G.R. No. 218232 , July 24, 2018
Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, Velasco, Jr., J.

FACTS

This case involves the consolidated petitions concerning Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr. and his co-accused, Richard Cambe, related to the Plunder charges from the “Pork Barrel” scam. The majority opinion upheld the Sandiganbayan’s denial of the prosecution’s motion to transfer the accused’s detention from the PNP Custodial Center to a BJMP facility. Justice Velasco concurs with this specific finding but dissents on two critical points: the majority’s conclusion that Revilla waived his right to bail by withdrawing a prior petition, and the denial of Cambe’s application for bail alongside the sustainment of a writ of preliminary attachment against Revilla’s assets.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether Senator Revilla, by withdrawing his petition in G.R. No. 218232 , effectively waived his constitutional right to bail; and (2) Whether the evidence presented by the Ombudsman established probable cause sufficient to deny Cambe’s application for bail and to justify the preliminary attachment against Revilla’s properties.

RULING

Justice Velasco dissents, arguing that Revilla did not waive his right to bail. A valid waiver requires a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary relinquishment of a right, which cannot be presumed, especially in criminal cases. Revilla’s withdrawal of his petition contained an express reservation to “avail of the remedies available to him,” which inherently includes applying for bail. This statement negates any intent to abandon the right. The precedent of People v. Donato is distinguishable, as there the detainee explicitly agreed to remain in custody, whereas Revilla made no such express waiver. Furthermore, orders on bail are interlocutory and not final, allowing for subsequent applications. Therefore, Revilla should be permitted to apply for bail.
Regarding Cambe’s bail and the attachment against Revilla, Velasco finds a lack of probable cause. For Cambe, the Ombudsman’s case relied heavily on purported signatures on PDAF documents, which Cambe contested with a forensic report alleging forgery—a report the Ombudsman’s resolution failed to address. The evidence linking Cambe and Revilla to the plunder scheme is deemed insufficient, consisting largely of hearsay from whistleblowers without direct, personal knowledge of money being received by Revilla himself. Since the constitutional right to liberty demands that detention be based on probable cause, and given the serious deficiencies in the evidence presented, Velasco votes to grant Cambe’s application for bail and to recall the writ of preliminary attachment against Revilla, allowing Revilla the opportunity to seek bail as well.