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. 

Looking at the AMLC report submitted to the Sandiganbayan, there is not even any basis for Santos and the AMLC to conclude there was a 1:1 or matching correspondence.  For clarity, portions are reproduced below:

                                        Fig. 1

                                      Fig. 2

                                      Fig. 3

                                      Fig. 4

                                      Fig. 5

                                     Fig. 6

                                      Fig. 7

                                       Fig. 8

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.