01 - revilla v. ombudsman - recent jp - prejudicial question
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
1/83
I
ORIGINAL
m
3
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
2 0 1 ~ 1 1 A R
l AH
II:
58
SUPREME COURT
MANII
~ G Y : A ~ /
' IJ/ MAR 2 o /If
. . i -
SENATOR RAMON BONG
REVILLA, JR.,
Petitioner
1
G.R.
No.
211437 ~ s/
(OMB-C-C-13-0316
and OMB-C-C-13-
0395)
. .--- For Certiorari and
- v e r s u s , , - _ _ ' \ ~ \ )
. . . , ~ : . - 4 , . ~
t>J .
r o h i b i ~ i o n
under Rule
~ ~ ~ . f : r .: j ~ J - < l
.
65 With Prayer for
. 0 ; ; 7 ~ C(>ff\tS
Temporary Restraining
:J--_.,. .
Order
and/or
Writ of
, , _ ~ I i > Jd / )
Preliminary Injunction
OFFICE
OF
THE
OMBUDSMAN,
through
i ts
Special
Panel
of
Investigators, NATIONAL
BURAU
OF
INVESTIGATION,
LEVITO
D.
BALIGOD and FIELD
INVESTIGATION OFFICE,
OFFICE
OF
THE
OMBUDSMAN,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------x
PETITION
FOR CERTIOR RI AND PROHIBITION
(With Prayer for Te1nporary
Restraining
Order
and/or Writ ofPreliminary
Injunction)
Petitioner SENATOR RAMON BONG REVILLA, JR.
( SENATOR REVILLA ), by counsel, respectfully states:
I
PREFATORY
Suspension of criminal proceedings on account of the existence
of a prejudicial question is settled in this jurisdiction, both under the
law and jurisprudence.
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
2/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
3/83
filed in court for trial, the petition to suspend shall be
filed in the same criminal action at any time before
the prosecution rests. 3
A
prejudicial question is present where a civil action
and
a
criminal action are both p ~ n i n g
and
there exists
in
the former an
issue which 1nust
be
pre-emptively resolved before the criminal action
may proceed since howsoever the issue raised
in
the civil action is
resolved would
be
determinative juris t e jur of the guilt or
innocence of the accused in
the
criminal case. A prejudicial question
in
a civil action is one
that
is based on a fact distinct and separate
from the crime but so intimately connected with it
that
it determines
the guilt or innocence of
the
accused. s
It
is one which arises in a case,
the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved
therein
and
the cognizance of which pertains
to
another tribunal.
6
Jurisprudential history? reveals that
the
Honorable Court has
consistently applied this provision. The reason is simple.
No
person
should
be
made
to
face
the
hassle
and
pain of a criminal prosecution
pending a civil case based on the saine facts and with intimately
related.issues determinative of the guilt or innocence of such person
until the civil case is finally i;esolved.
The rationale for
the
principle of prejudicial question is
that
although it does not conclusively resolve the guilt or innocence of the
accused, it tests the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint or
information in order to sustain the further prosecution of
the
criminal
case.
8
Indeed, the purpose of suspension is to free the respondent or
the accused from going through the criminal proceedings, along with
the exhaustion of precious time and resources, only to find out later -
from the i n ~ l judgment in the civil case--that the case filed against
the
respondent or
the
accused is groundless
and
cannot
stand in
court. t is certainly prudent to first await the resolution of the civil
case.
3
4
5
6
7
8
Emphasis and Underscoring supplied.
SyTiongShiou vs. SyChim 582 SCRA
517.
Donato
v.
Luna, G.R. No.L-53642,
15
April 1988, 160 SCRA 441, 445; Quiambao
v.
Osorio, G.R. No.L-48157, 16 March 1988, 158 SCRA 674, 677-678; Ras v. Rasul, G.R.
Nos.L-50441-42, 18 September 1980, 100 SCRA 125,
127.
Omictin vs. Court of Appeals 512 SCRA 70.
See Donato v. Luna, G.R. No. L-53642,
15
April 1988, 160 SCRA 441, 445; Quiambao
v.
Osorio, G.R. No.
L .'.48157, 16
March 1988, 158 SCRA 674, 677-678; Ras v. Rasul, G.R.
Nos. L-50441-42, 18 September 1980, 100
SCRA
125,
127;
Yap v. Paras, G.R. No. 101236,
30 January 1992, 205
SCRA
625, 631.
Philippine Agila Satellite, Inc. vs. Lichauco Osorio, G.R. No. L-48157, 16 March 1988, 158
SCRA 674, 677-678; Ras v. Rasul, G.R. Nos. L-50441-42, 18 September 1980, 100
SCRA
125, 127; Yap v. Paras, G.R. No. 101236, 30January1992 205 SCRA 625, 63i.496 SCRA
588. '
3
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
4/83
f
I
'
I
r
I
I
I
l
I
(
However, the Public Respondent, Office of the Owbudsman,
through its Special Panel of Investigators ( OMBUDSMAN ), in its
First
Joint
Order dated 28
January
2014 ( FIRST
ASSAILED
ORDER ) and Second Joint
Order
dated 3 March 2014 ( SECOND
ASSAILED
ORDER ) (cqllectively, ASSAILED ORDERS ) issued in
OMB-C-C-13-0316, entitled National Bureau o Investigation and
Levito Baligod
v.
Ramon Bong Revilla, Jr., et al. and
in
OMB-C-C-
13-0395, entitled Field Investigation Office v. Ramon Bong
Revilla, Jr., et al. (collectively, the proceedings a quo ), gravely
abused its discretion when it blatantly disregarded the well
established principles in the application of the rule on prejudicial
question as upheld
in
numerous cases
by
the Honorable Court by
denying SENATOR REVILLA's
Motions to Suspend
Preliminary
Investigation both
dated
15 January
2014 ( Motions
to
Suspend )
and his
Motion
for
Reconsideration
dated 3 February 2014
( Motion for Reconsideration ).
s
will be shown hereunder, the elements of a prejudicial
question are present in this case, which, based on law,
the
Rules of
Court
and
jurisprudence, warrant
the
immediate suspension of the
preliminary investigation being conducted
by
respondent
OMBUDSMAN in the prqceedings a quo.
n
the
civil case instituted
by
SENATOR
REVILLA
entitled
Senator Ramon ''Bong Revilla, Jr. v. Benhur Luy, et al. docketed
as Civil Case
No.
BCV-2013-193, before the Regional Trial Court of
Bacoor, Cavite, which was filed prior to
the
filing of the Criminal
Complaints in
the
proceedings a quo, SENATOR
REVILLA
sought the
nullification of certain documents. Incidentally, these documents
sought to
be
nullified by SENATOR
REVILLA
in
the
prior civil case
are
the
same documents on which his involvement in
the
proceedings
a quo entirely depends.
Despite
the
clear presence of a prejudicial question, respondent
OMBUDSMAN pere1nptorily denied SENATOR REILLA's Motions to
Suspend, and resolved to continue with the proceedings a quo. Such
conduct of respondent OMBUDSMAN in disregarding the factual
circumstances surrounding SENATOR REVILLA's Motions to
Suspend, specifically t ~ pendency of the prior civil case concerning
intimately related issues, and the deliberate refusal to adhere to the
well-entrenched rule on prejudicial question, manifest an arbitrary,
capricious
and
whimsical exercise of discretion, which leads to no
other conclusion
than
that
respondent OMBUDSMAN was bereft of
jurisdiction in issuing its ASSAILED ORDERS.
SENATOR REVILLA comes at the portals of this Honorable
Court not only to seek for the protection of his rights but also and
more importantly, to respectfully plead with the Honorable Court to
4
6
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
5/83
r
1
7
di,rect respondent
OMBUDSMAN
to act within the bounds of its
: jurisdiction
by
applying
the
law, rules and jurisprudence as they are,
regardless of whether the resulting decision is popular or not. Indeed,
respondent OMBUDSMAN should act with utinost impartiality and
not
be
swayed by public opinion
or
pressure.
I
Moreover, respondent OMBUDSMAN exhibited patent and
grave bias when it dis1nissed and refused to docket SENATOR
REVILLA
s Counter-Charge against certain individuals who are, as
the evidence reveals,
the
ones guilty of Plunder, on
the
mere basis
that entertaining such counter-charges would result in duplication of
functions and unduly burden respondent
OMBUDSMAN.
Respondent OMBUDSMAN also rejected outright SENATOR
REVILLA's Counter-Cha_rge against
the
individuals who have been
included in the Witness Protection Program ( WPP ) by the
Department of Justice ( DOJ''), which respondent OMBUDSMAN,
with evident bias
and
partiality, took as blanket immunity on all
charges against the said individuals.
By turning a blind eye to the evidence and even confession of
guilt of these individuals, and
by
adainantly proceeding to
preliminary investigation despite clear. presence of a prejudicial
question, respondent OMBDSMAN has violated and continues to
violate SENATOR REVILLA's constitutional rights to due process of
law and equal protection of the laws.
Thus, SENATOR REVILLA respectfully ~ k s the Honorable
Court's issuance of a writ of
certiorari
to annul
the
ASSAILED
ORDERS, as well as a writ of prohibition to direct the respondent
OMBUDSMAN to desist from further proceeding with the
proceedings a quo on account of a prejudicial question.
In
the
interim, SENATOR REViLLA respectfully pleads for
the
intervention
of this Honorable Court, by the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction and/or a temporary restraining order, to enjoin
respondent OMBUDSMAN
and
all other person
or
persons acting on
its behalf, from proceeding with proceedings a quo so as not to
prejudice the rights of SENATOR REVILLA pending resolution of the
instant Petition and so as not to render
the
instant Petition moot.
N TURE OF TH PETITION
2.1. This is a Petition for Certiorari
and
Prohibition filed
pursuant to Sections 1
and
2, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, to annul,
reverse
and
set aside the ASSAILED ORDERS issued by respondent
OMBUDSMAN
in the proceedings a quo for having been issued with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its
jurisdiction and to comm3:nd respondent OMBUDSMAN to desist
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
6/83
I
fro1ll
further proceeding
i
the proceedings a quo on
accou.11t
of the
existence of a prejudicial question.
SENATOR REVILLA has formajJy
r e q l e ~ 1 . : e d
respondent
OMBUDSMAN
for
certified
true
copy
of
the
ASSAILED
ORDERS as
the last paragraph of Section
1
Rule
65 of
the
Revised
Rules of
Court
requires that such certified
copy should
be
attached to the Petition-only to
be told
that
his
request
is
still
under
study
and
consideration
and he
will accordingly be informed when such certified copy is
issued
by respondent OMBUDSMAN.9
Considering
the
urgency of
the
instant Petition and
pending issuance
by
respondent
OMBUDSMAN
of
a
certified copy of the: ASSAILED ORDERS, SENATOR
REVILLA
is constrained
to
attach hereto
and
make integral
parts
hereof as
Annexes
A and B, respectively,
the
duplicate originals that were
served
on him of the
ASSAILED ORDERS.
In Paras et al. v.
Paras
et
al.
1
the
Honorable Court
held
that attachment of duplicate original of the Assailed
Order,
instead of
the certified true copy
thereof,
is
sufficient
compliance
with
the requirement
under
Section
1,
Rule 65 of the
Rules
of
Court. Even
then,
SENATOR
REVILLA
undertakes to submit
to the
Honorable Court
the
~ e r o f i e c l ~ p y of the ASSAlLED R E ~
as
may respondent
OMBUDSMAN later
issue
as formally requested
by
him.
2.2 .
The FIRST
ASSAILED
ORDER, ANNEX
A
hereof,
denied SENATOR REVILLA s Motions to Suspend
11
despite the clear
and indubitable presence of a prejudicial question, considering that
the resolution of
the
issue on the genuineness and due execution of
the
documents raised
in
the
previously instituted civil case necessarily
determines whether or not the proceedings a quo before respondent
OMBUDSMAN
should proceed.
2_.3.
The FIRST
ASSAILED
ORDER also perfunctorily
dismissed SENATOR REVILLA s Plunder charges against certain
individuals either b e c a ~ s e per respondent
OMBUDSMAN,
said
9
10
11
A copy of SENATOR REVILLA s letter request
dated
10 March 2013, duly
stamped
received by respondent OMBUDSMAN, is
attached
and made integral part
hereof as
Special Annex.
G.R. No. 140713, 8 March
2011.
Copies of SENATOR REVILLA s Motions to Suspend both dated 15 January 2014
are
attached hereto as
Annexes C
and
D
and
made integral
parts hereof
.
6
8
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
7/83
r n d ~ r
charges will cat1se administrative inconvenience
on
its
part
or
the
individuals indicted are covered
by the
DOJ's WPP.
2.4. The SECOND ASSAILED ORDER, Annex B hereof,
denied SENATOR REVILLA's Motion for Reconsideration
12
without
considering
the
errors raised therein.
2.5.
The ASSAILED ORDERS of respondent OMBUDSMAN
are contrary
to
law, rules and_ prevailing Jl1risprtJ.c1ence. Considering
that the
existence of
the
grounds raised
by
SENATOR REVILLA in
support of his Motions to Suspend are clear
and
unmistakable,
the
refusal of respondent OMBUDSMAN
to suspend the
proceedings a
quo is clearly
attended
with grave abuse of discretion which is
tantamount
to
lack
or
excess of jurisdiction. Further, considering
that
respondent OMBUDSMAN is duty-bound
to
prosecute
the
individuals subject of SENATOR REVILLA's Plunder charges, its
dismissal of these charges -
at
the first instance
and on
flimsy
grounds - amounts to grave abuse of discretion amounting
to
lack
or
excess of jurisdiction.
TIMELINESS OF THE
PETITION ND
ST TEMENT
OF
M TERI L
D TES
3.1.
On
~ January 2014,
SENATOR REVILLA
r e c e i v ~ d _ the
FIRST ASSAILED ORDER issued
by
respondent OMBUDSMAN in
the proceedings a quo denying his Motions
to
Suspend. On 3
February
2014,
or five (5) days after such receipt, SENATOR
REVILLA filed
the
Motion for Reconsideration of the FIRST
ASSAILED ORDER.
3.2.
On 7 March
2014,
SENATOR REVILLA received
the
SECOND ASSAILED ORDER denying his Motion for
Reconsideration.
3.3.
Pursuant
to
Section 4, Rule 65 of
the
Rules of Court,
SENATOR ~ V I L L has sixty 60) days fro1n notice of
the
denial of
its Motion for Reconsideration,
or
until 6 May
2014,
within which to
file a Petition for Certiorari
and
Prohibition.
3-4 Thus, this Petition is timely filed.
12
A copy of SENATOR REVILLA's Motion for Reconsideration dated 3 February
2014
is
attached hereto as Annex
E
and made an integral part hereof.
7
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
8/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
9/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
10/83
the signatu,res of
the
law1nakers
and
their representatives. The
whistleblowers also confessed to having withdrawn the money from
each of the PDAF availment, albeit they claimed to have turned over
the money to Napoles and
on
instructions of the latter, they delivered
to the lawmakers
or
their staff
or
representatives their share or
commission or kickback. Among the lawinakers alleged by these
whistleblowers to have had a
part in
the PDAF scam was SENATOR
REVILLA whose signature and
the
signature of his staff, Atty.
Richard Cambe ( Atty. Cambe ), they confessed
to
have forged.
5.3. According to these whistle blowers, SENATOR
REVILLA authorized
the
release of his PDAF allocations to Napoles
related NGOs in order to misappropriate and convert them into his
and co-conspirators' personal use, by taking
part
in
the
said amounts
that were supposedly allocated for fake government projects. The
whistleblowers supported these statements by admitting their direct
participation in the process, as well as through documents
purportedly showing
that
SENATOR REVILLA approved the
carrying-out of the said scheme.
5-4 When
the
said PDAF scam came out in the media early
last year, SENATOR REVILLA immediately denied any involve1nent
therein
and
declared his willingness to join in the investigation and
his conducting his own investigation into the alleged scam towards
ferreting out the truth, prosecuting all those responsible for it,
and
clearing his name.
5.5. Based
on SENATOR REVILLA's own independent
investigation that included his referring all
the
PDAF
Documents for
expert examination, SENATOR REVILLA filed the Civil Case against
the whistleblowers and others who appear
to
have taken
part in
the
alleged scam. The Complaint13 was filed with the Regional Trial Court
of Bacoor City ( RTC Bacoor )
on
13
eptember
2 1 3
in
Civil
Case
BCV-2013-193 praying for the nullification of
the
PDAF Documents,
for accounting and for the defendants therein to return to the
Government the amount stolen by the1n, in
the
total amount of
P502.89 million ( Civil Complaint or Civil Case ).
5.6. On
:t6
September 20:13
t t y ~
Cambe filed a Motion for
Leave to File Complaint-in-Intervention in
Civil
Case No. BCV-2013-
193. In his Complaint-in-Intervention, Atty. Cambe vehemently
denied: (a) signing the PDAF Documents,
b)
having any knowledge
or participation in their preparation
or
use,
and
(c) having gained any
1 :3 A copy
of
SENATOR REVILLA's Complaint filed before
RTC
Bacoor is attached hereto as
Annex F '
and
made an integral part hereof.
10
1
0 \
/...-
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
11/83
. benefit therefrom. Atty. Cambe prayed tbat tbe PP AF
Docl1_me11ts be
declared by
the
court as null and void b initio.
4
5.
7
On 2 September 2013,
the
RTC Bacoor issued an Order
: granting Atty. Cambe's Motion for Leave
to
File Complaint-in
Intervention.15
5.8. The main thrust of the Civil Case is the nullification of the
PDAF
Documents as these PDAF Docunients were executed without
SENATOR REVILLA's (or Atty. Cambe's) knowledge and iuthority,
and the return
to
the govern1nent by the defendants of the PDAF
moneys they confessed to have taken and appropriated for
themselves.
5.9.
SENATOR
REVILLA
seeks their nullification as he
determined, upon his own investigation and in consultation with
handwriting expert and an expert in signature verification, Mr. Roger
Azores, and likewise confirmed by the other whistleblowers'' that
such signatures are products of forgery or made without their
authority.
5.10.
As
found by Mr. Azores,
the
signatures appearing in the
PDAF
Documents (which support
the
Criminal Complaints of
Complainants in the proceedings
quo
and serve as the only direct
link to SENATOR
REVILLA
in
the
alleged scheme) are all forged.
16
i
5.11.
More particularly, as presented in the Civil Co1nplaint,
Mr. Azores concluded that the signatures of SENATOR
REVILLA
in
the following documents are forgeries:
14
15
16
Letter addressed to Mr. Antonio
Y
Ortiz,
Director Ge_neral Technology
and
Livelihood
Resource Center dated 27 Nov. 2 7
Letter addressed
to
Hon. Arthur
C
Yap,
Secretary Department of Agriculture dated 27
Nov
2007.
Letter addressed to Hon. Gondelina G Amata,
President, National Livelihood Development
Co oration dated 27 Feb.
2 9
Letter addressed
to
Hon. Gondelina
G
Alnata,
A copy of Atty. Richard's Cambe's Complaint-in-Intervention is attached hereto as
Annex
G and made an integral par t hereof.
A copy the 2 September
2013
Order is attached hereto as Annex H and made an
integral
part
hereof.
Copies of the results
of
the examination conducted by Mr Azores are attached as Annexes
I
to
I-7
and made an integral parts hereof.
11
13
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
12/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
13/83
I
I
I
i
{
;indirect participation
or
knowledge of SENATOR REVILLA. Hence,
one of the prayers in the. Civil Complaint is
the
declaration of nullity
-of the PDAF Documents:
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Revilla respectfully prays that, after due
and proper trial on the merits, the Honorable Court render
judgment:
1
Under the First
~ u s e
of Action, declaring
the
PDAF
Documents null
and
void;
xx xx
Plaintiff Revilla further prays for such other relief as may be
deemed
just
and equitable
in
the premises.
5.13. In
his Civil Complaint, SENATOR
REVILLA
invoked
Articles 1346 and 1409
of
the New Civil Code, which provide
that
simulated and fictitious contracts are inexistent
and
void from the
beginning:
Art. 1346.
An absolutely
simulated
or fictitious
contract
void.
A relative simulation, when it does
not
prejudice a third
person and is not intended for any purpose contrary to law, morals,
good customs, public order or public policy binds the parties to
their real agreement.
Art. 1409. The
following contracts
are inexistent and void
from
the beginning: i
a. Those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public policy;
b.
Those
which
are absolutely
simulated or fictitious;
c.
Those whose cause or object did
not
exist at the time of the
transaction;
d. Those whose object is outside the commerce of men;
e.
Those which contemplate an impossible service;
f. Those where . ;h.e intention of the parties relative to the
principal object of the contract cannot
be
ascertained;
g. Those expressly prohibited or declared void by law.
These contracts cannot
be
ratified. Neither can the right to
set up the defense of illegality be waived.
5.14. SENATOR
REVILLA
cited therein several cases decided
by
the
Honorable Court
to
support his theory, among them, is
Valerio
v. Refresca 17 where
the
Honorable Court held
that
a contract is null
and void if parties thereto :do not intend to be bound at all by its
stipulations, thus:
1
7 G.R. No. 163687, March 28, 2006 485 SCRA 494, 500-501; citing Loyola v. Court of
Appeals, 383 Phil. 171 (2000), and Balite v. Lim, 487 Phil. 281 (2004).
13
15
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
14/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
15/83
5.19. The Criminal Complaints charge SENATOR REVILLA
'th the crime of Plunder
under
Republic Act No. 7080, otherwise
. own as
An
Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder
.jPlunder Act ), who, while being a Senator of
the
Republic of
the
hilippines, allegedly designated
or
endorsed bogus NGOs controlled
y Napoles
to
be the recipients of his PDAF for
the
purpose of
implementing projects authorized
in
the DBM Project Menu. Per
the
,Criminal Complaints, these projects, however, are alleged to be either
:.unimplemented or under implemented, so that
the
proceeds of
the
PDAF supposed
to be
allocated therefor are misappropriated
and
converted
to
the personal use of SENATOR
REVILLA,
Napoles, and
.other
implicated individuals by having divided among them the
amount in accordance with
the
alleged scheme initially agreed upon.
5.20. The Criminal Complaints, outline, describe
and
narrate
such scheme (with lawmakers,
in
general) on
the
basis of interviews
and sworn statements submitted to the NBI by Benhur Luy, Merlina
Sufias, Gertrudes
L.
Luy, Nova Kay Batal-Macalintal, Elena S.
Abdundo
and
Avelina C. Lingo. Through such scheme,
the
Criminal
Complaints allege that, SENATOR REVILLA, abusing his public
position as such, exceeded his authority by designating
or
endorsing
NGOs, and amassed and accumulated ill-gotten wealth in
the
total
amount of P224,512,500.oo, purportedly representing the
commission or rebate received from his PDAF from
2 6
to 2010, in
conspiracy with Napoles and Implementing Agencies.
5.21. In support of their allegations, the respondents herein,
namely
the
NBI and Atty. Baligod,
and the
FIO submitted
documentary evidence, which are mainly, the PDAF Documents
attached
to the
Commission on Audit's Letter ( COA Letter ) dated
8 July
2011,
which letter requested SENATOR REVILLA
to
confirm
whether
the
signatures appearing
on the
PDAF documents are those
of SENATOR REVILLA or of one of his staff, Atty. Cambe. The PDAF
Documents consist of SAROs, MOAs,
NCAs,
endorsement letters,
project proposals, project activity reports, project profiles, inspection
and acceptance reports, disbursement reports, disburse1nent
vouchers, c c o m p l i s h ~ e n t reports, acknowledgement receipts,
delivery reports, and certificates of acceptance.
5.22. Considering
that the
respondents are using in
the
proceedings
quo
before the respondent OMBUDSMAN the same
PDAF Documents, which as earlier mentioned,
the
whistleblowers
themselves admitted to have falsified
and the
signatures thereon
forged by them, which forgery was confinned by two handwriting
experts and which documents, were and continue to be subject of a
Civil Case for nullification,
to
link SENATOR
REVILLA
to
an
alleged
conspiracy of converting, misappropriating,
and
misusing his PDAF
15
1 r \
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
16/83
allocation, SENATOR REVILLA filed on
16
January
2014,
Motions to
Suspend the Preliminary Investigation in the proceedings
a quo
5.22.1
In his Motions to Suspend, SENATOR REVILLA
prayed for
the
immediate suspension of
the
proceedings
a
quo
before the respondent OMBUDSMAN, on the ground that the
previously instituted Civil Case presents a prejudicial question
that
must first be resolved. The Civil Case is particularly
relevant as the PDAF Documents, subject of the Civil Case for
nullification, appear to
be
the only direct link of SENATOR
REVILLA to
the
crime of Plunder as defined
and
punished
under Republic Act
No
7080 Indeed, the existence of the
PDAF
Documents, particularly those appearing to be signed by
him (or his purported representative, Atty. Cambe) is being
utilized to bridge a link between the alleged scheme and
SENATOR REVILLA On
the
other hand, as advanced
in
his
Civil
Complaint, SENATOR REVILLA did not intend to be
bound by
the
stipulations
in the
PDAF Documents supporting
the Criminal Complaints as he is absolutely not a party to any of
them as his or Atty. Cambe's purported signatures appearing on
the PDAF Documents ,are forgeries.
I
5.23.
Hence, SENATOR REVILLA moved for the suspension of
the preliminary investigation
and
any proceeding before respondent
OMBUDSMAN in the proceedings a quo until after the
Civil
Case has
been resolved with finality, pursuant to Section 6 of Rule
111
of the
Rules of Court. To reiterate, the Civil Case and the proceedings a quo
involve
the
same facts
and
intimately connected issues necessitating
the resolution of the Civil Case before the criminal case in the
proceedings
a quo
may proceed.
5.24.
Likewise, on the same day of
16
January
2014,
SENATOR
REVILLA
filed two separate Counter-Affidavits.
2
In
his Counter
Affidavits, aside from refuting the allegations against him
in
the
Criminal Complaints, SENATOR REVILLA filed Counter-Charges for
Plunder against his co-Respondents
in
the Cri1ninal Coin plaints for
their acts in relation to the
PDAF
scam ( Counter-Charge ) and
against the whistleblowers, led by Benhur Luy.
I
5.25. On 28 January 2014, the respondent
OMBUDSMAN
issued its FIRST ASSAILED ORDER denying SENATOR REVILLA's
Motions to Suspend, reasoning, among others,
that
no prejudicial
question exists since forgery
or
falsification, which is subject of
the
Civil Case, is not a necessary element of Plunder, Malversation and
27
Copies of
the
SENATOR REVILLA's Counter-Affidavits are attached as Annexes M
to
M-1
and
made integral parts hereof.
16
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
17/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
18/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
19/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
20/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
21/83
. LLA s Counter-Charge against obviously guilty individuals
it the undeniable presence of evidence against them. Such
AILED ORDERS must be reversed, annulled
and
set aside by the
orable Court.
A
RESPONDENT
OMBUDSMAN
COMMITIED
GRAVE
ERROR AND
ACTED
WITH GRAVE
ABUSE. OF
DISCRETION
WHEN
IT CAfRICIOUSLY, WHIMSICALLY,
AND ARBITRARILY DENIED
SENATOR
REVILLA'S MOTIONS
TO SUSPEND
UPON
ITS ERRONEOUS RULING
THAT
NO
PREJUDICIAL
QUESTION
EXISTS TO
JUSTIFY THE
SUSPENSION
OF
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION IN
THE
PROCEEDINGS A
QUO
ON
SENATOR
REVILLA.
, Respondent . OMBUDSMAN denied SENATOR REVILLA's
:}
Motions
to
Suspend upon its erroneous ruling that there exists no
.prejudicial question warranting
the
suspension of
the
proceedings
a
quo.34 Respondent OMBUDSMAN's reasoning is without any basis
and doctrinally infirm.
a
The elements
o a
prejudicial
question are
present in these cases;
hence,
the
respondent OMBUDSMAN
should have immediately
suspended
the preliminary investigation on
SENATOR REVILLA
84. Section 7 of Rule 111 of
the
Rules of Court on prejudicial
question states:
Sec. 7.
Elements of prejudicial question.
-
The elements of a
prejudicial questions are: (a) the previously instituted
civil
action involves
an issue
similar
or intimately related
to
the issue raised
in
the
subsequent criminal
action.
and
(b)
the resolution
of
such issue determines
whether
or
not
the
criminal action may
proceed.
8.5. Thus, for a civil action (such as
the
Civil Case in Bacoor)
to be considered prejudicial to a crhninal case (such as
the
Criminal
Complaints subject of
the
proceedings quo to warrant the
suspension of the criminal proceedings until the final resolution of
the civil action, the following requisites must be present:
4 Joint Order dated 28
January
2014, pp. 5-10.
21
3
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
22/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
23/83
e
but so intimate connected with i t
that it
etermines
the uilt or innocence of the accused.
t
must
ppear not only that the civil case involves facts upon which the
.minal
action is based,
but
also that the resolution of the issues
aised in the civil action would necessarily be determinative of the
riminal case. Consequently, the defense must involve an issue
~ m i l a r
or intimately related to the same issue raised
in
the criminal
a.ction
and its resolution determinative of whether or not the latter
action may proceed."36
/ Rio. On one hand, the main thrust of the Civil Case is the
1 fication of documents supposedly signed by SENATOR REVILLA
.Atty. Cambe,
and
other related documents ("PDAF Documents"),
..Jhrespect to the
PDAF
allocation of SENATOR REVILLA's office.
PDAF Documents consist, among others, of SAROs, MOAs,
QAs, endorsement letters, project proposals, project activity reports,
~ o j e t
profiles, inspection and acceptance reports, disbursement
~ p o r t s ,
disbursement vouchers, accomplishment reports,
tknowledgement receipts, delivery reports, and certificates of
acceptance. These PDAF Documents contain forged signatures of
~ N T O R REVILLA (and of Atty. Cam be), a conclusion supported by
Xpert testimonies. Thus, the Civil Case of SENATOR REVILLA seeks,
among others, to obtain a judicial declaration that the said PDAF
'Documents are null and void because SENATOR
REVILLA (and Atty.
1Cambe
had
no participation
in
their execution,
and
hence, have no
iiH91owledge of the underlying transactions, other related documents,
i\vhich while not containing their signatures are related to those that
1}bore
their purported signatures, and the actual existence of all these
. documents. :
8.11.
On the other hand, in the Criminal Complaints, these
PDAF Documents appear to be herein respondents' main pieces of
evidence, and are the
sol
basis to create a direct link (albeit
ineffectual) between SENATOR REVILLA and
the
alleged
PDAF
8.12.
Further, one of the reliefs sought in
the
Civil Complaint is
to compel the respondents therein to return
the
amount of money
they received through the use of the falsified PDAF Documents, thus:
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Revilla respectfully prays that, after
due and proper trial on the merits, the Honorable Court render
judgment:
xxx:
Ibid,
at 751
to
752; emphasis
and underscor ing supplied.
23
25
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
24/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
25/83
ation that
SEN TOR REVILL took
no art
himself
or
throu h a
re resentative
in the
t6n of the crime of Plunder or an
other
crime
'.the
Criminal Com laints
-Simply stated,
the
declaration
that
the PDAF Documents
the criminal complaints against SENATOR REVILLA are
fforgeries would render the proceedings
quo
against him
unmeritorious,
and
false,
and
bereft
in
evidentiary
hich would warrant its outright dismissal.
1 9 ~
Fourth the jurisdiction to
try
the prejudicial question,
ther
the
documents now supporting the Criminal Complaints
uine
or not, is lodged with the Regional Trial Court as
the
. th jurisdiction to declare contracts or documents null and
found that they are absolutely simulated or fictitious.
s.20. The issue arising from the Civil Case is currently, and
.erly, lodged with another tribunal - RTC Bacoor, Cavite - which
~ p r n p e t e n t j u r i s d i c t i o n to declare null
and
void fictitious contracts
ocuments. More importantly, the determination of whether the
rported signatures of SENATOR REVILLA (and Atty. Cambe) are
,, geries, thereby making
the
PDAF Documents null and void, falls
fhin the exclusive original jurisdiction.of the Regional Trial Court,
dt
is a case that is incapable of pecuniary estimation.
8 21
Jurisprudence has settled
that
the rationale behind
the
,linciple of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting decisionS.37
he Motions to Suspend precisely seek to achieve this purpose. t
ould be futile for respondent OMBUDSMAN to continue with the
proceedings
quo
only to be presented with facts, affirmed by a court
;
1
ofcompetent jurisdiction, which will necessarily put all its efforts in
\the present preliminary investigation
in
vain.
8 22
As
will be further expounded below, undeniably, all the
requisites of a prejudicial question are present. Consequently,
.respondent
OMBUDSMAN
gravely abused its discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in disregarding these facts and
refusing to immediately suspend
the
proceedings
quo
against
SENATOR
REVILLA pending a full
and
final determination of the
Civil Case.
b. The finding
o
respondent
OMBUDSMAN that
there
is no
prejudicial question since forgery or
falsijication is not n e ~ e s s a r y element
37 Beltran v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 137567, 20
June
2000 334SCRA106, 110.
25
} P. ,I
;.
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
26/83
r,
Malversation3
8
and
Section
/ +R.A. No
3019
is patently
iJs
and
not in any way
jative o the
erl:stence or
l f
a
prejudicialjquestion
:23.
In
its
ASSAILED
ORDERS, respondent OMBUDSMAN
that since forgery
and
falsification are not necessary
ts
of
Plunder and Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019, then these
i t
cases are not intimately related to the Civil
Case.39
11dent
OMBUDSMAN
is gravely inistaken.
1
8 ~ 2 4
t does not follow that since forgery and falsification are
~ l e m e n t s
of
the
crime charged, prejudicial question could no
er
arise. One to
one
correspondence of the
elements
of
e'.crime charged and the
cause
of action in
the
civil
case is
. .trequired.
I t
is sufficient
that the
issues
in both
cases
are
tricately related which is
the
case
here
.8.25. Respondent OMBUDSMAN stubbornly refused,
mounting to grave abuse of discretion, to consider
that
the
nullification of
the
PDAF Documents
in
the Civil Case will render the
Criminal Complaints absolutely bereft of any evidence
that
would
::seemingly link SENATOR
REVILLA
(and Atty. Cambe) to
the
alleged
:PDAF scheme. The determination of nullity of the PDAF Docu1nents
will
not only remove
the
elements of Plunder
and
Corrupt Practices
.:funder Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 in the present criminal
complaints,
but
will, in fact, make them dismissible on their face.
8.26. Absent the PDAF Documents, the element of acts by
himself or in connivance in the crime of Plunder will be absent in
relation to SENATOR REVILLA because his supposed operative act of
endorsement
and
appoint1nent of representative will cease
to
exist.
8.27. Likewise, without
the
PDAF Documents, the
appropriation or taking through consent or through abandonment or
negligence will likewise not
be
present since there will
be
no evidence
to show that SENATOR REVILLA participated through an act or
omission, in such misappropriation.
8.28. With regard to Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, without the
PDAF Documents, there would be no evidence of act of manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligence since
SENATOR REVILLA would not have acted at all.
3
8
The N ~ Complaint charges only the crime of Plunder while the FIO Complaint charges
the cnme of Plunder and Violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019. Malversation is not
among the charges
in
any
of the
complaints.
39 Joint Order dated 8 January
2014
p. 7.
26
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
27/83
The falsifi ed
PDAF
. ents are
the
only
evidence
fl SENATOR REVILLA to t he
ed
PDAF
scam
and the only basis
h
alleged whistleblowers
in
~ t i n g
him
to the
said scam
>8 29 Respondent OMBUDSMAN stated in its
ASSALIED
.ERS
that even assuming that the RTC Bacoor declares the PDAF
uments to be null and void and the signatures therein as forged, it
''Id
only affect the probative value
of
these documents
and
not the
'inal charges, since there are still other pieces of evidence
i ~ e n t e by the prosecution to ~ u p p o r t its case.4 With due respect,
ti.
.
' sis a patently erroneous appreciation of the legal situation.
: : I
I
8.30. As discussed, the
PDAF
Documents are the only pieces of
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
28/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
29/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
30/83
S: Ang totoo po niyan ay ayon kay Madame JANET LIM NAPOLES
ay kausap
na
niya ang mga abogadong nagnonotaryo. Mayroong
dry
seal, stamp,
at
notarial book ang mga attorney
sa
opisina
para
kami
na ang pumirma at maglagay ng n ~ r y
sa
notarial logbook.
T:
Maaari
mo bang
sabihin kung sinu-sino itong mga tinutukoy
mong notary public
na
inyong ipinipirma
at
nagpapagamit ng dry
seal
sa
JLN Corporation? .
S: Opo, sina Atty.
1
MARK OLIVEROS, Atty. EDITHA
TALABOC
Atty.
RAYMUND
TANSIP
at
Atty. JOSHUA LAPUZ.
8.38.
In her aragdagang Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 12
tember 2013 ,
44
Marina Sula admitted the following acts, which
w
her direct participation in the commission of her own crimes:
.
t
was she who established
the
following
NGOs/foundations. (Answer to Question No. 29)
The foundations she established from
2 8
to 2010
were not registered with the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, and they issued fake receipts. (Answers to
Questions No. 35 and 36)
.
8.39.
In
her Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 5 November 2013,4s
Merlina
Sufi.as
admitted
that
she
and her
group invented
the
names
/appearing in the PDAF I)ocuments and forged the signatures
.?'appearing on the documents:
15. Tanong: Paano at sino ang mga nagproseso at lumagda sa mga
Certificates of Acceptance, Delivery Receipts, Acknowledgment
Receipts
at
Lists of Beneficiaries?
Sagot: Sa liquidation na po ginagawa ang mga papeles na ito. Sa
utos ni Ma'am Jenny, kami-kami na ring mga employees sa JLN
Corp. ang
pumipirma sa
mga pangalan ng mga taong involved pati
na
ng mga beneficiaries
sa
liquidation papers. Kami-kami
na
rin
ang nag-imbento o nag-fabricate
ng
mga pangalan tapos
pinipirmahan na rin po naming opposite sa mga pangalan nila.
16. Tanong: Sino
at
paano ang PFOseso ng pagliliquidate ng mga
proyekto
na
ipinatupad ng NGO gamit ang PDAF ni Sen. Revilla?
Sagot: Kami-kami
na rin
po ang gumagawa ng liquidation reports tapos
pinapapirma na lang namin sa mga president ng mga NGO's.
44 A copy Annex VVWVVWVVVVVVV, FIO Complaint is attached as Annex P
and
made an integral
part
hereof.
4
s A copy Annex WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, FIO Complaint is attached as Annex
Q and
made an integral
part
hereof.
30
il
/
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
31/83
8-40.
Clearly, Benhur
Luy,
Marina Sula,
and
Merlina Sufias are
self-confessed criminals who conspired with one another in the
commission of the so-called PDAF scam.
8.41.
Section
30
Rule
130
requires
that
before the acts or
declarations of Benhur
Luy, Marina Sula, and Merlina Sufias may be
given in evidence against SENATOR REVILLA and against Atty.
Cambe) - who they accused as their co-conspirators - it is essential
that
the
conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such acts or
declarations.
8-42. However, the PDAF Documents were falsified as admitted
by Merlina Sufias herself see Annex
of the FIO Complaint). These
PDAF
Documents are subject of
the
Civil Case where there is a pending
prejudicial question to the charges of Plunder and Corrupt Practices.
8-43 With the existence of a prejudicial question, respondent
OMBUDSMAN cannot take into account the acts and declarations of
Benhur Luy, Marina Sula, and Merlina Sufias in resolving whether
probable cause exists to charge SENATOR REVILLA with Plunder
and Corrupt Practices without violating the rules on prejudicial
question, and without preempting the RTC Bacoor on
the
Civil Case.
8-44
Without independent and credible evidence on SENATOR
REVILLA s supposed participation as co-conspirator, which the
PDAF
Documents seem to provide, only the unsubstantiated acts
or
declarations of Benhur
Luy,
Marina Sula, and Merlina Sufi.as drag
him into the alleged conspiracy.
8-45 Verily, respondent OMBUDSMAN arbitrarily failed to
conduct an objective evaluation. of the evidence presented by the
herein Respondents. Otherwise, it should have been indubitable that
without the falsified
PDAF
Documents, there is absolutely no case
against SENATOR REVILLA. Hence, there exists a prejudicial
question warranting the suspension of the preliminary investigation
against SENATOR REVILLA.
d.
The
non-inclusion of
the
alleged 2
July
20:1.:1. Commission
on
Audit ( COA ) Confirmation letter n
the
Civil
Case does not make the
actions
of
SENATOR
REVILLA
highly
suspect,
much
less change
the
fact
that there
exists
a prejudicial
question
to warrant the suspension of.
the
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
32/83
inary
investigation
as against
OR REVILLA
.46.
Respondent OMBUDSMAN stated in its FIRST
LED
ORDER
that
the
commencement of
the
Civil Case is
uspect as SENATOR REVILLA and Atty. Cambe already knew
y as July 2011 of the existence of the PDAF Documents.4
6
This
:rroneous statement and constitutes prejudgment on the part of
rident OMBUDSMAN,1aside from the fact that it is a c01npletely
vant and invalid justification for denying
the
Motions to
~ r i d . This is reflective of the respondent OMBUDSMAN's grave
e
of
discretion.
i
8-47
At
the
time
the
Civil Case was filed
on
13
September
3
SENATOR REVILLA was not yet in possession of a copy of the
ified20 July 2011 confirmation letter to COA. s soon as the news
'e out that SENATOR REVILLA supposedly has a confirmation
~ e r to COA, SENATOR REVILLA immediately tried to secure a
C.QPY thereof. Unfortunately, it was only after the Civil Case was. filed
j;it
SENATOR REVILLA
was able to secure a copy
and
submit the
'ine to handwriting experts for analysis. Hence,
the
falsified 2 July
o
COA
Confirmation Letter was not. included in the Civil Case
.e\Tertheless, its non-inclusion in the
Civil
Case is not an indication,
'uchless
an
evidence, of afterthought.
8.48. Indeed, as shown
in
the Counter-Affidavits of SENATOR
;vJLLA,
the alleged 20 July 2011
COA
Confinnation Letter was
alsified.
8.49.
In
any case, the absence of the alleged COA confirmation
Jetter in
the
Civil Case does not affect
the
presence of a prejudicial
question, which warrants the suspension of the proceedings
quo
.against SENATOR
REVILLA.
Respondent OMBUDSMAN gravely
.:abused its discretion when
it
unduly gave weight and significance to
the alleged
COA
confirmation letter since, as explained in the
Counter-Affidavits and supported by the findings of handwriting
experts,
the
purported signature of SENATOR REVILLA therein was
forged. The falsified PDAF Documents cannot become authentic just
because there exists a COA confirmation letter (which, as stated, was
also falsified).
8.50. There is no basis for respondent OMBUDSMAN to find
that
the
Civil
Case is meant to delay
the
crhninal proceedings.
t
bears
reiterating that the Civil Case was filed before the.criminal co1nplaints
were instituted. That, in itself, is an indication that the Civil Case was
4
6
Joint
Order dated
28 January 2014,
pp.
8-9.
32
34
l
II
11
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
33/83
:si
Moreover, respondent OMBUDSMAN erred in justifying
,:al
of the Motions to Suspend
and
Motion for Reconsideration
llegation
that the filing of
the
Civil Case was suspicious based
(Supposed actual or constructive knowledge of SENATOR
LA of the impending filing of the Criminal Complaints as
the
./reports prior to
t ~ e
commencement of the Civil Case already
ted that charges will be pressed against the legislators
. ~ a t e d
in the alleged PDAF scam. This reasoning blatantly
. ,, gards the rule on prejudicial question, which requires
in
basic
~ ; t h a t the civil action must have been instituted prior to the
~ : : 1 n a l
action. Respondent OMBUDSMAN thus cannot arrogate
Ii''.#
itself the power to amend the law, rules and jurisprudential
Ilouncements of this Honorable Court by .stating
that
actual
or
s:tructive knowledge of an impen ing filing of a criminal charge
~ y p r e e m p t
the existence 9f the institution of a civil case. Indeed, at
~ ; t i m e
that the Criminal Cases in the proceedings quo were
:, .stituted, the Civil Case was already pending before the
RTC
Bacoor.
espondent OMBUDSMAN s feigning ignorance of
the
settled law,
les
and jurisprudence,
and
stubborn insistence
that
there exists no
reviously instituted Civil Case intimately related to
the
Criminal
ases subject of the prelhninary investigation amounts to grave abuse
o discretion constituting lack
or
excess of its jurisdiction.
e. SENATOR REVILLA's
Motions
to Suspend the
preliminary
investigation were not
prematurely
:'filed.
Contrary to
respondent
::/OMBUDSMAN's finding, SENA.TOR
>REVILLA
need not wait
for a
formal
;charge
against
him to
befiled
in court
>
so he can seek
the
nullification of the
.f PDAF
Documents
in
t ~ Civil
Case, and
move
for
the
suspension
o
he
criminal
proceedings on
the
ground of
prejudicial question.
8.52. Respondent OMBUDSMAN opined that it is premature
for SENATOR
REVILLA
to question the authenticity of
the PDAF
Documents at
the
stage of
the
preliminary investigation as
it
is a mere
evidentiary matter best raised during trial proper. 7
8.53. Such observation blindly disregards the fact
that
..
SENATOR
REVILLA is merely moving for the suspension of the
47 Joint Order dated 28 January 2014 p. 10.
33
5
I
'I
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
34/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
35/83
B. RESPONDENT
OMBUDSMAN
GRAVELY
ERRED AND
ACTED WITHOUT OR IN
EXCESS
OF
JURISDICTION
AND WITH
GRAVE ABUSE
OF
DISCRETION. IN DISMISSING
OUTRIGHT
SENATOR REVILLA S COUNTER-CHARGE
AGAINST
DENNIS L. CUNANAN, ANTONIO Y.
ORTIZ, ALAN A. JAVELLANA, GONDELINA G.
AMATA,
SALVADOR
SALAC:UP, MYLENE
T.
ENCARNACION, NEMESIO PABLO, EVELYN
DE
LEON, JOCELYN PIORATO,
JOHN
RAYMUND
DE
ASIS AND RONALDO
JOHN
LIM, BENHUR K.
LUY, MERLINA P. SuNAS AND MARINA SULA.
I '
f
8.56. Respondent OMBUDSMAN likewise committed grave
error and acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction
and
with grave
. abuse of its discretion when it dismissed outright SENATOR
,
.REVILIA s criminal co1nplaint against respondents Dennis L.
Cunanan, Antonio Y. Ortiz, Alan A. Javellana, Gondelina
G.
Amata,
Salvador Salacup, Mylene T. Encarnacion, Nemesio Pablo, Evelyn
De
Leon, Jocelyn Piorato, John Raymund de Asis and Ronaldo John Liln
merely
on the basis that .the factual allegations of the counter-charge
are identical to those already contained
in
the NBI and FIO Criminal
. Complaints against them.so
8.57. According to respondent OMBUDSMAN, the Counter
Charge of SENATOR REVILIA will result in duplication of functions
and unduly burden its office.s
1
t
is a source of wonder, therefore, why
the FIO Criminal Complaint
g ~ i n s t
SENATOR REVILLA was not
dismissed despite the fact that when such was filed, an NBI coin plaint
. I .
against SENATOR
REVILLA.
was already pending. The FIO Criminal
. Complaint, like SENATOR REVILIA s Counter-Charge, has factual
allegations that are identical to those in
the
NBI Criminal
Complaint.s
2
8.58. Thus, respondent OMBUDSMAN effectively ignored the
equal protection rights of SENATOR REVILIA and the fundamental
rules
on
fairness when it failed to consolidate SENATOR REVILIA s
counter-charge to the proceedings quo or,
in
the alternative, dismiss
the FIO Criminal Complaint against him.
8.59. As regards Complainants-Respondents witnesses Benhur
K.
Luy
Merlina P.
Sufi.as
and Marina Sula, respondent
OMBUDSMAN arbitrarily used their inclusion
in
the
DOJ s WPP as
its sole basis
in
denying SENATOR REVILIA s Counter-Charge for
plunder against them. This constitutes patent reversible error,
50
51
52
See Joint Order dated
28 a n u ~ c y
2014,
p. 10.
Joint Order dated 28 January 2014, p.
10.
Ibid.
35
"
3 ( \
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
36/83
1:i to grave abuse of discretion; on the part of respondent
for three
(3)
reasons.
r8.59.1. First
under
R.A.
No.
6981,
or the "Witness
ection, Security iand Benefit. Act", the certification of
ission into the WPP by the DOJ is binding only upon the
. \i Vincial
or city prosecutor.
Expressio unius est exclusio
lterius,
the express inclusion of one implies the exclusion of all
ers.s3 The law expressly provides:
SEC. 12. Effect ofAdmission ofa State Witness into
the Program. -
The certification into the Program by the
Department shall
be
given full faith and credit
by
the
provincial
or city
prosecutor who is required not to
include Witness
in
the criminal complaint
or
information
and if included therein, to petition the court for his discharge
and exclusion of the accused from the information.
xxx S4
8.59.2. Under
the
law, the provincial or city prosecutor is
Fr>duty-bound
to exclude a State witness from the criminal
i
complaint or information
~
the inere certification of the DOJ
.stems from the statutory grant of control and supervision upon
..the
latter over the for ner.
R.A.
o ~
10071,
or the "Prosecution
Service Act of
2010",
provides:
SEC. 3.
Creation
of
the National Prosecution Service.
-
There is hereby created and established a National
Prosecution Service to be composed of the prosecution staff
in the Office of the Secretary of Justice and such number of
regional prosecution offices, offices of the provincial
prosecutor and offices of the city prosecutor as are
hereinafter provided, which shall be primarily responsible
for the preliminary investigation and prosecution of all cases
involving violations of penal laws under the supervision of
the Secretary of Justice, subject to the provisions of Sections
4, 5 and 7 hereof.
xxx .
SEC. 5. The Prosecution taff and its Functions. -
There
shall be
in
the Office of the Secretary of Justice a prosecution
staff that shall be composed of prosecuting officers in such
number as hereinqelow determined.
t
shall be headed by a
Prosecutor General who shall be as.sisted by the following:
xxx
The
Prosecution
Staff, which
shall
be under
the
control
and
supervision of
the
Secretary of
Justice,
shall have the following functions:
xx x
53 See Commissioner of Internal Revenue v . Michel
J
Lhuillier Pawnshop Inc. G.R. No.
150947,
July
15,
2003.
5 Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
36
38
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
37/83
,;.B.59.3. R.A. No. 10071 is
not
a revolutionary piece of
$lation insofar as
the
control and supervision of
the
DOJ
. f, .the National Prosecution Service is concerned. Its
, i
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
38/83
functions shall be vested
in
the Ombudsman, who shall have
supervision and control of the office. xx x
SEC.
13. Mandate.
- The Ombudsman
and
his Deputies, as
protectors of the people, shall act promptly
on
complaints
filed
in
any form
or manner
against officers
or
employees of
the Government,.
or
of any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative,
civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence
warrants in order to promote efficient service by the
Government to the people.
8.59.
7. In
Perez v. Sandiganbayan 55 the Honorable
Court held
that
control means the power of an officer
to
alter
or modify
or
nullify
or
set aside what a subordinate officer
had
done
in the
perfonnance of his duties
and to
substitute
the
judgment of the former for that of
the
latter. Applied to the
proceedings a quo respondent OMBUDSMAN could not have
been easily bound by
the
mere certification of
the
DOJ without
compromising its own control a S to how it deems fit to
discharge its powers
and
functions. Interestingly, among the
powers vested
in
respondent OMBUDSMAN
under R.A.
No.
6770
is
the
power to grant im1nunity to a prospective State
witness, thus:
SEC. 17. Immunities.
- In all hearings, inqmnes, and
proceedings of the Ombudsman, including preliminary
investigations of offenses, nor person subpoenaed to testify
as a witness shall be excused from attending and testifying or
from producing books, papers, correspondence, memoranda
and/
or other records on the ground that the testimony or
evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him, may
tend to incriminate him or subject him to prosecution:
Provided Tharno person shall be prosecuted criminally for
or on account of any matter concerning which
he
is
compelled, after having claimed the privilege against self
incrimination, to testify and produce evidence, documentary
or
otherwise.
Under such terms and conditions as it may determine, taking
into account the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court,
the Ombudsman may
grant
immunity
from
criminal
prosecution to any person whose testimony
or
whose possession
and
production
of documents or
other
evidence 1nay
be necessary to
determine the
truth
in any hearing inquiry
or
proceeding being
conducted by
the
Ombudsman
or
under
its
authority in
the performance
or in the
furtherance
of its constitutional functions and statutory
objectives. The immunity granted under this and the
immediately preceding paragraph shall
not
exempt the
55
G.R. No. 166062, September 26,
2006.
38
. I
- J
\ ._
11\11
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
39/83
witness from criminal prosecution for perjury or false
.testimony nor shall he be exempt from demotion or removal
from office.
Any refusal to appear or testify pursuant to the foregoing
provisions shall be subject to punishment for contempt and
removal of the immunity from criminal prosecution.
8.59.8. Clearly, under constitutional and statutory law,
respondent OMBUDSMAN is not bound in any way by
the
,
certification issued by the DOJ. On the contrazy, having been
.:vested with supervision and control over her own affairs,
it
is
mandated to investigate and detennine on its own the existence
of probable cause against complainants' witnesses Benhur K.
,
Luy,
Merlina P.
Sufi.as
and
Marina Sula independent of any
prior certification or arion made ~ the DOJ .
8.59.9. Third respondent OMBUDSMAN is not only
autonomous from, but is even superior over the DOJ with
. respect to the proceedings
a quo. To recall,
the
Counter-Charge
of SENATOR
REVILLA
against Complainants' witnesses
Benhur K. Luy, Merlina P. Sufi.as
and
Marina Sula is for
Plunder, a case cognizable by the Sandiganbayan.s
6
Hence,
respondent OMBUDSMAN has primary jurisdiction over the
same, as provided in
R.A.
No.
6770:
SEC.
15.
Powers Functions
and
Duties. - The Office of the
Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and
duties:
1)
Investigate and prosecute
on
its own or
on
complaint
by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission
appears to be illegal, unjust,
i m p ~ o p e r
or inefficient.
t
has
primary j u r i s d i ~ t i o n over cases cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan
and,
in
the exercise of this primary
jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any
investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of
such cases;
8.59.10.
In Deparhnent
o
Justice v.
Liwag s7 the
Honorable Court emphatically described the supreme position
held by respondent OMBUDSMAN relative to the DOJ, to wit:
Section
13,
Article XI of the Constitution specifically vests in
the Office of the Ombudsman the plenary power to
investigate any malfeasance, misfeasance or non-feasance of
public officers or employees. To
d i ~ c h a r g e
its duty effectively,
the
Constitution
endowed
the
Office
of the
5
6
Sec
3,
R.A.
No. 7080.
57 G.R. No. 149311,
February 11,
2005
39
41
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
40/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
41/83
I
certainly does not tie
1
the hands { respondent
OMBUDSMAN
from investigating the existence of probable cause for plunder
filed against them by SENATOR
REVILLA.
Respondent
OMBUDSMAN s
conduct in dismissing outright the Counter
Charges filed by SENATOR REVILLA amounts
to
grave abuse
of discretion
. 8.60.
Ultimately, ~ h t SENATOR REVILLA simply prays is for
spondent OMBUDSMAN to perform, rather
than
skirt, its
.011stitutional duty to prosecute complainants' witnesses Benhur
K.
uy,
Merlina P Sufi.as and Marina Sula
. 8.61. Furthermore, ASSUMING WITHOlIT GRANTING that
.there
is a need for
the
admission of a whistleblower into Witness
,:.Protection
Security
and
Benefit Program ( Program )
in
relation to
hhe proceedings
a quo
there is a clear showing
that
admitting all
}:three
of Benhur
K
Luy, Merlina P
Sufi.as.
and Marina Sula constitute
: grave abuse of discretion.
t
should be noted that, according to
Section 10 of R.A. 6981, the following circumstances, a1nong others,
must be present:
1)
there is absolute necessity for his testimony; and
(2) he does not appear to be the most guilty.
8.62.
A close reading of the affidavits of Benhur K. Luy,
Merlina P.
Sufi.as
and
Marina Sula would show
that
all three concoct
he same fabricated story. Indeed, their version of the events that
transpired in relation to the alleged PDAF scam does not become true
because three of them say so.
Once
one whistleblower
has
.already
been
granted admission into the Program and has
already executed
an affidavit
dete tlling
the
alleged crime
committed, there should no longer
be an
absolute
necessity for the
testimony
of the
other
whistleblowers.
Well-settled is the rule that the testiinony of a lone prosecution
witness, as long as
it
is credible
and
positive, can prove
the
guilt of
the
accused beyond reasonable Cloubt.59
8.63. Here, the testimony of one should be sufficient to support
the intrinsically weak Criminal Complaints. The testiinonies of the
other two do not add value
or
credibility to the charges against
SENATOR REVILLA.
There is no absolute necessity for their
testimonies and consequently, their admission to the program.
8.64.
In
fact, the DOJ, as shown by the Certificate of Admission
dated
23
January
2014
also admitted Simonette
R.
Briones and Mary
Arlene B. Baltazar. The blanket
and
liberal adinission to the Program
stifles the prosecution of those who are clearly guilty, and undermines
the integrity of
the
Program itself, not to mention the people's faith in
59 People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 105689, 23 February 1994.
41
43
J
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
42/83
',}:probity
and trustwo'rthiness of the people who administer
the
g r m ~
. 8.65. Based on records, the whistleblowers are the only ones
ho
are
guilty of
the
crimes charged. Thus,
the
require1nent
under
RA
8
that the witnesses should not be the most guilty is not and
nnot
be complied with.
8.66.
In
addition to t];ie foregoing, .assu1ning
that
all witnesses
ay be admitted to
the
program,
they
are only immunized with
espect to the cases filed by the DOJ - and not with respect to the
'cases filed by
the
FIO and SENATOR REVILLA.
8.67. At present, there are two separate Criminal Co1nplaints
>filed before respondent OMBUDSMAN. One was filed by the NBI
and
>the other, by the FIO of respondent OMBUDSMAN. These Criminal
Complaints remain to be separate. despite their consolidation. Thus,
when
respondent OMBUDSMAN
stated that
it gives full faith and
credit to
the
Certification issued by Secretary De Lima,
60
it should
have found that while the whistleblowers have immunity with
respect to the cases filed by the NBI, they do not have such immunity
from prosecution with regard
to the
FIO Criminal Complaint, much
less on the counter-charge of SENATOR REVILLA against them. This
is
evident
on the
face
of the
Certificate
of
Admission.
8.68. The Certificate bf Admission purportedly issued by the
DOJ and was attached to the Joint Order clearly stated that Benhur
K. Luy, Merlina P. Sufi.as and Marina Sula (together with Simonette
R.
Briones
and
Mary Arlene
B.
Baltazar) were granted ilnmunity only
with respect to the cases filed by the NBI, thus:
60
CERTIFICATE OF
ADMISSION
This is to certify that: .
Naine
ofWitnesses
1. BENHURK. LUY
2. MARINA SULA
3. SIMONETTE R BRIONES
4.
MARY
ARLENE B.
BALTAZAR
5. MERLINA P SuNAS
have
been
granted regular admission. to
the
Program
on 01
December 2013,
pursuant
to
the
provisions of Sections
1 2,
Title
of
the
Implementing Rules
and
Regulations
of
R.A.
6981 (Witness
Protection Security
and
Benefits Act)
for
the following
c ses
Joint
Order dated 28
January
2014,
p. 11.
42
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
43/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
44/83
violation of
the
rights of
the
applicant respecting the
subject of
the action or
proceeding
and tending to render
the judgment
ineffectual.
9.3.
In
Manila International Airport Authority vs. Rivera
illage Lessee Homeowners Association Incorporated
62
the
Honorable
Court further explained
the
nature of this writ, thus:
Injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting
substantive rights and interests The writ
of
preliminary injunction
is
issued by the court to prevent threatened
or
continuous
irreparable injury to parties before their -claims can be thoroughly
studied and adjudicated. Its sole objective is to preserve the status
quo until the merits of the case can be heard fully. The writ is issued
upon the satisfaction of two requisites, namely:
1)
the existence of
a right to be protected;
and
2)
acts which are violative
of
said right.
In the absence of a clear legal right, the issuance of the injunctive
relief constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Injunction is not
designed to protect contingent or future rights. Where the
complainant's right is doubtful
or
disputed, injunction is not
proper. The possibility of irreparable damage without proof of
actual existing right is not a ground for an injunction.
6
3
9-4. In Medina v. Greenfield Develop1nent Corporation
6
4
the
Honorable Court enu1nerated
the
requisites for
the
proper issuance of
an
injunctive writ, thus:
The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent
threatened
or
continuous irremediable injury to some of the parties
before their claims can ~ thoroughly studied
and
adjudicated. Its
sole aim is to preserve the
1
status qu until the merits of the case can
be heard fully. Thus, to be entitled to an injunctive writ, the
petitioner has the burden to establish the following requisites:
1) a right in esse or a clear
and
unmistakable right to be
protected;
2)
a violation of that right;
(3) that there is an urgent and permanent act
and
urgent
necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
6
5
9.5. The Honorable Court elucidated
on the
purpose of
an
injunctive relief as follows:
It is a well-settled rule that the sole object of a preliminary
injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the
status quo until the merits of the case can be heard.
It
is usually
granted when it is made to appear that there is a substantial
controversy between the parties
and
one of
them
is committing
an
act or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will
G.R. No. 143870,
30
September 2005,
471 SCRA
358.
Ibid.
at 379-380; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
G R
No. 140228,
19
November
2004,
443
SCRA
150.
Ibid. at 159.
44
G
11
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
45/83
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
46/83
5) VVhere the prosecution is
under
an invalid law, ordinance
regulation;
;;:
(6) When double jeopardy is clearly apparent;
7)
Where the court has no jurisdiction over the offense;
(8) Where
i t is
case of persecution rather than
prosecution;
(9) Where the charges are manifestly false and motivated by
lust for vengeance;
(10) When there is clearly no prima facie case against the
accused and a motion to qtiash on that ground has been denied;
(11)
Preliminary injunction
has
been
issued by
the
Supreme
Court to prevent the threatened unlawful arrest of petitioners.
7
; .. 9.8. As applied to the facts of this case,
the
foregoing legal
ackdrop clearly demands that this Honorable Court issue a TRO
'rtd/or a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to stop any further criminal
,prosecution proceedings before the respondent OMBUDSMAN or the
courts.
he grounds for the issuance
o
a
preliminary
injunction
as outlined
in
. Section 3
Rule
58
o he
Rules o
Court
;.are present in this case
. 9.9. As pointed out, ;Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court
lays
down the grounds or instances which call for the issuance of a
. preliminary injunction. All of the three (3) grounds are present in this
case.
9 10
First
The applicant is entitled to
the
relief demanded,
and the whole
or
part of such relief consists in restraining the
continuance of the act complained of.
9 11 The primary relief de1nanded
in
this Petition is the
annulment, reversal
and
setting aside of the ASSAILED ORDERS
which denied the Motions to Suspend and effectively allowed the
criminal proceedings before respondent OMBUDSMAN to proceed
despite the presence of a prejudicial question. As conclusively
established above, there is a prejudicial question in the Civil Case
which demands the suspension of the proceedings
a quo.
SENATOR
REVILIA, herein applicant of the remedy of TRO and/or preliininary
injunction, is therefore entitled to
the
reli_ef de1nanded.
70 Brocka v. Enrile, G.R. No. 69863-65, 10 December 1990, 192 SCRA 183; citations
omitted; emphasis
and
underscoring supplied.
46
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
47/83
;
/ 9.12. Second The continuance of
the
acts complained of
ld probably work injustice to the applicant.
:
9.13.
s discussed e a r ~ i e r the ratiopale
behind
the principle of
ejudicial
question is
to
avoid two conflicting decisions.
1
s
it
. ~ a n d s , SENATOR REVILLA is currently involved in litigating three
p r t e cases,
the
Civil Case before
RTC
Bacoor, and
the
FIO
omplaint and
the
NBI Complaint pending before respondent
MBUDSMAN.
t would work as an injustice
to
drag SENATOR
REVILLA to spend a great ainount of tilne, and
an
enorinous amount
f money in order to pursue the Civil Case while at the same time
.defending and subjecting himself
to
the hassle and pain of the two
criminal cases pending before respondent OMBUDSMAN, when a
.decision
in
the
Civil Case could possibly conflict with
the
outcome of
the
cases pending before respondent 0 MBUDSMAN.
9.14. The Honorable Court should restrain
the
proceedings
before
respondent OMBUDSMAN, on account of prejudicial question,
as it
is
unfair and would result to inanifest injustice for SENATOR
REVILLA to continue defending hhnself on several fronts when
the
-
7/21/2019 01 - Revilla v. Ombudsman - Recent JP - Prejudicial Question
48/83
ceeding to conduct the proceedings a quo respondent
,BUDSMAN
continuously violates SENATOR REVILLA's right
ted to him by law, rules and jurisprudence.
the
criininal proceedings before respondent
MBUDSMAN are not enjoined, the Constitutional rights of
ENATOR REVILLA will likewise
be
violated. Hence,
an
urgent
~ r o t e t i o n by the preservative remedy of a TRO and / or Prelhninary
junction is absolutely necessary. '
9.20.
SENATOR REVILLA will suffer grave injustice and
, rreparable and far-reaching injury should
the
proceedings before
respondent OMBUDSMAN, :and any u s ~ q u e n t criminal prosecution
arising
from the same,
be
not enjoined.
By
the
time a decision in this
. Petition, which decision, SENATOR REVILLA believes, will reverse
the
ASSAILED
ORDERS, is pro1nulgated without the injunctive relief
being applied for herein being issued in
the
interim, a similar reversal
of the injustice and injury already sustained by SENATOR REVILLA
.would no longer be possible. Considering that the circumstances of
. this case fulfil all of the three (3) requisites laid down in Section 3,
Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, this Honorable Court must issue a TRO
and/or a writ of preliminary injunction to suspend
the
proceedings a
qu pending resolution of this Petition.
The circumst nces 1 hat
justify the
issu nce of n injunctive relief g inst-
crimin l proceeding
re present
in
this case
9.21. At the outset,
it
1
inust
be
emphasized that
the
Honorable
Court may interfere with
the
discretion of respondent OMBUDSMAN
in cases where the latter acted with grave abuse of discretion. In fact,
even
the
power to determine whether
or
not probable cause exists
may be interfered with
by
the Honorable Court i grave abuse of
discretion is evident. This doctrine is expressed in Tetangco v.
Ombudsman 7
2
where
the
Honorable Court held, thus:
It is well-set