{"id":200013,"date":"2019-01-30T03:32:20","date_gmt":"2019-01-30T08:32:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=200013"},"modified":"2019-01-30T03:32:20","modified_gmt":"2019-01-30T08:32:20","slug":"ombudsman-wants-bong-revilla-to-return-p124-5-m-for-civil-liability","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2019\/01\/30\/ombudsman-wants-bong-revilla-to-return-p124-5-m-for-civil-liability\/","title":{"rendered":"Ombudsman wants Bong Revilla to return P124.5 M for civil liability"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
But despite this, the government prosecutors pointed out that Revilla was not declared to be without civil liability as the court’s decision was “based merely on reasonable doubt and not due to the absolute failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt.” (File photo by PTV via PNA)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Although former Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla was acquitted of plunder charges slapped against him, state prosecutors still want the ex-lawmaker to return the amount of P124.5-million to the national treasury for civil liability.<\/p>\n

On Monday, January 28, the Ombudsman’s Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) filed before the Sandiganbayan a motion for execution of judgment on Revilla’s civil liability.<\/p>\n

The document, which was only made public on Wednesday, January 30, was signed by Deputy Special Prosecutor Manuel Soriano, Jr., Acting Director Prosecution Bureau I Mariter Delfin-Santos, and Assistant Special Prosecutor III Reza Casila-Derayunan.<\/p>\n

The anti-graft court on December 7 let Revilla walk free from detention after more than four years when it was not proven that he amassed a P224.5 million worth of kickbacks through the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel scam.<\/p>\n

But despite this, the government prosecutors pointed out that Revilla was not declared to be without civil liability as the court’s decision was “based merely on reasonable doubt and not due to the absolute failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt.”<\/p>\n

“This is why the judgment did not declare him to be without civil liability,” the motion read.<\/p>\n

If the former senator was not “civilly liable,” then the December verdict “would have explicitly declared it so,” according to the prosecution.<\/p>\n

Noting the dispositive portion of the Sandiganbyan’s ruling, the prosecutors also stressed that when the anti-graft court acquitted Revilla, they referred to him as the “accused.”<\/p>\n

“Had the Court wanted to exclude Revilla, it could have simply and easily named [Richard] Cambe and [Janet Lim-] Napoles in the third paragraph, as it did in the first paragraph. It would not have used the collective term ‘accused’ without exception and distinction,” the motion stated.<\/p>\n

Cambe, Revilla’s former staff, and Napoles, who was tagged as the mastermind in the pork barrel scam, were found guilty of plunder and sentenced to up to 40 years in prison.<\/p>\n

Revilla, who is eyeing a Senate seat in the May 2019 elections, earlier said he won’t return anything to the government as the court already cleared him of plunder.<\/p>\n

[REDA: Bong Revilla won\u2019t return P124.5 million, insists he did not steal anything<\/a>]<\/p>\n

The former senator still faces 16 counts of graft in connection with the multi-billion peso scam.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Although former Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla was acquitted of plunder charges slapped against him, state prosecutors still want the ex-lawmaker …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":148883,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1145,16,95],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200013","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headline","category-news","category-news-ph","mauthors-joanna-belle-deala","mauthors-philippine-canadian-inquirer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200013","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=200013"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200013\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/148883"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200013"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200013"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200013"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}