Te: Questions why Sandiganbayan didn't accept Revilla AMLC report on plunder case

Former Sen. Bong Revilla

MANILA, Philippines — Former Supreme Court spokesperson and law professor Theodore Te on Monday questioned parts of the Sandiganbayan’s ruling on the acquittal of former Sen. Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. over the pork barrel scam.

On ANC’s “Early Edition,” Te pointed out: “Revilla was acquitted but [Anti-Money Laundering Council] report proved money went into his account.”

 “[It is] hard for me to understand why the court would not accept that, as the very least, a circumstance because again, if you’re looking at circumstantial evidence as basis for guilt, there must be a chain of evidence,” Te added.

Last week, the Sandiganbayan’s First Division voted 3-2 to acquit Revilla, but ruled to convict his aide Richard Cambe and businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles of plunder.

It held that the court could not hold Revilla liable as the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he “received, directly or indirectly rebates, commission, and kickbacks from his [Priority Development Assistance Fund].”

The Sandiganbayan concluded that the AMLC report is a circumstantial evidence. The anti-graft court said that the report “is not conclusive and does not rule out the possibilities that will tend to exculpate Revilla.”

But Te argued that a circumstance could have “triggered the court to say ‘okay, look there is a red flag, there is AMLC certification, there is testimony... something that says part of this money went into his bank account.”

The law professor stressed: “This is AMLC, this is the body that we trust, we mandate to prove these things. And this is what AMLC is already saying. So it’s a bit difficult to understand why the majority would not accept that.”