Bong Revilla’s arraignment in flood control cases reset to February

MANILA, Philippines – The Sandiganbayan divisions handling the flood control corruption cases of former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. have reset his arraignment to February 9, due to the former senator’s pending motions before the courts.

Revilla faces two different cases pending before two Sandiganbayan divisions: malversation (Third Division) and graft (Fourth Division).

The arraignment for malversation was rescheduled to 8:30 am on February 9, and 1:30 pm on the same day for the graft charge.

Arraignment is part of the proceedings where the court reads the criminal charge to the defendants to inform them about the cases filed against them. This is when they enter either a guilty or not guilty plea. Since there was no arraignment yet, the cases will not proceed to pre-trial for now.

Revilla’s fellow accused include former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) engineers Brice Hernandez and Jaypee Mendoza. According to the Office of the Ombudsman which filed the cases, the accused allegedly conspired for the release of P76 million for the project that was never implemented.

The former senator and all of the other accused are currently detained at the Quezon City Jail in Payatas, except for former DPWH engineer Emelita Juat who is detained in Bulacan.

Juat was the only accused who had undergone arraignment on Friday, but only on her graft case. She pleaded not guilty to the graft charge.

Play Video

Why the deferment?

In total, the anti-graft court said it received seven motions from Revilla and his fellow accused.

These petitions include a motion to quash information. Under Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, this motion is a tool used to challenge the validity of a complaint or information against a person, and if granted, may result to the dismissal of the charge against individuals.

Simply put, Revilla wants his cases to be dropped even before his arraignment or give his plea.

Before the Sandiganbayan Third Division on Friday morning, the Revilla camp alleged that the information or case against him did not express explicit conspiracy. The former senator and all of his fellow accused were in attendance.

“The allegation of conspiracy is likewise unclear,” they said, as quoted by the Sandiganbayan Third Division chaired by Associate Justice Karl Miranda.

The camp of the former senator also argued that Revilla was not given due process, explaining that the Ombudsman resolution on his cases was only given to them on January 22. They also alleged that Revilla was not properly informed about the information or cases filed against him because they were not furnished sufficient documents containing the allegations.

“Our client did not receive a copy of the long complaint. All that we had received was the motion to add additional respondents and additional evidence…. To us, it [was] one of the arguments that we’ve raised and it’s there in the court,” Reody Anthony Balisi, Revilla’s counsel, explained in a mix of Filipino and English.

“We did not receive the copy of the malversation complaint with all the thick attachments,” he added.

During the morning session with the Third Division, Revilla’s and Mendoza’s counsels moved to defer the arraignment, citing the pending motions.

The chamber granted this and rescheduled the arraignment to a later date, but Miranda noted that the “speedy disposition of the case is the collective responsibility” of all parties.

Scenes at the Fourth Division

In the Fourth Division chaired by Associate Justice Michael Frederick Musngi, only Revilla and Juat were present in the session that started a little past 1:30 pm.

Revilla and others also have pending motions in this chamber, like the motion to quash the information.

Musngi inquired about the grounds cited by the defense in their motion to quash. Revilla’s lead counsel, Isaiah Asuncion, repeated their claim that the information did not properly cite the allegations against his client.

As in the Third Division, the Office of the Ombudsman’s prosecutors were given until January 28 to respond to the motions filed by the accused. – Rappler.com