PORK BARREL SCAM Case Digest (Section 5)

Republic of the Philippines
National Police Commission

Philippine National Police
Philippine National Police Academy
Academics Affairs Office
Camp General Mariano N Castańeda, Silang Cavite
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

CASE DIGEST
on
PORK BARREL SCAM
TITLE:
G.R. No. 218232
RAMON "BONG" B. REVILLA, JR., Petitioner vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION)
and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents
G.R. No. 218235

RICHARD A. CAMBE, Petitioner vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION), PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, and OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondents
G.R. No. 218266

JANET LIM NAPOLES, Petitioner vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION),
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, and PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents
G.R. No. 218903

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION),
RAMON "BONG" B. REVILLA, JR., and RICHARD A. CAMBE, Respondents
G.R. No. 219162

RAMON "BONG" B. REVILLA, JR., Petitioner vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION)
and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents JULY 24, 2018
Group 1 (Section 5)
Group Members:
CDT 2C VERGARA, JOHN MARC (team leader)
CDT 2C HADJI JAMEL, MOHAMMAD MUJIEB
CDT 2C CALIXTO, BEL SHAZZER
CDT 2C SANARES, ARIEL
CDT 2C VALDEZ, RODEL TROMATA
October 1, 2020
S.Y. 2020-2021
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The petitions for certiorari in G.R. Nos. 218232, 218235, and 218266, filed by
petitioners Ramon "Bong" B. Revilla, Jr. (Revilla), Richard A. Cambe (Cambe), and
Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles), respectively, assail the Resolution dated 1 December
2014 of the Sandiganbayan denying them bail and the Resolution dated 26 March
2015 denying their motion for reconsideration in Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-
0240.
In G.R. No. 218903, the Office of the Ombudsman assails the Resolution dated 4
September 2014 of the Sandiganbayan denying the prosecution's motion to transfer
the place of detention of Revilla and Cambe, and the Resolution dated 20 May 2015
denying the motion for reconsideration. In G.R. No. 219162, Revilla assails the
Resolution dated 5 February 2015 of the Sandiganbayan granting the prosecution's
motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment and the Resolution dated
28 May 2015 denying his motion for reconsideration.
II. FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. Petitioners are all charged as co-conspirators for their respective participations

in the illegal pillaging of public funds sourced from the PDAF of Sen. Revilla for the
years 2006 to 2010, in the total amount of P517,000,000.00. The charges are
contained in 2 complaints, namely: (1) a Complaint for Plunder filed by the NBI and
(2) a Complaint for Plunder and violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 301918 filed by the
Field Investigation Office of the Ombudsman
a. Sen. Revilla, as Senator, for authorizing the illegal utilization, diversion, and
disbursement of his allocated PDAF through his endorsement of fraudulent NGOs
created and controlled by Napoles' JLN Corporation in relation to "ghost" PDAF-
funded projects, and for receiving significant portions of the diverted PDAF funds as
his "commission" or "kickback
b. Cambe, as Chief of Staff of Sen. Revilla during the times material to this case,
for processing the utilization, diversion, and disbursement of Sen. Revilla's PDAF,
and for personally receiving his own "commission" or "kickback"
c. Napoles, as the mastermind of the entire PDAF scam, for facilitating the illegal
utilization, diversion, and disbursement of Sen. Revilla's PDAF through: (1) the
commencement via "business propositions" with the legislator regarding his
allocated PDAF; (2) the creation and operation of JLN-controlled NGOs to serve
as "conduits" for "ghost" PDAF-funded projects; (3) the use of spurious receipts
and liquidation documents to make it appear that the projects were implemented
by her NGOs; (4) the falsification and machinations used in securing funds from
the various implementing agencies (IAs) and in liquidating disbursements; and (5)
the remittance of Sen. Revilla's PDAF for misappropriation
d. Lim and De Asis, as staff employees of Napoles, for assisting in the fraudulent
processing and releasing of the PDAF funds to the JLN-controlled NGOs
e. Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule, and Bare (Relampagos, et al.), as employees of

the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), for participating in the
misuse or diversion of Sen. Revilla's PDAF, by acting as "contacts" of Napoles
within the DBM, and thereby, assisting in the release of the Special Allotment
Release Orders (SAROs) and Notices of Cash Allocation (NCAs) covering Sen.
Revilla's PDAF
2. Counter Affidavits:
a. Revilla, contending that: (a) his and Cambe's signatures in the PDAF
documents were forgeries; (b) the utilization of his PDAF had "always been
regular and above-board"; (c) his involvement in the release of his PDAF is
limited; and (d) there is "no credible proof" to show that he committed said illegal
acts and that conspiracy exists between him and all the other persons involved in
the PDAF scam
b. Cambe, maintaining that: (a) his signatures in the PDAF documents were all
forgeries; and (b) he did not receive any money from Sen. Revilla's PDAF nor
connive with any of the alleged co-conspirators to acquire ill-gotten wealth.
c. De Asis admitting that: (a) he was an employee of the JLN Corporation; (b) he
did pick up checks for JLN-controlled NGOs; and (c) he was an incorporator in
one of the JLN-controlled NGOs; but denying that he personally benefited from
the supposed misuse of Sen. Revilla's PDAF.
d. Relampagos, et al., contended that: (a) there is no probable cause and factual
or legal basis to indict them for the offenses charged; and (b) the criminal
complaints did not specifically mention their names as among those who
allegedly participated in the misuse of Sen. Revilla's PDAF.
3.Ombudsman held that probable cause exists against Sen. Revilla, Cambe,
Napoles, De Asis, and Lim for Plunder, considering that: (a) Sen. Revilla was a
public officer at the time material to the charges; (b) with the help of his co-
accused, who are public officers and private individuals, Sen. Revilla amassed,
accumulated, or acquired ill-gotten wealth through their intricate modus operandi
as described above; and (c) such ill-gotten wealth amounted to at least
P224,512,500.00, way more than the threshold amount of P50,000,000.00
required in the crime ofPlunder.
In the same manner, the Ombudsman established probable cause to indict all the
petitioners (along with several others), except Lim, for violation of Section 3 (e) of
RA 3019 in light of the following: (a) Sen. Revilla, Cambe, and Relampagos, et al.
are all public officers, while private individuals Napoles and De Asis all conspired
with these public officers; (b) said public officers exhibited manifest partiality to
Napoles and her cohorts by favoring her controlled NGOs without the benefit of
public bidding and without having been authorized by an appropriation law or
ordinance, as legally mandated; (c) said public officers likewise exhibited their
bad faith by unduly benefiting from the "ghost" PDAF-funded projects through the
receipt of "commissions," "kickbacks," and the like; and (d) their collective acts
caused undue injury to the government in the aggregate amount of
P517,000,000.00
4.MR denied, Informations were filed by the Ombudsman before the

Sandiganbayan, charging: (a) Sen. Revilla, Cambe, Napoles, De Asis, and Lim of
one (1) count of Plunderand (b) all the petitioners, except Lim, of sixteen (16)
counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019
5.To forestall the service of the warrant of arrest against him, Sen. Revilla filed a
Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause and Deferment and/or
Suspension of Proceedings.86 Likewise, Relampagos, et al. moved that the
Sandiganbayan declare lack of probable cause against them and suspend
proceedings.
6.The Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution, finding probable cause against

petitioners and their co-accused and, thereby, issued the corresponding warrants
of arrest against them
III. ISSUE:
Whether or not the findings of probable cause against all petitioners should be
upheld.
IV. RULING:
Held: Yes
Time and again, this Court's consistent policy has been to maintain non-
interference in the Ombudsman's determination of the existence of probable
cause, provided there is no grave abuse in the exercise of such discretion.
Probable cause simply means "such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-
founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent is probably
guilty thereof. The term does not mean 'actual and positive cause' nor does it
import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief."
"[T]hus, a finding based on more than bare suspicion but less than evidence that
would justify a conviction would suffice.”
In determining the elements of the crime charged for purposes of arriving at a

finding of probable cause, "only facts sufficient to support a prima facie case
against the [accused] are required, not absolute certainty." In this case, the
petitioners were charged with the crimes of Plunder and/or violations of Section 3
(e) of RA 3019. Plunder, defined and penalized under Section 2 of RA 7080, as
amended, has the following elements: (a) that the offender is a public officer, who
acts by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity
or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons; (b) that he
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a combination or
series of overt or criminal acts described in Section 1 (d) thereof; and (c) that the
aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten wealth amassed, accumulated or
acquired is at least Fifty Million Pesos (P50,000,000.00). On the other hand, the
elements of violation of Section 3 (e)of RA 3019 are: (a) that the accused must
be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial, or official functions (or a
private individual acting in conspiracy with such public officers); (b) that he acted
with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence; and (c) that
his action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or
giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference in the
discharge of his functions. In determining probable cause therefor, only a
showing of the ostensible presence of these elements is required.
It should be borne in mind that probable cause is determined during the

context of a preliminary investigation which is "merely an inquisitorial mode of
discovering whether or not there is reasonable basis to believe that a crime has
been committed and that the person charged should be held responsible for it." It
"is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive display of the prosecution's
evidence." Therefore, "the validity and merits of a party's defense or accusation,
as well as the admissibility of testimonies and evidence, are better ventilated
during trial proper than at the preliminary investigation level." Accordingly, "owing
to the initiatory nature of preliminary investigations, the technical rules of
evidence should not be applied in the course of its proceedings." In this light, and
as will be elaborated upon below, this Court has ruled that "probable cause can
be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for
crediting the hearsay," and that even an invocation of the rule on res inter alios
acta at this stage of the proceedings is improper.
Guided by these considerations, the Court finds that the Ombudsman did not
gravely abuse its discretion in finding probable cause to indict Sen. Revilla,
Cambe, Napoles, De Asis, and Lim of one (1) count of Plunder, and all the
petitioners, except Lim, of sixteen (16) counts of violation of Section 3 (e) of RA
3019.

PORK BARREL SCAM Case Digest (Section 5)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PORK BARREL SCAM Case Digest (Section 5)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PORK BARREL SCAM Case Digest (Section 5)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

National Police Commission

SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

G.R. No. 218235

G.R. No. 218266

G.R. No. 218903

G.R. No. 219162

II. FACTS OF THE CASE:

1. Petitioners are all charged as co-conspirators for their respective participations

e. Relampagos, Nuñez, Paule, and Bare (Relampagos, et al.), as employees of

4.MR denied, Informations were filed by the Ombudsman before the

6.The Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution, finding probable cause against

In determining the elements of the crime charged for purposes of arriving at a

It should be borne in mind that probable cause is determined during the

You might also like