REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SANDIGANBAYAN Quezon City FIRST DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff -versus- CRIM. CASE NO. SB-14-CRM-0240 For: Plunder RAMON “BONG” REVILLA, JR., ET AL., Accused. Present: DE LA CRUZ, J. ECONG, J. CALDONA, J. GOMEZ-ESTOESTA, J. HIDALGO, J.* PROMULGATED: a DEC 07 2018 ly Econg, J. THE CHARGE Ramon “Bong” 8. Revilla, Jr. (Revilla), a member of the Philippine Senate, stands charged for Plunder, defined and penalized under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080, as * sitting as Special Member of a Special Division of Five Justices in the First Division, per Administrative Order No, 24-C-2018. * Sitting as Special Member of a Special Oivision of Five Justices in the First Division, per Administrative Order No, 24-C-2018 w oat PDecision People v. Revilla, et al ‘SB-14-CRM-0240 Page 2 of 186, X— x amended, relative to the utilization of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) sourced from the national treasury, and allocated to his office by virtue of a General Appropriation Act (GAA). In committing the offense, it is alleged that he conspired with his staff Richard A. Cambe (Cambe), and private individuals Janet Lim Napoles (Napoles), Ronald John Lim (Lim), and John Raymund de Asis (de Asis). The accusatory portion of the amended Information against all the accused reads: In 2006 to 2010, or thereabout, in the Philippines, and within this Honorable Court’s jurisdiction, above- named accused RAMON “BONG” BAUTISTA REVILLA, JR., then a Philippine Senator and RICHARD ABDON CAMBE, then Director III at the Office of Senator Revilla, Jr., both public officers, committing the offense in relation to their respective offices, conspiring with one another and with JANET LUY LIM NAPOLES, RONALD JOHN BERNARDO LIM, and JOHN RAYMUND DE ASIS, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally amass, accumulate and/or acquire ill-gotten wealth amounting to at least TWO HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR MILLION FIVE HUNDRED TWELVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED PESOS (Php224,512.500.00), through a combination or series of overt criminal acts, as follows: a) by repeatedly receiving from NAPOLES and/or her representatives LIM, DE ASIS, and others, kickbacks or commissions under the following circumstances: before, during and/or after the project identification, NAPOLES gave, and REVILLA, JR. and/or CAMBE received, a percentage of the cost of a project to be funded from REVILLA, JR.'s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), in consideration of REVILLA, JR.'s endorsement, directly or through CAMBE, to the appropriate government agencies, of NAPOLES’ non- government organizations which became _ the recipients and/or target implementors of REVILLA, JR.'s PDAF projects, which duly-funded projects turned out to be ghosts or fictitious, thus enabling NAPOLES to misappropriate the PDAF proceeds for her personal gain; b) by taking undue advantage, on several occasions, of their official positions, authority, _ relationships, connections, and influence to unjustly enrich themselves at the expense and to the damage and prejudice, of the Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.Decision People v. Revilla, ot al SB-14-CRM-0240 Page 3 of 186, x x CONTRARY TO LAW. To date, Lim and De Asis have remained at large. THE PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS On June 6, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) filed before the Sandiganbayan an Information for Plunder, defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 7080, against the above-named accused. On June 13, 2014 and June 16, 2014, Revilla, Cambe and Napoles filed their separate motions for judicial determination of probable cause. In an Order, dated June 19, 2014, the Court denied the said motions, and directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest against them. The Court likewise denied the separate motions for reconsideration of Revilla and Cambe of the said Order.’ Meanwhile, all the accused brought on petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court the OMB’s finding of probable cause. The High Court denied the said petitions in its Decision, promulgated on December 6, 2016.* Upon arraignment, on June 26, 2014, Napoles and Cambe pleaded Not Guilty to the charge against them. On the other hand, Revilla réfused to enter any plea. Thus, pursuant to Section 1(c), Rule 116 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure,°® the Court entered a plea of Not Guilty on his behalf. Subsequently, Revilla, Cambe and Napoles separately filed petitions/applications for bail. After a summary hearing, the Court, in a Resolution, dated December 1, 2014, denied them temporary liberty. They moved for the reconsideration of the denial, but the same was denied in a Resolution, dated March 26, 2015. Accused Revilla, Cambe and Napoles brought before the Supreme Court the denial of their bail applications via ® Resolution, dated September 24, 2014, Vol. XXVIl, pp. 398-398 “GR. Nos. 212694-95, 212014-15, 213536-37, 213477-78, 213532-33 ® SECTION 1. Arraignment and Plea; how made. x90 xxx xxx (c) When the accused refuses to plead or makes a conditional plea, a plea of not guilly shall be ‘entered for him ¢ + pt