A member of the Sandiganbayan’s Third Division has formally registered his opposition to the court’s decision allowing former Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. to post bail in connection with a ₱92.8-million malversation case involving a flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan.
Associate Justice Karl B. Miranda, who chairs the division, dissented from the majority ruling that granted Revilla bail while denying the petitions of his co-accused, who are officials of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) Bulacan 1st District Engineering Office (DEO).
A court briefer detailing Miranda’s Concurring and Dissenting Opinion noted his position on the matter:
“[J]ustice Karl B. Miranda agreed with the denial of bail of all the accused from DPWH – Bulacan 1st DEO but asserted that there is also strong evidence that Revilla committed the acts alleged in the Information, in furtherance of a conspiracy, and this warrants the denial of his bail,” the briefer stated.
While Associate Justice Ronald B. Moreno joined the majority opinion approving Revilla’s bail request, Miranda also broke with the majority regarding former DPWH cashier Christina Mae Del Rosario Pienda. Miranda argued that Pienda should have been granted bail because her actions were carried out as part of her official duties and within established procedures.
Points of Disagreement
The Third Division chairperson highlighted three primary findings in the majority decision that he contested:
- The majority’s view that no evidence showed Revilla facilitated the project’s inclusion in government budget allocations.
- The conclusion that the alleged malversation occurred solely during project implementation—a stage where Revilla had no direct participation.
- The assessment that there was no link between Revilla’s alleged actions and the subsequent scheme by co-accused individuals to recover advance kickbacks through malversation.
Although Miranda acknowledged that the actual misuse of funds took place during implementation, he insisted that the evidence against Revilla must be evaluated within the context of systemic practices in the DPWH.
“Justice Miranda argues that the prosecution was able to present strong evidence against Revilla to warrant the denial of his bail application. At the outset, he emphasized that the alleged acts of Revilla may only be appreciated properly when contextualized in the kalakaran or scheme perpetrated in the DPWH,” the court briefer noted.
Miranda explained that under the alleged kalakaran (system), contractors provided advance kickbacks based on a percentage of the total project cost and later recovered those amounts from the project’s budget to maintain profitability.
“In short, a portion of the project’s budget would be diverted to the contractor as reimbursement for the kickback it paid the proponent,” the opinion read.
“This has been confirmed through the testimony of Engr. Alcantara when he admitted to the court that only 30%-35% of the project budget would be left for the actual project implementation.”
Based on this framework, Miranda argued that receiving an advance kickback cannot be viewed as an isolated act, as the money would ultimately be recouped through subsequent government transactions, shifting the financial cost of the bribe to the state. He added that members of a conspiracy may perform separate roles while pursuing a shared criminal goal.
Furthermore, Miranda emphasized that the terms “facilitated” and “caused” in the charge sheet should be given their plain meaning.
“Hence, it is not required to prove that Revilla personally intervened in congressional deliberations to ensure the funding of the project. It is sufficient to show that he committed overt acts, in the absence of which, the project would not have been included in the GAA.”
The July 31 resolution highlights a clear split within the Sandiganbayan Third Division, with Miranda standing against the majority’s decision to grant bail to the former lawmaker.