SUMMARY
This is AI generated summarization, which may have errors. For context, always refer to the full article.
MANILA, Philippines – As Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr faces the possibility of having P224 million ($5 million*) in his assets confiscated in the meantime, the government admitted that a full recovery of the alleged ill-gotten wealth will be unlikely.
“Well, you have to be realistic. Hindi ka makaka-100% diyan (You won’t get a 100% recovery there),” said Justice Undersecretary Jose “JJ” Justiniano in a press conference Thursday, October 30.
In seeking for the provisional confiscation, the government listed at least 44 bank accounts and investments still open under Revilla’s name, 28 real properties, 15 motor vehicles, 5 separate shares of stock totaling P1.14 million ($25,331) in 3 different corporations, and shares in 12 other exclusive sports clubs and private companies.
RULE 57
Preliminary Attachment
Section 1. Grounds upon which attachment may issue. — At the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment, a plaintiff or any proper party may have the property of the adverse party attached as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered in the following cases:
(a) In an action for the recovery of a specified amount of money or damages, other than moral and exemplary, on a cause of action arising from law, contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict against a party who is about to depart from the Philippines with intent to defraud his creditors;
(b) In an action for money or property embezzled or fraudulently misapplied or converted to his own use by a public officer, or an officer of a corporation, or an attorney, factor, broker, agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment as such, or by any other person in a fiduciary capacity, or for a willful violation of duty;
(c) In an action to recover the possession of property unjustly or fraudulently taken, detained or converted, when the property, or any part thereof, has been concealed, removed, or disposed of to prevent its being found or taken by the applicant or an authorized person;
(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, or in the performance thereof;
(e) In an action against a party who has removed or disposed of his property, or is about to do so, with intent to defraud his creditors; or
(f) In an action against a party who does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, or on whom summons may be served by publication.
Justiniano said it is possible that these may not be enough to cover the P224 million that the public was already defrauded of over the pork barrel scam, based on the charges lodged against the senator.
If the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan grants the seizure sought and Revilla’s assets fail to reach the P224-million mark, the senator would be required to explain where the money went.
Even then, Justiniano said, the government cannot expect a complete and truthful inventory from Revilla.
The preliminary seizure – ideally confidential in nature to prevent an accused from further concealment of his wealth – was sought by prosecutors last Monday, October 27. (READ: Gov’t seeks to confiscate Revilla assets)
The court required Revilla’s comment on it. (READ: Court seeks Revilla’s comment on seizure of assets)
Revilla faces a plunder case and 16 counts of graft before the Sandiganbayan First Division over the multi-million-peso diversion of his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel to ghost projects of dummy foundations.
‘No intent to hide wealth’
Revilla’s lawyer Joel Bodegon insisted that Revilla has no intent to conceal his wealth.
“Bakit? Binibenta niya ba yung properties niya? (Why? Is he selling his properties?)” Bodegon asked rhetorically.
But for the prosecution, Revilla’s sudden closure of about 20 bank accounts when news on the PDAF scam came out showed he was hiding his monies.
Bodegon regarded his client’s move simply as an act of “self-preservation.” He said Revilla just had to put the money in a “better place.”
He said there was no law preventing his client from closing the accounts, despite the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) considering it a “red flag.”
Bodegon was assailing the need for the temporary seizure asked by the prosecution, which the court will act upon after it receives the comment of Revilla and the government’s reply to it.
The justices will deliberate on whether Revilla’s plunder case falls under any of the 6 conditions outlined in Rule 57 of the Rules of Court, which provides for the grounds when the sought-for writ of preliminary attachment may be granted.
The grounds include any legal action where there is “intent to defraud,” when the party is “about to depart” the country, or when there is concealment of a property to “prevent its being found,” among others.
Bodegon said his client can’t even leave the Philippines by virtue of his detention and his court-ordered travel ban, pertaining to one of the conditions set by the rule.
Revilla willing to give back money
Revilla, for his part, said he is willing to give back the money the government alleges to be ill-acquired only if it has been proven to be so.
“Kung mapapatunayan nila na ginawa ko talaga yun, kahit lahat ng pera ko na pinaghirapan ko pa noong bata ako na para sa mga anak ko, na legal, handa akong ibigay sa gobyerno,” he said. “Pero wala po akong ginagawang masama.“
(If they prove that I really did it, even if they get all the money I worked hard for since I was young, which are for my kids, which are legal, I am willing to give them to the government. But I have not done anything wrong.)
Revilla expressed concern about what will happen to his assets if the court rules he is innocent.”Papaano naman kapag napatunayan nila na wala kaming kasalanan? Anong sasabihin nila sa amin? Sorry?” (What will happen if we prove our innocence? What will they tell us? Sorry?)
But Ombudsman spokesperson Asryman Rafanan reiterated the purpose of the sought-for writ. “By its nature, the writ is provisional or preliminary,” he said, explaining that the order will only place the assets under judicial custody until the court resolves Revilla’s plunder case.
READ RELATED ARTICLES:
By then, if Revilla is found innocent, the assets will be given back to him; if guilty, to the state.
Rafanan explained that it was only proper to secure Revilla’s payment now before the assets dissipate to protect the victims – in this case, the government – from being further defrauded.
In its motion asking for the seizure, the prosecution reserved its right to still file a separate civil forfeiture case against Revilla over the alleged ill-gotten wealth.
The Ombudsman denied allegations this was overkill, saying a possible civil forfeiture is “a totally separate and independent remedy to recover” the assets believed to be illegally acquired.
Even the computation will be different for the civil case and will not be equal to the P224 million now sought to be recovered, said Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Gerard Mosquera. – Rappler.com
Add a comment
How does this make you feel?
There are no comments yet. Add your comment to start the conversation.