ARTICLE 2:

Of Whistle Blowers and Bong Revilla—

I find it odd, how a country can so easily trust whistle blowers. They

are shady to begin with, they've been part of whatever it is they are

currently pointing and blaming other people for from the get go, and

basically, they’re whistle blowing to get away from it all.

Benhur Luy—the man accusing Bong Revilla of plunder—is a clear

example.

The crime of Plunder is committed by a Public Officer, who by

himself or in connivance with others, has amassed, accumulated, or

acquired ill-gotten wealth through combination or series of criminal

acts specified under RA 7080 in the aggregate amount of at least

fifty (50) Million pesos.

Yet—and believe me, I’m as surprised as you—it seems the

prosecution wasn't able to sufficiently prove this as easily as I

expected them. In fact, in the course of the bail hearings, I saw the

lack of evidence against a Senator who was already slammed and

judged by public opinion, making me wonder (as you may have

already seen in my last post) if the country’s justice system has been

swayed merely by the pressure of the court of public opinion.

• In terms of kickbacks, the prosecution was counting on Luy to

offer evidence without reasonable doubt. He didn't.

• Luy merely alleges that Revilla received funds from the PDAF

scam proceeds—but based on his testimony, it seems it was all

based on his own assumptions, concluded from information

provided by other people.

• There is no proof that Cambe was Senator Revilla’s agent in

the commission of the crime charged, or at the very least, that

Cambe gave the alleged kickbacks to Senator Revilla.

• Cambe was apparently out of the country on some dates when

Luy allegedly met with him and handed him the kickbacks.

This evidence creates doubt as to the probable guilt not only of

Cambe, but more so of Revilla.


And as far as Luy goes?

• He never gave any money to Revilla.

• He never saw Revilla go to Janet Lim Napoles’ office.

• He never saw Napoles give Revilla any amount of money.

• He never saw cash delivered to the home of Revilla.

• He never had personal knowledge about the alleged scheming

between Napoles and Revilla.

• He never saw Revilla conspire, transact or deal with any one

else to support his case.

Basically, all the information he knows was given to him from other

people, making it all hearsay.

ARTICLE 1:

So it’s still going…


I’m talking about the whole Bong Revilla case; and as both the

defense and prosecution make their defense, here’s the thing—if the

case against the Senator is as airtight as they claim it to be, then why

can’t they seem to prove it without reasonable doubt?

Did this whole country just get swayed by public opinion? Did our

justice system fail its constituents by allowing themselves to get

swayed by the zeitgeist?

Perhaps there is no better case than this to show just how easily we

leave our objectivity at the door in the spirit of going with the flow.

Don’t get me wrong—I’m not for Bong Revilla, per se; it’s more

of—there might be more to this whole thing than meets the eye.

Especially since, despite assertions that this whole thing was a “done

deal”, all the prosecution was able to present are suppositions,

conjectures and hearsay.

The yardstick used by the Supreme Court in determining whether

evidence of guilt is strong or not is very stringent—

“[b]y judicial discretion, the law mandates the determination of

whether proof is evident or the presumption of guilt is strong. ‘Proof

evident’ or ‘Evident proof’ in this connection has been held to

mean clear, strong evidence which leads a well-guarded

dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense has

been committed as charged, that accused is the guilty agent,

and that he will probably be punished capitally if the law is

administered. ‘Presumption great’ exists when the circumstances

testified to are such that the inference of guilt naturally to be

drawn therefrom is strong, clear, and convincing to an unbiased

judgment and excludes all reasonable probability of any other

conclusion.”

Following the law, being in jail for a capital offense requires nothing

less than strong evidence of guilt—where the guilt is determined

beyond reasonable doubt. So a person, as in the case of Bong

Revilla, being in detention pending litigation is already an exception to

this rule.

All this is a roundabout way of saying that Revilla should be in jail IF

AND ONLY IF there is clear and strong evidence that:

• Bong Revilla has been proven to have committed the crimes

and charged for it.

• Bong Revilla’s guilt can naturally be drawn from a strong, clear

and convincing set of evidence that excludes the possibility of

any other conclusion.

None of which was determined or set during his bail hearing. To date,

the main arguments remain to be conjecture and have always led

people to various other conclusions. Yes, it was presented to allude

to his guilt, but often it also reminds the public that, wait—that might

possibly explain what really happened.

Never forget

A day before it struck, this is what our President said about of one of the biggest tragedies this nation went through. 

We weren't prepared then. 

We have barely recovered now.

Well, we put him there...

Is it fair to say that this country brought it upon themselves?