MANILA, Philippines —The P1 billion restitution offer made by former Public Works undersecretary Roberto Bernardo has emerged as a pivotal issue in the bail hearings of former senator Ramon Revilla Jr., with the defense arguing that the move undercuts the prosecution’s claim that evidence of guilt is strong.
At the latest hearing before the Sandiganbayan Third Division, Associate Justice Ronald Moreno raised questions about Bernardo’s offer to return the amount to the government as part of his bid to qualify as a state witness.
Lawyers for Revilla contended that the scale of the proposed restitution suggests Bernardo was not a minor participant but a central figure in the alleged irregularities involving flood control projects. They argued that the ability to return such a large sum points to direct access to, or control over, project funds.
Defense counsel Reody Anthony Balisi pressed the issue during cross-examination, directly asking Bernardo if he was the “mastermind” behind the scheme, citing his alleged deep involvement and proximity to the funds.
“You cannot return such a large amount unless you are right at the center of the movement of the money,” Balisi said during the hearing.
Presiding Justice Karl Miranda also addressed the issue in open court, noting public sentiment surrounding the case and asking Bernardo to respond directly to questions about his alleged role.
"You answer the question of Atty. Balisi: are you really the mastermind?” Miranda said.
The prosecution presented Bernardo as its principal witness in an effort to demonstrate that the evidence against Revilla is strong — a legal threshold required to deny bail.
The defense argued that Bernardo’s testimony should be treated with caution, describing it as uncorroborated and motivated by his desire to avoid prosecution. They maintained that his offer to return ₱1 billion indicates a strong personal incentive to cooperate with the government.
Other prosecution witnesses, according to the defense, failed to directly link Revilla to the alleged misuse of funds.
A Public Works director assigned in the National Capital Region testified on project processing and implementation but did not implicate Revilla. Instead, the testimony outlined internal coordination within the department, where Bernardo allegedly held influence.
Another witness, Engineer Paul Cortez, detailed documentation and procedures related to project listings but did not identify any instruction, transaction, or meeting involving Revilla.
The defense said these accounts show that while witnesses described how the system operated, none established direct participation by Revilla. They argued that the testimonies pointed to Bernardo’s central role across various stages of the projects.
The prosecution also presented Bernardo’s driver and staff aide to support claims of alleged deliveries to Revilla. Under cross-examination, the defense said the two witnesses merely echoed Bernardo’s statements and did not provide independent confirmation.
Revilla’s legal team maintained that the case relies heavily on a single witness whose credibility is in question, backed by testimonies that do not independently establish the former senator’s involvement.
They added that Bernardo’s restitution offer not only signals the extent of his alleged participation but also raises doubts about the reliability of his statements.
The Sandiganbayan has yet to rule on Revilla’s bail petition, with the court expected to determine whether the prosecution’s evidence meets the constitutional standard required to keep the accused in detention.
