MANILA, Philippines — The Office of the Ombudsman is reviewing records from the Sandiganbayan Third Division to determine whether bias may have influenced its decision to grant former Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. bail, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla said Monday.
Remulla said the review followed the Third Division’s 2-1 decision allowing Revilla to post P1 million bail in connection with a malversation of public funds case.
“We are looking at the transcript of records of the trial to see if there was any bias on the part of those who laid out the decision for bail,” Remulla said at a press conference in Cebu.
Revilla faces charges as an alleged co-conspirator in the disbursement of P76.9 million for a purported P92.8-million ghost flood control project of the Department of Public Works and Highways in Pandi, Bulacan. Prosecutors allege that Revilla received a 25% cut from the project. He has denied the allegations.
Remulla questioned why the court granted bail only to Revilla while denying the petitions of his co-accused.
“What holds for him should hold for the other co-accused,” Remulla said. “So why was he the only one given bail?”
The Third Division denied bail to former DPWH engineer Brice Hernandez and former DPWH officials Jaypee De Leon Mendoza, Arjay Salvador Domasig, Emelita Capistrano Juat, Juanito Coronel Mendoza and Christina Mae Del Rosario Pineda.
Associate Justices Fritz Bryn Anthony Delos Santos and Ronald Moreno voted to grant Revilla’s bail, while Associate Justice Karl Miranda, the division chairperson, dissented.
In a 107-page resolution penned by Delos Santos, the court said prosecutors had not shown evidence that Revilla facilitated the inclusion of the questioned project in government funding.
The resolution also said the alleged kickbacks Revilla received came from private contractors and were not covered by the malversation charge.
Prosecutors have filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the court committed a serious error in granting bail.
Remulla said the Ombudsman’s review does not mean the agency has reached a conclusion on the court’s decision.
“We’re not concluding anything, but we just want to enlighten the court about what’s happening or what they may have missed in the process of granting bail,” he said.
Miranda, in his dissenting opinion, argued that the nature of the money Revilla allegedly received did not negate the alleged conspiracy.
“As Revilla’s alleged criminal liability is anchored on the existence of conspiracy, the nature of the funds he allegedly received is immaterial,” Miranda said.