Lawyer criticizes Ombudsman, DOJ handling of Revilla malversation case

A criminal law expert has described the handling by the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice of the malversation of public funds case against former senator Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. as “extraordinarily hasty” and “in utter disregard of the due process clause.”

This was according to Atty. Lorna Pantajo-Kapunan, a veteran defense lawyer who has appeared in numerous high-profile cases. She said “the manner by which the Ombudsman and the DOJ are running the show demonstrates an alarming trend toward bending the law to suit transitory political exigencies, at the expense of institutional safeguards guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.”

A known human rights advocate, Kapunan cited what she called the “obscene haste” in the issuance of the warrant of arrest against Revilla, barely an hour after the voluminous records of the case were transmitted to the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan. She also pointed out that the information was filed by the Ombudsman without furnishing the Revilla camp a copy of the resolution finding probable cause.

“All of these acts evince a pattern of ‘railroading’ the complaint to give rise to a finding of probable cause so that a warrant may be issued against Revilla, without regard to proper procedures and due process,” Kapunan added.

Kapunan further said that, based on the records of the case, Revilla was allegedly not even given a copy of the complaint-affidavit, but only a motion to include him as a respondent. “By doing so, he was not only deprived of his right to respond to the evidence against him, but he was kept ignorant of the very existence of such evidence,” she said.

She added that “a perusal of the documents will reveal that there were no project documents, no bid documents, and no audit reports given to Revilla for him to controvert.”

Kapunan, a recognized criminal law expert, stressed that while the prosecution has wide leeway in determining the charges to be filed against an accused based on available evidence, this discretion should not contravene the right of the accused to confront the same evidence that may be used against him.