The lead counsel of former senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. on Monday expressed confidence that the corruption charges filed against his client will be dismissed, describing the complaint as baseless and anchored on unreliable evidence.

In an interview, collaborating counsel Ramon Esguerra, speaking alongside lead counsel Atty. Cheska Senga, said the allegations related to a flood control project in Bulacan lack credible foundation and fail to establish the elements required for a valid criminal charge.

Esguerra said the complaint is based on what he described as incredible and incompetent evidence, adding that it relies on hearsay from sources he characterized as unreliable.

He made the remarks while echoing arguments raised in Revilla’s recently filed counter-affidavit.

The charges stem from alleged violations of Articles 210 and 211 of the Revised Penal Code, which cover direct and indirect bribery.

Esguerra also questioned the consistency and quality of the evidence presented by the complainants, pointing to former Public Works undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, who he said submitted multiple affidavits during the proceedings.

"One original, then supplement, then another supplement, another supplement, another supplement," Esguerra said. "If your story keeps changing because you want to fit your narrative... why isn't your story consistent?"

The defense maintained that the supposed evidence against Revilla consists only of a list of projects, described as a “tabular enumeration,” allegedly suggested by the Department of Public Works and Highways.

They argued that there is no direct proof linking Revilla to any endorsement or solicitation, nor any detail showing the alleged receipt of money.

Esguerra said that even his law students would know that a complaint cannot be based on allegations that fail to show the specific acts or omissions constituting the elements of the crime charged.

When asked about the possibility of the Department of Justice dismissing the case, Esguerra said, "Of course, hoping against hope that it will be dismissed."

He added that while the defense does not control the prosecutors’ assessment, they believe there is “no prima facie evidence which is reasonable cause to believe” that a crime was committed.