DETAINED former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr. has again prodded the Supreme Court to stop the proceedings at the Sandiganbayan, in connection with the P224.5-million plunder and graft cases filed against him for alleged anomalies involving his Priority Development Assistance Fund.
In a seven-page manifestation and urgent motion for interim measures, Revilla reiterated his plea for the high court to issue a writ of preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order enjoining further proceedings in his plunder case, particularly those for the reception of his evidence.
Revilla stressed that the Sandiganbayan had compelled him to present evidence for his defense specifically against the 5,134 pieces of evidence it has admitted.
The former senator lamented that none of the 5,134 pieces of evidence had shown that the basic elements of plunder existed.
“Given these injudicious circumstances, petitioner was constrained to give up several trial dates out of the 60 dates allowed by the Sandiganbayan for him to present evidence and he is already in peril of losing all the dates allowed for his defense,” Revilla said. Rey E. Requejo
The former lawmaker also appealed to the SC to require the Sandiganbayan to comment and himself to reply to the anti-graft court’s pleading.
“Finally, to grant petitioner provisional liberty until the final disposition of the instant petition,” he said.
According to Revilla, he has been in detention since June 20, 2014 or 1,371 days which violates his right to due process, right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and right to an impartial trial.
The petitioner also asked the SC to set his earlier petition for certiorari in oral arguments.
Last January, Revilla already filed a petition before the Supreme Court accusing the Sandiganbayan of violating his constitutional rights.
Revilla argued that while the anti-graft court had denied his motions, it had accepted all the evidence presented by the prosecution even if the evidence, he added, did not point directly to his alleged participation in the pork barrel scam.
Under the law, plunder is supposed to be committed by a series of overt acts but that in the case filed against him, the prosecution failed to present evidence to show the overt acts he committed, except for his endorsement of the non-government organization of Janet Lim Napoles, he said.
