Revilla files motion vs prosecution’s move to amass his property

By on November 18, 2014

Sen. Ramon 'Bong' Revilla Jr.
Sen. Ramon ‘Bong’ Revilla Jr.

MANILA – Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. files a motion asking the court to junk the prosecution’s move for garnishment of his property allegedly tagged as kickbacks from the pork barrel scam.

Revilla’s counsel noted in the motion that the prosecution’s claims have no merit adding that the case is premature as the evidence cited were the same as those presented during the hearing on his motion for bail.

“To grant the application for writ of garnishment based on the dearth of evidence presented during the bail hearings would be doubly unfair and unjust,” it read.

“An issuance of a writ of attachment (or garnishment) … would constitute undue pre-judgment to the bail application, particularly that the accused has yet to present evidence to magnify or emphasize the strong evidence of doubt in this case,” the opposition added.

The evidence presented by the prosecution also failed to prove that Revilla had a direct hand in the scam, according to the defense.

Among the evidence noted is the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) report claiming that the senator withdrew millions of unexplained wealth.

“The very language of the AMLC Report denotes inconclusiveness, not to mention uncertainty. These inconclusive allegations cannot be used by prosecution as basis for its prayer in its motion,” the opposition said.

Contrary to their claims, however, the prosecution insists that there is enough evidence to prove Revilla’s  involvement stressing the need to acquire whatever amount that was originally from public money.

“There is prima facie evidence showing that much of accused’s wealth is ill-gotten, the same having been sourced from public money amassed, accumulated or acquired from bribes, commissions and kickbacks amounting to P224 million from his P515 million PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Funds). Such P224 million wealth, which appears to be prima facie ill-gotten, has to be preserved pending final determination of the legality, thereof, including any purchased property sourced from such money,” the motion read.