01/08/2026
Thank you, Justice Karl B. Miranda for the courage.
In his dissenting opinion, Sandiganbayan Third Division Chairperson Associate Justice Karl Miranda asserted that there is strong evidence implicating former senator Ramon "B**g" Revilla Jr. as a principal conspirator who allegedly initiated and secured funding for the alleged ghost flood control project in Pandi, Bulacan. He said Revilla’s alleged role should not be viewed separately from the overall scheme within the DPWH, where projects are allegedly used to collect commissions or kickbacks. He added that it was inconsistent to allow Revilla, who allegedly benefited from the scheme, to post bail while his co-accused remained in detention. He writes:
"Considering that conspiracy may be established by circumstantial evidence, proof of Revilla’s acts must not be examined in isolation but in relation to the alleged scheme or kalakaran.
In this case, the prosecution’s evidence was able to establish that a scheme of misappropriating public funds allocated to flood control projects through manipulation of project identification, funding, and procurement processes was perpetrated in the DPWH and that it involved the participation of the project proponent, the contractor, and the DPWH officials.
From the lens of the kalakaran, the alleged acts of the accused in the Information cannot be construed as isolated or unrelated, but rather a concerted action to ensure funding for the subject project and to thereafter divert the funds allocated to the subject project.
In relation thereto, there is strong evidence that Revilla is the proponent of the subject project.
The “Construction of Flood Control Structure, Purok 5, Barangay Bunsuran, Pandi, Bulacan”, with Contract ID No. 25CC0299 is one of the projects provided by Engr. Alcantara to Usec. Bernardo, included in the errata of the DPWH and ultimately carried over to the GAA, wherein Revilla was identified as the proponent.
Through the testimony of Engr. Alcantara, it has also been established that Hernandez, as the “in-house contractor” for the subject project, advanced commissions.
The testimonies of Niño, Isko, and Usec. Bernardo demonstrate that commissions from Engrs. Alcantara and Opulencia were ultimately delivered to Revilla.
Hence, the prosecution’s evidence strongly suggests that Revilla participated in the conspiracy as the project proponent.
More importantly, Revilla’s overt acts cannot be isolated from the overall design of misappropriating public funds allocated to the subject project.
In this kalakaran within the DPWH, commissions or “commitments” received by the project proponent from contractors ultimately come from budget allocated for the projects, necessitating the diversion of public funds.
In turn, the contractor must conceal the budget deficiency created by this payment of “commitments” through falsification of public documents.
Further, Revilla’s participation, as the project proponent, is pivotal in the ex*****on of the conspiracy.
By facilitating the funding of the subject project, Revilla set into motion a series of transactions that culminated in the release of public funds to SYMS.
If not for his coordination with Usec. Bernardo, Usec. Cabral, and Sec. Bonoan, for the inclusion of the subject project in the GAA and his demand for and receipt of “commitments”, the imputed acts of other accused would lack both purpose and opportunity.
Without Revilla’s participation, there would have been no appropriation to disburse and no opportunity for Hernandez, Jaypee Mendoza, Domasig, Juat, Juanito Mendoza, and Pineda to gain access to the project allocation and subsequently misappropriate the same.
Revilla’s acts, as project proponent, therefore formed an indispensable part of the common criminal design and directly contributed to the accomplishment of the conspiracy’s objective of misappropriating public funds.
FINAL NOTE
In the alleged scheme or kalakaran established by the prosecution, a project proponent’s role is not merely confined to the proposal of a project that subsequently becomes corrupted through the act of others.
Rather, by seeking or accepting “commitments” from contractors, the proponent allows the project to become imbued with private financial interest.
From that point onward, the project ceased to exist solely as a legitimate public undertaking but became an instrument through which contractors could secure projects and through which “commitments” could be fulfilled using government resources subsequently disbursed to the contractors.
This subsequent diversion of public funds allotted to a project cannot be treated as an act solely attributable to the officials who participated in the disbursement process.
It must be underscored that the advance commissions paid to the proponent created an expectation that the contractor would eventually recover the amounts advanced.
The diversion of funds during the implementation stage of a project was thus neither a separate nor an unforeseen development.
It was the natural and foreseeable means by which parties in the scheme could realize the benefits contemplated by their arrangement.
Hence, to absolve a project proponent based on the ground that he did not personally participate in the disbursement process or in the falsification of the documents would unnecessarily fracture this single continuing scheme.
Accordingly, where the project itself has been deliberately used as the means through which commissions are expected to be satisfied from government resources, all those who knowingly participated in that design must be held accountable for the resulting misappropriation.
To rule otherwise would create a dangerous precedent whereby the law’s prohibition against the malversation of public funds may be circumvented through the initial use of private money for commissions, despite the existence of an implied understanding that said advance commission would be recovered from public funds.
This would be tantamount to allowing beneficiaries of an illegal scheme to distance themselves from the very diversion of public funds that their participation helped set into motion.
Considering the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully dissents from the ponencia’s conclusion that Revilla’s petition for bail be granted on the ground that the prosecution’s evidence suggests that the actual diversion of funds occurred during the implementation stage of the project.
The undersigned submits that based on the foregoing, there is strong evidence that Revilla’s role as project proponent is instrumental in transforming the subject project into a vehicle for the misappropriation of public funds, ultimately enabling the unlawful disbursement to SYMS."
