Numbers Don’t Lie – or do they?
Last time, I
presented you with these 2 numbers:
10 billion pesos total PDAF money
From being accused of 1.2 billion pesos, Bong Revilla is now
just accountable for 80 million pesos – less
than 10% of the total PDAF funds.
From here,
we have 2 questions:
1.
Who is
responsible for the remaining 90% of the PDAF funds?
2.
Why is there
NO MEDIA REPORT about the non-involvement of Bong Revilla in the PDAF funds?
Hmmmm… let’s
take a step back.
When the AMLC (Anti-Money
Laundering Council) testified through Bank Investigator Atty. Leigh Von Santos
in Revilla’s Bail Petition hearings, numbers were again used to lead the public
to believe that they found evidence Revilla received kickbacks as alleged by his
accusers. Santos floated these numbers
81 –81 bank accounts
20 –20 closed bank accounts
1:1 –matching transactions
224 million –documented received kickbacks.
Fed with these numbers, the
public could do nothing but conclude that Revilla may have indeed committed the
crime he was being charged.
But what the AMLC testified to,
could not be farther from the truth if we look at all the numbers and what they
signify.
What the AMLC actually and merely
found, in simple and unequivocal terms—
in a span of 5 years, from 2006 to 2010, Revilla made multiple deposits amounting to 87 million involving only 5
accounts.
That is not even 20 million per year on the
average. For a man of Revilla’s earning
capacity, it is not a cause for surprise, or if at all, the number is actually
surprisingly low. This is so low that for the past 10 years or so, the AMLC
never saw anything suspicious in Revilla’s accounts. In fact, in their first investigation into
Revilla finances, they found nothing to raise any suspicion. Only when the Ombudsman asked
them to conduct an investigation and fed them Benhur Luy’s accusations did the
AMLC say there were suspicious transactions.
Going back to numbers, Santos did
not mention in his testimony, but admitted to on cross-examination, the numbers
5 – as in only 5 accounts that they saw had financial movements, 7 – as in 7
time deposit accounts for the benefit of each child of Revilla, 6 – as in 6
double entries made by the AMLC, 1 – as in 1 erroneous account that was non-existent,
5 – as in a span of 5 years, and 87 – as in 87 million pesos which the AMLC
claimed had 1:1 correspondence with 224 million.
In finding 1:1 or
matching correspondence, the AMLC used as an absolute basis, the alleged ledger
of Benhur Luy found as an annex in his first of many affidavits. The AMLC no longer read the following
affidavits of Luy where he contradicted his previous claims. The ledger he claims to have prepared by
himself, have indications that they were prepared by someone else, and stolen
by him.
Luy claims that the numbers in
his Hard Disk Drive are irrefutable, and the Ombudsman’s prosecutors presented
an NBI Digital Forensic Officer to authenticate the contents of the Drive. They would want to make the public believe
that the numbers in Luy’s HDD is enough to support the findings of the AMLC and
convict Revilla.
However, the prosecution
miserably failed to authenticate the HDD and the numbers Luy keeps peddling.
The
NBI admitted that Luy’s HDD is not an exact copy of the JLN computer’s HDD,
which should have been the one subjected to examination. They admitted that they did not exert efforts
to find and seize the original HDD. The
NBI also admitted that they did not get the owner of the files’ consent in
examining the Drive.
In testifying,
the NBI admitted that their examination of the HDD did not tell them who
actually or personally created the files, who actually or personally accessed
the files, and what revisions or modifications were introduced to the files.
In other words, the NBI admitted they did not personally see the
files being created/modified/changed; who created the files; who modified; or
who last saved the files.
In effect, NBI failed to establish the authenticity of the files and
the numbers in Luy’s Disk Drive, and haplessly failed to establish, that it was
Luy who created, modified and saved the files.
As an aside and
speaking of numbers, Luy’s computations made in Court failed to even match what
was written on his alleged ledger contained in his HDD.
What Luy did instead was admit to
falsifying PDAF and other financial documents, forging signatures, and
fabricating accounting entries.
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
see that there is no 1:1 or matching correspondence.
To believe otherwise like how the
AMLC would want us to accept, is to concede that 250,000 = 5,000,000 (Fig. 1); that 200,000 = 12,500,000 (Fig. 2); that 100,000 = 7,000,000 (Fig. 3); that 200,000 = 10,000,000 (Fig. 4); that 600,000 = 10,000,000 (Fig. 5); that 500,000 = 17,250,000 (Fig. 6); and that 700,000 = 18,000,000 (Fig. 8).
Also, to believe claims
made by the AMLC, we must believe that time travel is now possible because
Revilla was able to deposit in his account on December 11, 2008 the money he
allegedly received a day after that, or only on December 12, 2008 (Fig. 7).
In making its
conclusions, the AMLC also disregarded the number 2 – as in 2 accounts
belonging to the spouses Revilla where their income as actors are
remitted. They did not look into
matching the outflow of funds from these accounts to the inflow of funds to the
accounts they presumed were suspicious.
Had they done that, they would have seen that the sources of Revilla’s
funds were indeed legitimate.
So, by allowing the same numbers
in the AMLC report against Revilla to speak and truly represent what they mean,
the numbers are clearly saying that there is no basis nor indication that
Revilla received 224,512,500.00 pesos.
Likewise, there is basis and indications that he did not receive 224,512,500.00 pesos.
So why is the Ombudsman now
moving to garnish Revilla’s assets?
That question cannot be answered
by the numbers. In fact, it is not
supported at all by the numbers.
So yes, numbers do not
lie, but numbers are used by liars to perpetrate lies. While numbers are completely neutral and
objective, people who use numbers are subservient to interests. Thus, numbers can be used to twist the truth
to suit agendas. To what or to whom is
the Ombudsman subservient to in this case, and which agenda does their acts
suit? That is the more proper question.
