Former senator Bong Revilla Jr. during a hearing on his plunder trial at the Sandiganbayan. (PTV image)

Former Sen. Ramon Revilla Jr. is not entirely out of the woods yet regarding his pork barrel case despite his acquittal as state prosecutors yesterday pursued legal action to oblige him to pay his part on P124.5 million in civil liability based on the Sandiganbayan’s decision promulgated on 7 December 2018.

In a motion for execution of judgment on the civil liability of Revilla filed by the Office of the Special Prosecutor before the Sandiganbayan last Monday, state lawyers prayed for the execution of the civil liability on Revilla along with those promulgated against Janet Lim-Napoles and Revilla’s aide Richard Cambe who were both convicted by the anti-graft court.

The prosecutors cited the dispositive part of the decision where it stated that “in view of the discussion above, and pursuant to Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), accused are held solidarily and jointly liable to return to the National Treasury the amount of P124,500,000.00.”

They argued that the discussion of the decision shows Cambe and Napoles were guilty beyond reasonable doubt on the crime of plunder which automatically declared them to be civilly liable.

While Revilla was acquitted, prosecutors said it was merely based on reasonable doubt and not due to the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt.

“This is why the judgment did not declare him to be without civil liability,” the state prosecutors refuted.

They also asserted the decision should not be written as “solidarily and jointly liable” in the civil obligation as the dispositive portion which convicted Cambe and Napoles and declared Revilla acquitted spelled out their names in different paragraphs.

“Had the Court wanted to exclude Revilla, it could have simply and easily named Cambe and Napoles in the third paragraph as it did in the first paragraph. It would have not have used the collective term “accused” without exception and distinction,” they explained.

They cited 10 decisions from Sandiganbayan First Division, the same court that heard Revilla’s case, where the Court specified the civil liability that might be charged against the acquitted or the convicted.

Citing Article 100 of the RPC, the state lawyers also claimed the provision does not exempt those who are not criminally liable from their civil liability.

They added in a Supreme Court’s decision on Nuguid’s case, the Highest Tribunal declared the quantum of proof needed in criminal prosecution (proof beyond reasonable doubt) is greater than what is required to prove civil liability which is the mere preponderance of evidence.

“All said, and considering that the decision on 7 December 2018 has attained finality with respect to Revilla, the latter’s civil liability is now ripe for execution,” the prosecutors said.

The Sandiganbayan will hear the motion today.