REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
SANDIGANBAYAN
Quezon City
FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff
-versus- CRIM. CASE NO.
SB-14-CRM-0240
For: Plunder
RAMON “BONG” REVILLA, JR.,
ET AL.,
Accused.
Present:
DE LA CRUZ, J.
ECONG, J.
CALDONA, J.
GOMEZ-ESTOESTA, J.
HIDALGO, J.*
PROMULGATED: a
DEC 07 2018 ly
Econg, J.
THE CHARGE
Ramon “Bong” 8. Revilla, Jr. (Revilla), a member of
the Philippine Senate, stands charged for Plunder, defined
and penalized under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080, as
* sitting as Special Member of a Special Division of Five Justices in the First Division, per
Administrative Order No, 24-C-2018.
* Sitting as Special Member of a Special Oivision of Five Justices in the First Division, per
Administrative Order No, 24-C-2018
w
oat
PDecision
People v. Revilla, et al
‘SB-14-CRM-0240
Page 2 of 186,
X— x
amended, relative to the utilization of his Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) sourced from the
national treasury, and allocated to his office by virtue of a
General Appropriation Act (GAA). In committing the
offense, it is alleged that he conspired with his staff Richard
A. Cambe (Cambe), and private individuals Janet Lim
Napoles (Napoles), Ronald John Lim (Lim), and John
Raymund de Asis (de Asis). The accusatory portion of the
amended Information against all the accused reads:
In 2006 to 2010, or thereabout, in the Philippines,
and within this Honorable Court’s jurisdiction, above-
named accused RAMON “BONG” BAUTISTA REVILLA,
JR., then a Philippine Senator and RICHARD ABDON
CAMBE, then Director III at the Office of Senator Revilla,
Jr., both public officers, committing the offense in relation
to their respective offices, conspiring with one another
and with JANET LUY LIM NAPOLES, RONALD JOHN
BERNARDO LIM, and JOHN RAYMUND DE ASIS, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally amass,
accumulate and/or acquire ill-gotten wealth amounting
to at least TWO HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR MILLION FIVE
HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS
(Php224,512.500.00), through a combination or series of
overt criminal acts, as follows:
a) by repeatedly receiving from NAPOLES and/or her
representatives LIM, DE ASIS, and others, kickbacks
or commissions under the following circumstances:
before, during and/or after the project identification,
NAPOLES gave, and REVILLA, JR. and/or CAMBE
received, a percentage of the cost of a project to be
funded from REVILLA, JR.'s Priority Development
Assistance Fund (PDAF), in consideration of REVILLA,
JR.'s endorsement, directly or through CAMBE, to the
appropriate government agencies, of NAPOLES’ non-
government organizations which became _ the
recipients and/or target implementors of REVILLA,
JR.'s PDAF projects, which duly-funded projects
turned out to be ghosts or fictitious, thus enabling
NAPOLES to misappropriate the PDAF proceeds for her
personal gain;
b) by taking undue advantage, on several occasions, of
their official positions, authority, _ relationships,
connections, and influence to unjustly enrich
themselves at the expense and to the damage and
prejudice, of the Filipino people and the Republic of
the Philippines.Decision
People v. Revilla, ot al
SB-14-CRM-0240
Page 3 of 186,
x x
CONTRARY TO LAW.
To date, Lim and De Asis have remained at large.
THE PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS
On June 6, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB)
filed before the Sandiganbayan an Information for Plunder,
defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 7080, against
the above-named accused.
On June 13, 2014 and June 16, 2014, Revilla, Cambe
and Napoles filed their separate motions for judicial
determination of probable cause. In an Order, dated June
19, 2014, the Court denied the said motions, and directed
the issuance of a warrant of arrest against them. The
Court likewise denied the separate motions for
reconsideration of Revilla and Cambe of the said Order.’
Meanwhile, all the accused brought on petitions for
certiorari before the Supreme Court the OMB’s finding of
probable cause. The High Court denied the said petitions in
its Decision, promulgated on December 6, 2016.*
Upon arraignment, on June 26, 2014, Napoles and
Cambe pleaded Not Guilty to the charge against them. On
the other hand, Revilla réfused to enter any plea. Thus,
pursuant to Section 1(c), Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure,°® the Court entered a plea of Not Guilty on his
behalf.
Subsequently, Revilla, Cambe and Napoles separately
filed petitions/applications for bail. After a summary
hearing, the Court, in a Resolution, dated December 1,
2014, denied them temporary liberty. They moved for the
reconsideration of the denial, but the same was denied in a
Resolution, dated March 26, 2015.
Accused Revilla, Cambe and Napoles brought before
the Supreme Court the denial of their bail applications via
® Resolution, dated September 24, 2014, Vol. XXVIl, pp. 398-398
“GR. Nos. 212694-95, 212014-15, 213536-37, 213477-78, 213532-33
® SECTION 1. Arraignment and Plea; how made. x90 xxx xxx
(c) When the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of not guilly shall be
‘entered for him
¢ + pt