Comparing Revilla and OJ Simpson cases

SEN. Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr. was acquitted of the crime of plunder by the Sandiganbayan’s First Division on Dec. 7, 2018. The decision was penned by Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg and concurred in by Justices Edgardo M. Caldona and Georgina D. Hidalgo. Justices Efren N. de la Cruz and Ma. Theresa C. Gomez-Estoesta dissented.

Revilla was acquitted on the grounds that the prosecution failed to establish “beyond reasonable doubt” that he “received, directly or indirectly the rebates, commissions, and kickbacks from his PDAF” and thus, cannot hold him liable for the crime of plunder.

However, Revilla, together with the other accused — Richard A. Cambe and Janet Lim Napoles — were held solidarily and jointly liable to return to the national treasury the amount of P124.5 million.

Criminal and civil liabilities

Netizens and print media readers reacted alike on why an accused, who was acquitted of the crime, is required to return the money that is alleged to have been plundered by him. Even the ousted chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno considered the Revilla decision a “legal abomination.” She was quoted as saying that if Revilla is required to return the amount of P124.5 million, then he must be criminally liable. “It simply defies logic,” she said.

Meanwhile, Revilla’s lawyer, Ramon Esguerra, asked, “If he is him. I am just partly dissecting the decision promulgated by the Sandiganbayan. The Revilla decision can be compared with the verdict in the OJ Simpson case.

OJ Simpson case

In June 1994, former American National Football League player, broadcaster, and actor Orenthal James "OJ" Simpson was charged with two counts of murder for the deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown, and her friend, Ron Goldman.

Simpson’s criminal trial spanned 11 months ( already too long by American standards). When the verdict was announced in October 1995, Simpson was acquitted on both counts of murder. The district attorneys assigned to prosecute the case believed they had a strong case against Simpson. A bloody left-hand glove was found in the crime scene. Further search in the premises revealed a second bloody glove, this time a righthand one, which paired with the indicated he bought the shoes. Strategically, the gloves barely

there was no “proof beyond reasonable doubt” to sustain a criminal conviction.

The families of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman pursued a civil lawsuit against Simpson. In February 1997, the jury unanimously found Simpson responsible for the wrongful deaths of Brown and Goldman. The families were awarded compensatory and punitive damages totaling $ 33.5 million. This is the civil liability aspect of the murder of Brown and Goldman.

So, we have the same equation as that of Revilla’s. OJ Simpson was not criminally liable, for lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and thus acquitted of the murder charges. However, he was made to pay the amount of $33.5 million, the civil liability aspect, for the deaths of Brown and Goldman. The same question now arises — If Simpson is not criminally liable, why is he made to pay civil damages? My answer remains the same — the quantum of evidence required to warrant a criminal conviction and the proof required to establish civil liability are different. The civil aspect is of a lower kind while the criminal aspect is of a higher level.

As Simpson’s defense lawyers