PDAF scam 'hostile witness' says she never saw Revilla in Napoles office | ABS-CBN
ADVERTISEMENT

Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
PDAF scam 'hostile witness' says she never saw Revilla in Napoles office
PDAF scam 'hostile witness' says she never saw Revilla in Napoles office
Adrian Ayalin,
ABS-CBN News
Published Jun 26, 2018 07:16 PM PHT

MANILA - The camp of former Sen. Ramon "Bong" Revilla Jr. presented whistleblowers in the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam as “hostile” witnesses in his plunder trial before the Sandiganbayan 1st Division.
MANILA - The camp of former Sen. Ramon "Bong" Revilla Jr. presented whistleblowers in the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) scam as “hostile” witnesses in his plunder trial before the Sandiganbayan 1st Division.
After a series of delays in the presentation of witnesses, Revilla’s camp started with Merlina Suñas, a former employee of alleged scam mastermind Janet Lim Napoles at JLN Corporation.
After a series of delays in the presentation of witnesses, Revilla’s camp started with Merlina Suñas, a former employee of alleged scam mastermind Janet Lim Napoles at JLN Corporation.
The prosecution had presented Suñas during the bail hearings in 2014, where she testified that she did not see Revilla in their office and instead saw his staffer, lawyer Richard Cambe, who supposedly collected kickbacks in the diversion of the then senator's discretionary funds to Napoles' fake non-government organizations.
The prosecution had presented Suñas during the bail hearings in 2014, where she testified that she did not see Revilla in their office and instead saw his staffer, lawyer Richard Cambe, who supposedly collected kickbacks in the diversion of the then senator's discretionary funds to Napoles' fake non-government organizations.
Cambe is Revilla's co-accused in the case.
Cambe is Revilla's co-accused in the case.
ADVERTISEMENT
Testifying as a hostile witness this time, Suñas maintained her earlier testimony: “Hindi ko po siya nakita na pumunta sa office (I never saw him come to the office).”
Testifying as a hostile witness this time, Suñas maintained her earlier testimony: “Hindi ko po siya nakita na pumunta sa office (I never saw him come to the office).”
Revilla’s lawyer Carlos Paulo Villaruz also asked Suñas about businesses of another whistleblower, Benhur Luy, as he tried to prove that the one who amassed kickbacks from the scam was Luy, not his client.
Revilla’s lawyer Carlos Paulo Villaruz also asked Suñas about businesses of another whistleblower, Benhur Luy, as he tried to prove that the one who amassed kickbacks from the scam was Luy, not his client.
After the prosecution registered their objection and the court asked the relevance of the question, Villaruz withdrew.
After the prosecution registered their objection and the court asked the relevance of the question, Villaruz withdrew.
The court had allowed Suñas to become a "hostile witness" under Rule 132 of the Rules of Court despite the prosecution's objection, saying she has no “adverse interest” against Revilla.
The court had allowed Suñas to become a "hostile witness" under Rule 132 of the Rules of Court despite the prosecution's objection, saying she has no “adverse interest” against Revilla.
Revilla’s lawyers start presenting PDAF scam whistleblowers as “hostile witnesses” in his plunder trial. In photo are prosecution witnesses Mary Arlene Baltazar, Marina Sula and Merlina Suñas conferring with their lawyer. pic.twitter.com/HL3mjjCceH
— Adrian Ayalin (@adrianayalin) June 26, 2018
Revilla’s lawyers start presenting PDAF scam whistleblowers as “hostile witnesses” in his plunder trial. In photo are prosecution witnesses Mary Arlene Baltazar, Marina Sula and Merlina Suñas conferring with their lawyer. pic.twitter.com/HL3mjjCceH
— Adrian Ayalin (@adrianayalin) June 26, 2018
The court sided with Revilla's camp, which argued that Suñas' adverse interest stems from her immunity agreement, which includes testifying against him and the revocation of her immunity if she is unable to fulfill her duties as a witness.
The court sided with Revilla's camp, which argued that Suñas' adverse interest stems from her immunity agreement, which includes testifying against him and the revocation of her immunity if she is unable to fulfill her duties as a witness.
Aside from Suñas, prosecution witnesses Mary Arlene Baltazar and Marina Sula were also present inside the courtroom as they were also issued subpoenas by the court upon the request of Revilla's lawyers.
Aside from Suñas, prosecution witnesses Mary Arlene Baltazar and Marina Sula were also present inside the courtroom as they were also issued subpoenas by the court upon the request of Revilla's lawyers.
They are set to take the witness stand on Thursday.
They are set to take the witness stand on Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT