FORMER SENATOR Ramon “Bong” B. Revilla, Jr.’s grant of bail has drawn criticism from a group of religious leaders, which backed the Ombudsman’s challenge to the Sandiganbayan ruling and questioned why his co-accused government officials were denied the same relief.
“We fully support Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla’s move to file a motion for reconsideration and commend Associate Justice Karl Miranda for his courageous dissent,” Kingdom Keepers said in a statement on Tuesday.
The Sandiganbayan Third Division on July 31 allowed Mr. Revilla to post a P1-million cash bond after finding that prosecutors failed to prove that evidence of guilt was strong. He faces a malversation charge tied to the disbursement of P76.9 million for a P92.8-million flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan that prosecutors described as a “ghost” project.
The same ruling denied bail petitions filed by several Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) officials after the court found strong evidence of guilt against them.
Kingdom Keepers said the ruling raises questions about whether the justice system treats powerful defendants differently from lower-ranking officials.
The Ombudsman’s Office of the Special Prosecutor on Monday filed a 69-page motion seeking the voluntary inhibition of Associate Justice Ronald B. Moreno, alleging that his conduct during bail hearings raised questions about his impartiality.
Mr. Moreno and Associate Justice Fritz Bryn Anthony M. delos Santos voted to grant bail to Mr. Revilla.
The prosecution alleged that Mr. Moreno’s questioning of witnesses was “unfair, unreasonable, disrespectful and lacking in judicial restraint.”
It cited his examination of former DPWH officials Roberto R. Bernardo and Henry C. Alcantara, claiming his remarks showed he may have prejudged their credibility.
“His line of questioning and his public pronouncements also show that he might have already prejudged not only the credibility of the witnesses but also the credibility of their respective testimonies,” according to the pleading.
Prosecutors also said Mr. Moreno remained “cynical” toward Mr. Alcantara despite the engineer’s admission of involvement in the alleged DPWH corruption scheme and his participation in the Witness Protection Program.
The motion further alleged that Mr. Moreno said there was no evidence that money had been delivered to Mr. Revilla or that the funds came from the government despite testimony from Mr. Bernardo that he made such deliveries.
“While the prosecution recognizes that judges can, and should, ask clarificatory questions if needed, the kind of questions that are consistently propounded on the hapless witnesses are hardly clarificatory in nature,” the prosecutors said.
The prosecution also cited the number of questions asked by Mr. Moreno during hearings. It said he asked about 250 questions during Mr. Alcantara’s testimony, compared with about 190 questions from defense lawyers. During Mr. Bernardo’s testimony, Mr. Moreno asked about 290 questions, while defense lawyers asked about 210. During Sally Santos’ testimony, he asked about 430 questions, compared with about 170 from defense lawyers.
Kingdom Keepers questioned why Mr. Revilla, whom it described as the coordinator and main beneficiary of kickbacks, was granted provisional liberty while lower-ranking DPWH officials remain detained.
Mr. Miranda, who heads the Sandiganbayan Third Division, was the lone dissenter. He said Mr. Revilla’s role should be viewed as part of a broader scheme inside the DPWH.
“To absolve a project proponent based on the ground that he did not personally participate in the disbursement process or in the falsification of the documents would unnecessarily fracture a single continuing scheme,” Mr. Miranda wrote in his dissent.
The Ombudsman earlier said it would pursue all available legal remedies to argue that evidence of guilt against Mr. Revilla is strong.
Mr. Revilla’s trial on graft and malversation charges will continue. — Mark Joseph M. Sanchez