MANILA, Philippines — Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Ronald Moreno said the prosecution failed to present strong evidence directly linking former senator Ramon Revilla Jr. to the alleged conspiracy in the controversial Pandi, Bulacan flood control project, citing significant evidentiary gaps in a separate concurring opinion supporting the court's decision to grant him bail.
In a concurring opinion attached to the anti-graft court's July 31, 2026 resolution, Moreno agreed with the Sandiganbayan Third Division that the prosecution failed to establish strong evidence of guilt against Revilla during bail proceedings in the malversation through falsification case arising from the alleged anomalous flood control project.
The criminal information accused Revilla of conspiring with officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) to defraud the government.
Moreno said that while prosecution witnesses claimed Revilla requested a list of infrastructure projects for funding, no documentary evidence was presented to prove that such a request was actually made.
He added that even if such a request existed, it could reasonably be viewed as part of Revilla's official duties as then-chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Works, preventing the evidence from excluding other reasonable explanations.
The magistrate likewise found no clear evidentiary link connecting the alleged request for a project list to the eventual inclusion of the Pandi flood control project in the 2025 General Appropriations Act.
Moreno cited testimony showing that funding decisions ultimately rested with other government officials and institutions involved in the national budget process, including Congress and the Bicameral Conference Committee.
The concurring opinion also questioned the prosecution's theory on the alleged advance payment of kickbacks.
Moreno observed that even if witnesses' claims were accepted, the alleged payments supposedly came from private contractors before any government funds had been disbursed.
He said this was legally significant because public funds, an essential element in the crime of malversation, had not yet come into existence when the alleged payments were supposedly made.
The justice further noted that witnesses presented during the bail hearings failed to establish through direct personal knowledge that money was actually delivered to Revilla.
Individuals who allegedly transported boxes admitted they did not know what the boxes contained, while another witness acknowledged he never saw any cash.
Moreno also said the prosecution failed to present strong evidence that Revilla expressly or impliedly agreed to participate in a future act of malversation or knew that his co-accused would allegedly commit malversation through falsification of public documents during the implementation of the project.
The separate opinion echoed the findings of the Sandiganbayan that the prosecution failed to establish strong evidence of Revilla's alleged participation as a conspirator.
The Third Division found no strong evidence showing that Revilla facilitated the inclusion of the questioned flood control project in the 2025 national budget.
It ruled that Revilla's position as chairman of the Senate Public Works Committee did not, by itself, give him authority to insert projects into the General Appropriations Act, which undergoes deliberation and approval by the Senate, the House of Representatives and the Bicameral Conference Committee.
The resolution also noted that while legislators routinely communicate with government agencies regarding proposed infrastructure projects, DPWH witnesses acknowledged that no request from Revilla concerning the subject project was presented before the court.
A substantial portion of the prosecution's theory also relied on statements made by former DPWH Undersecretary Roberto Bernardo, but the court said key allegations regarding project funding and supposed kickback arrangements were not supported by independent evidence presented during the bail hearings.
Revilla's counsel, Rean Balisi, said the court’s resolution reaffirmed the long-settled principle that conspiracy must be proven through positive and conclusive evidence rather than conjecture, assumptions or speculation.
Balisi said the court focused on whether the prosecution presented actual proof connecting Revilla to the offense charged, instead of relying on allegations circulating outside the courtroom.
