Connect with us

Commentary

No evidence merits acquittal

Ninez Cacho-Olivares

Published

on

With former Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revila’s acquittal of the crime of plunder, it has become only too evident that the charges leveled against him, on orders of the yellow and vindictive President Noynoy Aquino, were politically motivated and his vindictive order was dutifully carried out by then Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales and then Justice Chief Leila de Lima, now accused and detained on drug charges, with the yellow brand of selective justice.

“Why should it be difficult to believe, when Revilla’s signature was not only forged, but that some state witnesses recanted their testimony.

That selective justice was also applied on former Sen. Jinggoy Estrada who was also charged with plunder. Also a victim of the yellow regime and its yellow cohorts in the justice arena is former Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile, and all because they posed an electoral threat to the Aquino regime that planned and plotted to retain political power for 12 years and beyond, with the Liberal Party lording it over all political parties turning yellow both in Congress and in the Executive department.

If the yellow president, his Senate yellow allies, Morales and De Lima were really after true justice instead of their fear of losing power and position, why then have they not filed any plunder charges against several yellow senators and top congressional leaders, who were cited in the special review done by former Commission on Audit Chairman Grace Pulido-Tan, all of whom also had their pork barrel in the hundreds of millions of pesos? Why, even the yellow president, despite his having been in the House and the Senate for nine years, had his tens of millions in pork barrel. Yet he and Mar Roxas, who was being groomed to succeed the yellow president, had their pork barrel, having been a senator and earlier a congressman.

They were not audited at all.

This is fact. And only the three opposition senators were ordered charged and detained for half a decade. Two others were granted bail after some three years. Is this what these yellows call justice?

But the chairman of the anti-graft court Justice Efren de la Cruz who voted to convict Revilla can’t seem to take his losing vote graciously, as his 141-page dissenting opinion blasted away at the three justices, who were in the majority, who voted for Revilla’s acquittal.

De la Cruz insisted the anomalous use of pork barrel funds would have been impossible without the participation of former Sen. Revilla, in conspiracy with scheme mastermind Janet Lim Napoles and the senator’s former aide Richard Cambe.

Said De la Cruz in his dissenting opinion: “I find it extremely hard to believe that this scam of such magnitude was confined only within the realm of Napoles and Cambe to the exclusion of Revilla.”

Why should it be difficult to believe, when Revilla’s signature was not only forged, but that some state witnesses recanted their testimony against Revilla and even stated on record and under oath that the star witness of De Lima and Morales, Benhur Luy, a certified and coached perjurer, forged the signatures of the senators to get the pork barrel funds and even went on to pocket them?

This has been proven as the Anti-Money Laundering Council disclosed that Luy had millions in his bank account and millions more in his parents and brother’s accounts in the banks, millions they certainly could not have earned honestly.

“The trouble with De la Cruz’s statements is that he dismisses the evidence that clearly refutes his desire to convict Revilla.

Neither De Lima nor Morales moved to charge Luy and his family with this crime and even his having lied under oath on his claimed kidnapping, since they needed this perjurer to testify against the three senators to get them convicted.

De la Cruz questioned why Revilla was cleared despite the fact of the absence of evidence to prove the former senator’s guilt.

The majority decision said there was no evidence Revilla was involved in the scheme since the whistle-blowers themselves said they never saw the former lawmaker collect his kickbacks. Instead, it pointed to Cambe as the main beneficiary of the misused Priority Development Assistance Fund.

The trouble with De la Cruz’s statements is that he dismisses the evidence that clearly refutes his desire to convict Revilla. Yet the law says decisions must be based on documentary and testimonial evidence. The truth is, the Ombudsman’s prosecutors failed to prove their case which they, had they been independent prosecutors instead of lackeys of the yellow.

Ombudsman, would have dismissed it, or at least offered no opposition to Revilla’s demurrer.

Another truth is that the yellow president, Carpio-Morales and De Lima, who is now suffering the wrath of karma, prostituted the justice system.

There was no evidence at all to prove it was Revilla who got the kickbacks. Moreover, it will be recalled that Luy even admitted he never met nor talked to Revilla.

“Revilla failed to offer an explanation on these disparities and deposits. The Court cannot engage in guesswork and conjecture that Revilla was monetarily capable to make such deposits and investments out of his income from being a senator, producer and actor,” De la Cruz stressed, related the so-called bank account disparities.

Again, on what does De la Cruz base his claim when evidence is absent and prosecutors fail to prove the allegations?

The conviction or acquittal of an accused should always be based on evidence and, surely, Justice De la Cruz knows this.

Advertisement
Click to comment