MANILA, Philippines — The expected testimony of former Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) undersecretary Roberto Bernardo in the alleged flood control anomaly has drawn renewed attention to the legal requirements governing the use of state witnesses in corruption cases, the legal team of former senator Ramon Revilla Jr. said.
Revilla was among several persons accused in connection with an alleged ghost flood control project in Bulacan.
Lawyer Rean Balisi Balisi said Bernardo’s scheduled appearance before the Sandiganbayan Third Division on Thursday, April 23, brings fresh focus on the application of the state witness doctrine under Philippine law.
Under the rules, a state witness must not appear to be the most guilty among those charged, and his testimony must be deemed necessary to the prosecution’s case. These requirements are among those being examined in relation to Bernardo’s participation in the proceedings.
The cases stem from alleged irregularities in flood control projects implemented in several regions, including Central Luzon and Mindanao, involving the disbursement of public funds now under continuing court scrutiny.
Earlier testimony before the Sandiganbayan indicated that some transactions may have involved coordination across multiple offices. Former DPWH Region III District Engineer Henry Alcantara, who was previously designated as a state witness, testified that he turned over approximately P1.8 billion in funds to Bernardo, although he said he had no direct knowledge of how the funds were ultimately used.
Alcantara also told the court that several of his actions were based on representations attributed to Bernardo, rather than independently verified instructions or official documents. These statements were raised during hearings as the Sandiganbayan reviewed the flow of funds and supporting records.
During a bail hearing, Associate Justice Ronald Moreno noted Bernardo’s repeated mention in witness testimonies and raised questions on how decisions were made by officials involved in the transactions. The court raised the possibility that subordinate officials may have acted on instruction without verification.
The prosecution’s use of Bernardo as a state witness has likewise been the subject of legal discussion in court, as the discharge of an accused to testify is permitted under procedural rules but must meet strict legal conditions.
Revilla’s legal team said the ongoing proceedings highlight the need for careful judicial assessment of compliance with those requirements in complex cases involving multiple accused and large-scale financial transactions.
Court-submitted reports indicate that Bernardo has executed several affidavits since his earlier appearances in legislative inquiries, which are expected to be evaluated as part of his testimony before the Sandiganbayan.
He has also reportedly committed to return about P290 million to the government in connection with his qualification as a state witness.
The Sandiganbayan Third Division is expected to assess Bernardo’s testimony alongside other prosecution evidence, including witness accounts and documentary submissions, as the trial proceeds.
The court is hearing the bail petition filed by Revilla in connection with the malversation case arising from the alleged flood control anomalies.
