MANILA, Philippines — The defense team of former senator Ramon Revilla Jr. questioned prosecution evidence linking him to the P92.8 million Pandi flood control project, arguing that the claim is based on “multiple layers of hearsay.”
At the center of the dispute is the testimony of Department of Public Works and Highways Planning Service chief engineer Peter Paul Cortez, who told the Sandiganbayan’s Third Division that he was informed the late DPWH undersecretary Catalina Cabral directed the inclusion of the project in the 2025 budget amendments and tagged Revilla as its proponent.
Revilla’s lawyers said Cortez’s statement was not based on personal knowledge but on information relayed by unidentified sources, making it “more than double hearsay” and therefore unreliable as evidence. They also stressed that the alleged directive could no longer be verified, as Cabral is dead.
During the hearing, Cortez confirmed that the supposed instruction from Cabral was not in writing and was not supported by any memorandum or document.
Cortez testified that the Pandi, Bulacan flood control project was not part of the original list submitted by DPWH regional offices but was later inserted through an “errata,” or correction sheet, transmitted to the House Committee on Appropriations.
While the errata identified Revilla as the project proponent, Cortez acknowledged there was no signature from the former senator and no separate communication showing his endorsement or request for the project.
He reiterated that DPWH Programming Division records did not list Revilla as the originator of the proposal, nor did the office receive any formal funding request from him.
Cortez explained that the division’s function is limited to encoding and processing project entries for evaluation and does not include verifying the identities of listed proponents.
He admitted he had no direct dealings with Revilla or his representatives regarding the project.
The witness also confirmed the absence of a transmittal sheet or acknowledgment receipt tracing how the project moved from the Office of the Undersecretary to the Programming Division, leaving gaps in the documentary trail.
The defense also cited a September 9, 2024 errata letter signed by Public Works Secretary Manuel Bonoan, saying it served as the operative document for the project’s inclusion in the national budget and identified DPWH leadership—not any legislator—as proponent.
In earlier hearings, Revilla’s legal team pointed to what it described as weak documentary evidence and the absence of direct testimony linking the former senator to the conceptualization or funding of the project.
