Sandiganbayan sets bail hearings for Revilla, co-accused in Bulacan floodgate malversation case

The Sandiganbayan Third Division has set bail hearings for former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. and several officials from the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Bulacan 1st District Engineering Office (DEO) in connection with a malversation case involving a floodgate project in Pandi, Bulacan.

Associate Justice Karl Miranda said the bail hearings will be held in the morning and afternoon on April 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 21, 22, 23 and 24.

Revilla and the DPWH officials earlier refused to enter into a plea bargain in the graft case.

Miranda clarified that the bail hearings will not determine the final guilt of the accused but will assess whether the evidence presented against them is strong.

The determination will serve as the basis for the anti-graft court in deciding whether to grant their bail petitions.

The bail petitions were filed by Revilla and his co-accused: DPWH Bulacan 1st DEO assistant engineer Brice Hernandez, Engr. Emelita Juat, Engr. Arjay Domasig, Juanito Mendoza and Christina Pineda.

Meanwhile, Engr. Jaypee Mendoza did not file a bail petition. His legal counsel told ABS-CBN News that they may file one anytime before the trial period.

The Sandiganbayan’s Third Division said it intends to resolve the bail petitions within 30 days from the first day of the hearings.

During the first day of the pre-trial, the prosecution said it plans to present 20 witnesses for the bail hearings alone. At least 56 witnesses are expected to testify during the trial.

Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Ronald Moreno asked the prosecution who would testify during the initial hearing dates, but the prosecutors declined to reveal the names.

Moreno also questioned why the prosecution did not specify the dates when particular witnesses would be presented, considering the number of witnesses scheduled for the bail hearings.

The justice said the omission runs contrary to the purpose of bail hearings.

“You have to tell us who the witnesses would be for the said dates,” Moreno said, adding, “The purpose is to avoid surprises in the spirit of transparency.”

Deputy Special Prosecutor Omar Sagadal responded that determining the sequence of witnesses is part of the prosecution’s prerogative.

When asked which among the 20 witnesses might present the strongest testimony, Sagadal said the prosecution may call an official from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the complainant in the case, as well as accountants.

He said the prosecution would attempt to prove that the floodgate project was a “ghost project” despite payments being made.

“We just want to err on the safe side and not to unduly restrict our prosecutorial leeway,” Sagadal said.

Moreno later suggested that two witnesses be presented daily — one during the morning session and another in the afternoon — to which the prosecution agreed.