G.R. No. 218232 , July 24, 2018
RAMON “BONG” B. REVILLA, JR., ET AL., Petitioners, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIRST DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

FACTS

These consolidated petitions arose from the plunder case filed against Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr., his aide Richard Cambe, and Janet Lim Napoles concerning the alleged misuse of Revilla’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). The Amended Information alleged that from 2006 to 2010, Revilla and Cambe conspired with Napoles to amass P224,512,500 in kickbacks by endorsing her non-governmental organizations as recipients of PDAF-funded projects, which turned out to be ghost or fictitious. Upon the filing of the Information, the Sandiganbayan issued warrants of arrest. The accused filed petitions for bail, which the anti-graft court denied after evaluating the prosecution’s evidence, finding the proof of guilt strong.
Separately, the Office of the Ombudsman filed a motion to transfer Revilla and Cambe’s detention from the PNP Custodial Center to a regular jail, which the Sandiganbayan denied. The prosecution also sought and was granted a writ of preliminary attachment over Revilla’s assets. These Sandiganbayan resolutions prompted the various petitions for certiorari now consolidated for review, challenging the denial of bail, the denial of the detention transfer, and the grant of the writ of attachment.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) Whether the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitions for bail; (2) Whether it gravely abused its discretion in denying the motion to transfer the place of detention; and (3) Whether it gravely abused its discretion in granting the application for a writ of preliminary attachment.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and affirmed the challenged Sandiganbayan resolutions. On the denial of bail, the Court held that bail is a matter of discretion in capital offenses like plunder when evidence of guilt is strong. The Sandiganbayan meticulously evaluated the prosecution’s evidence, including testimonies from whistleblowers and documentary evidence tracing PDAF allocations to Napoles’s NGOs and subsequent kickbacks to Revilla and Cambe. The anti-graft court’s determination that the evidence of guilt was strong for purposes of bail was supported by substantial evidence and thus not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
Regarding the detention issue, the Court ruled that the Sandiganbayan did not abuse its discretion in allowing detention at the PNP Custodial Center. The place of detention pending trial is within the court’s sound discretion, considering factors like security and order. The Sandiganbayan’s order was a reasonable exercise of this discretion. On the writ of preliminary attachment, the Court upheld its issuance. In criminal cases for plunder, the civil action for recovery of ill-gotten wealth is deemed instituted with the criminal action. A preliminary attachment is a provisional remedy available in such civil actions to prevent the accused from disposing of assets that may be subject to forfeiture. The prosecution’s allegations and supporting affidavits established a prima facie case that the properties were acquired with ill-gotten wealth, satisfying the requirement for the writ’s issuance to preserve the subject matter of the litigation.