You are on page 1of 6

People v Revilla


-Benhur Luy was rescued by the NBI who was said to have been illegally detained by his 2nd cousin

-while under the custody of the NBI, Luy exposed the anomaly of the use of the PDAF of diff lawmakers

-said anomaly involves the misuse and misappropriation of said funds

The PDAF or pork barrel scam involved the funding of "ghost projects" that were funded using the PDAF
of participating lawmakers. These projects were in turn "implemented" through Napoles' companies, with the
projects producing no tangible output. Funds would be processed through fake foundations and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) established under the wing of the JLN Group of Companies, the holding company of Janet
Lim-Napoles, with Napoles' employees—even a nanny—named as incorporators or directors. Each foundation or
NGO served as an official recipient of a particular legislator's PDAF funds, and each organization had a number of
bank accounts where PDAF funds would be deposited for the implementation of these projects.

Napoles, who specialized in trading agricultural products, frequently used the procurement of agricultural
inputs in the propagation of the scam. Either her employees would write to legislators requesting for funds for the
implementation of a particular project (e.g. farm inputs), or a legislator would indicate to the DBM a particular
recipient agency for his or her PDAF funds that would be pre-selected by Napoles. Once received, this is forwarded
to the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), which would then issue a Special Allotment Release Order
(SARO) indicating the amount deducted from the legislator's PDAF allocation, and later a Notice of Cash Allocation
(NCA) given to the recipient agency. The NCA would then be deposited in one of the foundation's accounts, and
the funds withdrawn in favor of the JLN Group of Companies. The funds would then be split between Napoles’
group and the lawmaker’s.

-Prosecution now presents various witnesses to testify on the specifics of the scam. (yung importante
lang ilalagay ko sobrang dami nila against Revilla)


Susan P. Garcia (representative for COA) testified

-prior to the Luy incident there was already a government-wide audit done by Commission on Audit on
the use of PDAF of certain lawmakers, one of the subjects of this was Revilla.

-their audit involves gathering all documents pertaining to disbursements charged against the PDAF.
They found that the NGOs listed under Revilla’s PDAF submitted documents bearing his signature and
that of Cambe’s. (Chief of Revilla’s legal office. Has been working under Revilla’s family for a long time.
Alleged representative of Revilla.)

-COA issued a letter to Revilla’s office asking for confirmation on whether Revilla indeed signed said

-COA received a reply wherein it stated that

“it appears that the signature and/or initials on these documents are my signatures or that of my
authorized representative”
-said reply was also signed by Revilla

-COA noted a number of violations on the use of Revilla's PDAF.

1. Revilla indorsed the NGOs(owned by Napoles) to the Implementing Agencies. (IA should be the one to
choose the NGO in a public bidding). (Said endorsement was allegedly signed by Revilla)

2. Said NGOs do not have business permits; addresses could not be found; TIN they used were used by
other suppliers. Ghost NGOs basically.

3. No projects were implemented

4. Suppliers selected were questionable.


Benhur Luy, Merlina Sunas, Marina Sula, and Mary Baltazar (whistleblowers and employees of Napoles
in her JLN corporation where the PDAF scam was transacted)

-they detailed the work they do under Napoles which basically is the process on how the scam was
committed. (from the creation of the fictitious NGOs, transacting with the lawmaker’s side, and record
keeping of the transactions)

-Luy was the main record keeper and thus holds various documents evidencing the multiple transactions

-they testified having seen or transacted directly with Cambe

-Cambe’s role in the scam usually involves him delivering the project listing attached to Revilla’s
indorsement letter and stamped ‘received’ by the DBM for Napoles’ ghost NGOs and receiver of the
kickback money.

-they never did see Revilla directly transact with their group. It was all through Cambe.

-Although they never saw Revilla directly transact, Sula knew that it was for Revilla when she joked
Cambe for a snack after handing him plundered money, Cambe refused and mentioned that it was for
Revilla. Cambe does not usually shy away from giving them snacks if he receives his part of the share
of the scam.

-through Luy’s testimonies and presented documentary evidences, they discovered that the amount
plundered was above P200M


Leigh Santos representative for Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC)

-AMLC found that between april 2006 and april 2010, Revilla and his immediate family made
numerous deposits to their various bank accounts and placed investments amounting to P87M within
30 days from the dates mentioned in Luy's ledgers when Revilla received his rebates through Cambe


It was also testified that Revilla and Napoles knew each other as Revilla was seen with Napoles on
various occasions such as the death of Napoles’ mother and a wedding of another person.
Revilla now is being charged of Plunder under RA 7080. The alleged criminal acts imputed against Revilla
are Sec.1(d) par. 2 and 6 of RA 7080

a.) by repeatedly receiving from Napoles kickback through the PDAF scam

b.) by taking advantage of his official position to unjustly enrich himself

In his defense, Revilla denies being involve in such a scam and that his signature on said endorsement
letters were forged. He also denies Cambe as his representative for such transactions.

I: WON Revilla is guilty of plunder

H: Plunder as defined by the RA

Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder; Penalties. - Any public officer who, by himself or in
connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates,
subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of overt criminal acts as described in Section 1 (d) hereof in the aggregate amount
or total value of at least Fifty million pesos (P50,000,000.00) shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death. Any person who participated with the said public
officer in the commission of an offense contributing to the crime of plunder shall likewise be punished
for such offense. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the attendance of
mitigating and extenuating circumstances, as provided by the Revised Penal Code, shall be considered
by the court. The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten wealth and their interests and other incomes
and assets including the properties and shares of stocks derived from the deposit or investment thereof
forfeited in favor of the State.

The elements of plunder are:

1. Any public officer who, by himself or in connivance with members of his family, relatives by
affinity or consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other persons;
2. that he amassed, accumulated or acquired ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series
of the ff overt or criminal acts:
1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or malversation of public funds or
raids on the public treasury;

2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift, share, percentage,

kickbacks or any other form of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity in
connection with any government contract or project or by reason of the office or
position of the public officer concerned;
3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets belonging to the
National Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or
government-owned or -controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;

4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly any shares of stock,

equity or any other form of interest or participation including promise of future
employment in any business enterprise or undertaking;

5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies or other

combinations and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit
particular persons or special interests; or

6. By taking undue advantage of official position, authority, relationship, connection

or influence to unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the expense and to the
damage and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.

3. that the aggregate total of the ill-gotten wealth is at least P50M

The Court is unanimous in finding Cambe and Napoles guilty because of the evidence presented.
However, major doubts as to the culpability of Revilla beyond reasonable doubt.

1st Element is clear – Revilla was a public officer when the time material to this case happened

2nd Element – the alleged acts imputed against Revilla Sec.1(d) par. 2 and 6 of RA 7080

(No direct evidence was presented by the prosecution due to the fact the testimonies presented never
showed that Revilla directly took part in the scam. Even the employees of Napoles never saw Revilla in
their office or even receive the kickbacks. Thus, the evidences presented are merely circumstantial.)

The main evidences presented to prove this element are:

1. The endorsement letters of the NGOs of Napoles signed by Revilla.

2. The confirmation letter of Revilla to COA (Letter) confirming that he indeed signed the
endorsement letters. Said letter also mentions that Cambe was his representative.

The Court found that there is reasonable doubt that these documents were indeed signed by
Revilla. Revilla’s side submitted various documents wherein he claimed that the signatures therein are
his. The Court then compared these submitted documents vis-à-vis the endorsement letters where it
was found significantly different. Following this is a comparison with the confirmation letter which also
was significantly different from the ones Revilla admitted as his. If such confirmation letter is a forgery it
would then lead to the elimination of the possibility that Cambe was Revilla’s representative in these
transactions due to the fact that this letter admitted Cambe as his representative. No other evidence
was presented to establish that Cambe was Revilla’s representative aside from this confirmation letter.
Cambe’s job under Revilla’s office was to help the latter in making laws as he was the chief of his legal
department. Eventhough Cambe has been working under the Revillas for a long time does not
necessarily imply that he represented Revilla in these transactions.
The AMLC report regarding the deposits in the bank accounts of Revilla’s immediate
family members was not properly established by the prosecution as one sourced from the PDAF scam.
Also, Sula’s testimony regarding Cambe’s slip-off-the-tongue comment was discredited as Sula failed to
link the amount she handed to Cambe that day to a PDAF project.

3rd element is clear that it was above P50m

The Court reiterates that the commission of the crime, the identity of the perpetrator, and the
finding of his guilt may be established by circumstantial evidence. However, all of these must create an
unbroken chain leading to the conclusion that the accused authored the crime.

Aside from the above documents, no other concrete evidence can be alluded in order to support
any finding of his liability other than he is a seasoned senator who may presumably not allow substantial
transactions involving his PDAF through his long-time employee under his nose. This premise, however,
strays into the realm of speculation, if not outright baseless. In our jurisdiction, courts are bound only by
the evidence on record. The courts do not consider anything else aside from what has been presented
to it, public opinion included. It is incumbent upon the litigants to establish by evidence the facts upon
which they rely.

Acquitted but civilly liable for P124.5M after recalculation was done to the documents
presented by Luy (not even discussed why he was civilly liable lolol)
People vs. Bandian, 63 Phil 530 (1936)
FACTS: One morning, Valentin Aguilar saw his neighbor, Josefina Bandian, got to a thicket apparently to
respond to the call of nature. Few minutes later, Bandian emerged from the thicket with her clothes
stained with blood both in the front and back, staggering and visibly showing signs of not being able to
support herself. Rushing to her aid, he brought her to her house and placed her on the bed. He called on
Adriano Comcom to help them Comcom saw he body of a newborn babe near a path adjoining the thicket
where the appellant had gone a few
moments before. She claimed it was hers. Dr. Emilio Nepomuceno declared that the appellant gave birth
in her own house and three her child into the thicket to kill it. The trial court gave credit to this opinion.

Issue: WON Bandian is guilty of infanticide

Held: No. Infanticide and abandonment of a minor, to be punishable, must be committed willfully or
consciously, or at least it must be the result of a voluntary, conscious and free act or omission. The
evidence does not show that the appellant, in causing her child’s death in one way or another, or in
abandoning it in the thicket, did so willfully, consciously or imprudently. She had no cause to kill or
abandon it, to expose it to death, because her affair with a former lover, which was not unknown to her
second lover, Kirol, took place three years before the incident; her married life with Kirol—she considers
him her husband as he considers him his wife—began a year ago; as he so testified at the trial, he knew
of the pregnancy and that it was his and that they’ve been eagerly awaiting the birth of the child. The
appellant, thus, had no cause to be ashamed of her pregnancy to Kirol.

Apparently, she was not aware of her childbirth, or if she was, it did not occur to her or she was unable,
due to her debility or dizziness, which cause may be considered lawful or insuperable
to constitute the seventh exempting circumstance, to take hernchild from the thicket where she had given
it birth, so as not to leave it abandoned and exposed to the danger of losing its life. If by going into the
thicket to pee, she caused a wrong as that of giving birth to her child in that same place and later
abandoning it, not because of imprudence or any other reason than that she
was overcome by strong dizziness and extreme debility, she could not be blamed because it all happened
by mere accident, with no fault or intention on her part. The law exempts from liability any person who so
acts and behaves under such circumstances (Art. 12(4), RPC). Thus, having the fourth and seventh
exempting circumstances in her favor, she is acquitted of the crime that she had been accused of.