‘Luy benefited from PDAF scam’

MANILA, Philippines - Sen. Ramon Revilla’s lawyer Joel Bodegon and other defense counsels continued to attack pork barrel fund scam whistle-blower Benhur Luy’s credibility yesterday by confronting him with evidence that he benefited from the scheme.

The lawyers provided details of the more than 10 bank accounts of Luy, the vehicles he allegedly owns and the forfeiture case pending against him before the Manila regional trial court (RTC).

Luy, who is testifying against Revilla, his chief of staff Richard Cambe and alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim-Napoles, appeared uncomfortable with the questions fielded by defense counsels, whose ultimate goal was to discredit him.

Bodegon enumerated the bank accounts, including one from the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) that had only P81, Metrobank accounts with P84 and P2,867 and a Bank of the Philippine Islands dollar account containing at least $15,000.

The defense lawyer said the bank accounts are those covered by a freeze order issued by the Manila RTC where Luy is facing a forfeiture case filed by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC).

Bodegon also bared before the Sandiganbayan First Division that Luy also has a Mitsubishi Montero and a Toyota Altis. He also lives in a condominium unit in Quezon City.

Revilla’s counsel enumerated the properties even though Luy had already admitted in an earlier testimony that he did earn some P3 million to 4 million from the pork barrel scam that involves the misuse of the Priority Development Assistance Fund of lawmakers that allegedly ended up in the bank accounts of Napoles, who paid commissions or kickbacks to the senators and congressmen.

“Revilla received not a single centavo in the Priority Development Assistance Fund transactions,” Bodegon stressed during the bail hearing.

“The whistle-blowers admitted forging the signatures of Revilla,” Bodegon added, noting that this proves that the witnesses hold the money.

Revilla, Cambe and Napoles are asking the Sandiganbayan to grant them bail even though they are charged with the non-bailable offense of plunder, arguing that the evidence against them is weak.