Moreno concluded that the prosecution failed to establish strong evidence of guilt against Revilla in the malversation through falsification case arising from the allegedly anomalous flood control project.
Moreno said the evidence presented during the bail proceedings contained significant gaps that prevented the court from concluding that Revilla had knowingly participated in the alleged conspiracy.
The criminal case accuses Revilla and several officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) of conspiring to defraud the government through the implementation of the Pandi flood control project.
However, Moreno noted that although prosecution witnesses testified that Revilla allegedly requested a list of infrastructure projects for funding, prosecutors failed to present any documentary evidence confirming that such a request had actually been made.
The magistrate further observed that even if the alleged request had been proven, it could reasonably be interpreted as part of Revilla’s official functions as then chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Works, making it insufficient by itself to establish criminal intent or participation in a conspiracy.
Moreno also found no direct evidentiary link connecting the alleged request for project listings to the eventual inclusion of the Pandi flood control project in the 2025 General Appropriations Act.
He pointed out that the allocation of funding under the national budget undergoes multiple stages of review and approval involving Congress, the House of Representatives and the Bicameral Conference Committee, making it difficult to attribute the project’s inclusion solely to Revilla.
The concurring opinion likewise questioned the prosecution’s theory that alleged kickbacks were paid before the release of government funds.
Moreno said that based on the prosecution’s own evidence, the supposed payments allegedly originated from private contractors before any public money had been disbursed.
He stressed that the timing of the alleged transactions carries legal significance because the crime of malversation requires the involvement of public funds, which had yet to exist at the time the supposed payments were allegedly made.
The justice also found that prosecution witnesses failed to provide direct personal knowledge that money was ever delivered to Revilla.
According to the opinion, individuals who claimed to have transported boxes admitted they did not know what the containers held, while another witness acknowledged that he never actually saw cash being handed over.
Moreno further ruled that prosecutors failed to present strong evidence showing that Revilla expressly or implicitly agreed to participate in a future act of malversation or knew that his co-accused would allegedly falsify public documents in implementing the flood control project.
His separate opinion echoed the Third Division’s conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish strong evidence identifying Revilla as a conspirator in the alleged anomaly.
The anti-graft court likewise ruled that Revilla’s position as chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Works did not automatically give him authority to insert projects into the national budget, noting that appropriations undergo deliberation and approval by both chambers of Congress before reaching the Bicameral Conference Committee.
The court also observed that while lawmakers regularly communicate with government agencies regarding proposed infrastructure projects, DPWH witnesses admitted that no request from Revilla concerning the questioned project was presented during the bail hearings.
A substantial portion of the prosecution’s allegations also relied on statements made by former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, but the court found that key claims regarding project funding and alleged kickback arrangements were not independently corroborated by evidence presented during the proceedings.
Reacting to the ruling, Revilla’s counsel Rean Balisi said the decision reaffirmed the long-established legal principle that conspiracy must be proven by clear, positive and convincing evidence—not by speculation, assumptions or unverified allegations.
The Sandiganbayan’s ruling granting bail does not resolve the criminal case on the merits but reflects the court’s finding, at this stage of the proceedings, that the prosecution failed to present strong evidence of guilt sufficient to justify Revilla’s continued detention while trial proceeds.
ia/xf
