G.R. No. 199650 - J Plus Asia Development Corp. vs. Utility Assurance Corp.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 199650)

Key Dates and Dockets

Consolidated petitions: G.R. Nos. 218232 (Revilla), 218235 (Cambe), 218266 (Napoles), 218903 (People/Ombudsman v. Sandiganbayan re: transfer), and 219162 (Revilla re: preliminary attachment). Relevant Sandiganbayan resolutions: denial of bail (1 Dec 2014; motion for reconsideration denied 26 Mar 2015), denial of motion to transfer detention (4 Sep 2014; reconsideration denied 20 May 2015), and grant of writ of preliminary attachment (5 Feb 2015; motion for reconsideration denied 28 May 2015).

Applicable Law and Legal Standards

Constitutional and statutory standards used: Article III, Section 13 of the 1987 Constitution (non-bailability when “evidence of guilt is strong” for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua); Rule 114, Sec. 7–8, Rules of Court (bail in capital/reclusion perpetua cases; prosecution’s burden to show strong evidence); RA 7080 (Plunder) and its definitional provision and elements; Rules of Court, Rules 57 and 127 (preliminary attachment and attachment in actions involving embezzlement/fraud by public officers); RA 6975 (PNP powers and detention) and the Revised PNP Operational Procedures Manual.

Factual Background — Charges and Amended Information

The Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information (5 June 2014) charging Revilla, Cambe, Napoles and others with plunder under RA 7080. The Amended Information alleged that from 2006–2010 the accused conspired to amass at least PHP 224,512,500.00 through kickbacks and diversion of Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) projects to NGOs controlled by Napoles, with commissions paid to Revilla and to Cambe as intermediary.

Procedural Posture in Sandiganbayan

Warrants of arrest issued (19 June 2014); Revilla and Cambe surrendered and were committed to PNP CIDG Custodial Center, Camp Crame. Separate bail applications filed by Revilla (20 June 2014), Cambe (23 June 2014) and Napoles (25 June 2014). Sandiganbayan conducted bail hearings; prosecution presented nine witnesses and documentary evidence; defense presented expert evidence (handwriting/document examiner Atty. Desiderio Pagui) and other stipulations. Sandiganbayan denied bail applications (1 Dec 2014) and denied reconsideration (26 Mar 2015). Prosecution’s motion to transfer detention to BJMP facilities was denied (4 Sep 2014; reconsideration denied 20 May 2015). The Sandiganbayan also granted an ex parte writ of preliminary attachment against Revilla’s assets (5 Feb 2015; amended alias writ 10 July 2015; reconsideration denied 28 May 2015).

Summary of Prosecution Evidence as Found by Sandiganbayan

Sandiganbayan summarized prosecution evidence: allocation and disbursement of Revilla’s PDAF (12 SAROs totaling PHP 517,000,000.00) to projects nominally implemented by certain implementing agencies with Napoles-linked NGOs as implementors; Luy’s “Summary of Rebates” and disbursement ledgers (derived from a hard drive) listing rebates/commissions totaling PHP 224,512,500.00; whistleblower testimonies (Luy, SuAas, Sula, Baltazar) describing creation of bogus NGOs, diversion of funds, and withdrawals directed by Napoles; AMLC testimony showing bank accounts and control by Napoles; COA findings of non-implementation and fake liquidation documents; testimony and report from an NBI expert attesting to integrity of the hard drive files.

Summary of Defense Evidence and Challenges

Defense presented Atty. Pagui’s expert reports opining that signatures on PDAF documents were not authentic for Revilla and Cambe; Pagui testified about limitations (originals vs. photocopies, time to complete examinations) and was paid professional fees. Defense also stipulated to certain authentic records (immigration records, passenger manifests) and challenged credibility of whistleblowers, hearsay nature of some documents, and asserted forgery of key PDAF documents.

Legal Issue on Bail and Standard Applied

Central legal question: whether Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying bail to accused Cambe and Napoles (Revilla later withdrew his petition). The Court reaffirmed that for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua (plunder), bail may be denied only when “evidence of guilt is strong.” The proper standard is one of “strong evidence,” sometimes phrased as “proof evident” or “presumption great,” a quantum less than proof beyond reasonable doubt but requiring clear, convincing circumstances that the accused is probably guilty. Bail hearings are summary; prosecution bears burden to show strong evidence; court must issue an order containing a summary of prosecution evidence and exercise judicial discretion within constitutional and procedural bounds.

Sandiganbayan’s Factual Findings on Plunder Elements

Sandiganbayan found the elements of plunder (public officer participation; amassing ill-gotten wealth by means described in Section 1(d); aggregate amount ≥ PHP 50,000,000.00) sufficiently supported on the record for purposes of denying bail. Key findings: Revilla and Cambe were public officers; Napoles operated as the conduit and controlled NGOs and accounts; evidence (whistleblowers, AMLC, COA, hard drive) supported an inference of conspiracy and diversion of funds; Sandiganbayan quantified PHP 103,000,000.00 as strongly proven to have been received by Cambe for Revilla based on testimonial and documentary evidence.

Supreme Court Ruling on Bail Applications

The Supreme Court held that the Sandiganbayan did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying bail to Cambe and Napoles. Revilla’s separate petition was withdrawn and thus not ruled upon. The Court emphasized deference to trial court fact-findings absent patent arbitrariness; it validated the Sandiganbayan’s summary of evidence, its reliance on whistleblowers and documentary records for purposes of the bail determination, and application of the “strong evidence” standard through an examination of the totality of evidence.

Rationale on Evidentiary Weight and Reviewability

The Court reiterated that credibility assessments, expert witness weight, and appreciation of documentary evidence are primarily for the trial court and binding on appellate review unless findings are grounded on conjecture, manifest error, or result from grave abuse of discretion. The Court rejected arguments that Sandiganbayan relied on mere presumptions or misapplied legal concepts, holding that a “totality of evidence” review is appropriate in determining whether a presumption of guilt is strong for bail purposes.

Ruling on Motion to Transfer Place of Detention

The Court affirmed Sandiganbayan’s denial of the prosecution’s motion to transfer Revilla and Cambe from PNP Custodial Center (Camp Crame) to BJMP facilities. The Court held that Section 24 of RA 6975 authorizes the PNP to detain arrested persons for periods prescribed by law; the PNP Custodial Center is a recognized short-term detention facility under PNP operational rules. Rule 113 Sec. 3 (duty to deliver arrested person to nearest police station or jail) and Section 63 of RA 6975 (establishment of city/municipal jails) were inapplicable because Revilla and Cambe voluntarily surrendered and there was no mandatory statement limiting detention exclusively to BJMP-controlled jails. The prosecution failed to show compelling grounds or proven “special treatment” that would warrant transfer; the Sandiganbayan properly exercised discretion considering security, proximity to court, and continuity of custody.

Ruling on Writ of Preliminary Attachment

The Court affirmed Sandiganbayan’s issuance of an ex parte writ of preliminary attachment against Revilla’s monies and properties. The Court confirmed jurisdictional basis (PD 1606 as amended by RA 10660, and Rules of Court provisi

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 199650)

The Case

Five related petitions consolidated before the Court En Banc: G.R. Nos. 218232 (Revilla), 218235 (Cambe), 218266 (Napoles), 218903 (People of the Philippines v. Sandiganbayan re: transfer of detention), and 219162 (Revilla re: writ of preliminary attachment).
Petitioners Revilla, Cambe, and Napoles assail Sandiganbayan resolutions denying their respective bail applications and denying motions for reconsideration in Criminal Case No. SB-14-CRM-0240.
The Office of the Ombudsman (Special Prosecutor) petitions the Court to review Sandiganbayan resolutions that denied the prosecution’s motion to transfer the place of detention of Revilla and Cambe.
Revilla separately assails the Sandiganbayan resolutions granting an ex parte writ of preliminary attachment and denying his motion for reconsideration of that grant.
The petitions raise questions of (a) denial of bail in a plunder case, (b) detention venue and alleged special treatment, and (c) authority and propriety to issue writs of preliminary attachment in criminal (plunder) proceedings.

The Amended Information and Criminal Charge

Information filed 5 June 2014 by the Office of the Ombudsman in the Sandiganbayan charging Revilla, Cambe, and Napoles, among others, with the crime of Plunder under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080, as amended.
The Amended Information alleges: from 2006 to 2010, Revilla (then a Senator) and Cambe (Director III in Revilla’s office), public officers, conspired with Napoles and others to amass ill-gotten wealth of at least Php224,512,500.00 by repeatedly receiving kickbacks/commissions from Napoles for endorsement of Napoles’ NGOs as implementors of Revilla’s PDAF projects, which were alleged to be ghost/fictitious projects.
The Information further alleges that Revilla and Cambe took undue advantage of their official positions to unjustly enrich themselves to the damage of the Filipino people.

Arraignment, Pleas and Initial Court Actions

Upon arraignment: Napoles and Cambe pleaded not guilty; Revilla refused to enter any plea, leading the Sandiganbayan to enter a plea of not guilty for him pursuant to Section 1(c), Rule 116 of the Rules of Court.
19 June 2014: Sandiganbayan issued warrants of arrest for Revilla, Cambe, and Napoles.
Revilla and Cambe voluntarily surrendered in June 2014 and filed motions electing PNP Custodial Center (Camp Crame/CIDG) as their place of detention ad cautelam; Sandiganbayan ordered their turnover to PNP-CIDG for detention.

Arrests, Surrenders, and Place of Detention Motions

Revilla: voluntarily surrendered to PNP on 19 June 2014 and filed Motion to Elect Detention Facilities Ad Cautelam.
Cambe: voluntarily surrendered and filed motion to commit to CIDG pending trial.
Sandiganbayan, in separate resolutions dated 20 June 2014, ordered commitment of both to PNP-CIDG Custodial Center Barracks.
Prosecution later moved to transfer Revilla and Cambe to BJMP facilities (Camp Bagong Diwa or similar), citing RA 6975 and alleged special treatment in PNP facility.

Bail Applications and Bail Hearings

Revilla filed Petition for Bail Ad Cautelam (20 June 2014); Cambe filed Application for Bail (23 June 2014); Napoles filed Joint Petition for Bail (25 June 2014, with Lim and De Asis).
Sandiganbayan conducted bail hearings at which the prosecution presented nine witnesses and documentary evidence; defense presented rebuttal evidence including expert testimony.
Sandiganbayan denied the separate bail applications of Revilla, Cambe, and Napoles in Resolution dated 1 December 2014; motions for reconsideration were denied in Resolution dated 26 March 2015.
Revilla later filed a Motion to Withdraw his petition before the Supreme Court (21 December 2016), stating he would avail remedies in the trial court once insufficiency of prosecution evidence is established.

Prosecution Witnesses and Documentary Evidence at Bail Hearings

Nine prosecution witnesses presented: COA Assistant Commissioner Susan P. Garcia; DBM Directors Carmencita N. Delantar and Lorenzo C. Drapete; whistleblowers Benhur K. Luy, Merlina P. SuAas, Marina C. Sula, Mary Arlene Joyce B. Baltazar; NBI Special Investigator Joey I. Narciso; AMLC Bank Officer II Atty. Leigh Vhon Santos.
Sandiganbayan summarized prosecution evidence as establishing PDAF allocations (2007–2009) to Revilla totaling Php517,000,000.00 covered by 12 SAROs for livelihood/agricultural projects, with TLRC, NABCOR, NLDC as implementing agencies, and five of Napoles’ NGOs as project partners.
Luy’s Summary of Rebates identified six SAROs (Table A) with corresponding project amounts and amounts claimed received as commissions/rebates; other rebates recorded in Table B, collectively amounting to Php224,512,500.00 (Table A + Table B).
Prosecution alleged flow of funds and modus operandi: endorsement letters, MOAs, submission of liquidation documents that were forged/fictitious, NGOs as temporary repositories, withdrawals upon Napoles’ direction, shredding of JLN vouchers, payments of commissions to Revilla (through Cambe) and Cambe’s separate share, Napoles’ share used for property acquisition, dollars purchases, foreign deposits, and payments to relatives abroad.
Prosecution presented evidence of fabricated liquidation documents, bogus suppliers, and fabricated beneficiary lists.

Tables of SAROs and Rebates (Prosecution’s Summary)

Table A (six SAROs singled out by Luy) summarized as in prosecution’s Summary (SARO number; SARO amount; Implementing Agency; Beneficiary NGO; Rebates received by Revilla through Cambe with dates). The prosecution’s summary lists specific SARO numbers, amounts (ranging from Php15M to Php80M), NGOs (e.g., AEPFFI, MAMFI, SDPFFI, APMFI), and rebates totaling Php119,500,000.00 for those six SAROs.
Table B lists additional dates, implementing agency/particulars and rebates received (e.g., April 6, 2006 PDAF-DA Php5M; March 17, 2010 Php28,512,500.00; numerous entries totaling Php105,012,500.00).
Total Rebates Received (Table A + Table B) per Luy’s Summary: Php224,512,500.00.

Flow of Funds, Shares and Methods (Prosecution’s Allegations)

Alleged commission structure: accused Revilla’s commissions represented 50% of project cost; 25% released upon showing DBM received Revilla’s endorsement letter with project listings and other 25% upon issuance of SARO; accused Cambe’s share alleged at 5% of project cost.
Allegations of pre-SARO advances from Napoles to Revilla, tranche payments, shredded JLN vouchers evidencing payments, MOAs and documents submitted to IAs, IA deduction of 3% management fee, checks issued to NGOs, deposits to NGO accounts, withdrawals by Napoles’ trusted employees, safekeeping at office vault or private condo, use of proceeds to pay commissions and acquire assets, and fabrication of liquidation/supporting documents to create appearance of legitimate implementation.

Defense Evidence and Challenges to Prosecution Evidence

Defense presented Atty. Desiderio A. Pagui, retired NBI document examiner, who in Report No. 09-10-2013 and Report No. 10-11-2013 opined that purported signatures of Revilla and Cambe on PDAF documents were not authentic and not affixed by them, having examined photocopies and originals in open court.
Pagui testified on methodology, timing (took him three months to finish his report), on NBI practice not to examine photocopies but stating he believed clear photocopies could be examined, and that he was paid Php200,000.00 for examining signatures of Revilla and Cambe.
Cambe and Napoles stipulated to and dispensed with presentation of certain witnesses; Sandiganbayan admitted most documentary exhibits offered by the defense (except some exhibits excluded for lack of sponsorship).

Sandiganbayan Resolutions and Orders Subject of Petitions

1 December 2014: Sandiganbayan denied bail applications of Revilla, Cambe, and Napoles — finding prosecution established strong evidence of plunder in conspiracy.
26 March 2015: Sandiganbayan denied motions for reconsideration of the denial of bail.
4 September 2014: Sandiganbayan denied prosecution’s Motion to Transfer place of detention of Revilla and Cambe from PNP Custodial Center to BJMP facility for lack of justifiable grounds.
20 May 2015: Sandiganbayan denied prosecution’s motion for reconsideration regarding transfer of detention.
5 February 2015: Sandiganbayan granted prosecution’s ex parte Motion for Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Attachment/Garnishment against Revilla’s monies and properties to secure Php224,512,500.00 alleged ill-gotten wealth.
10 July 2015: Alias Writ of Preliminary Attachment issued including properties under known aliases or other names