Bong Revilla cleared of plunder in pork barrel scam case

Bong Revilla cleared of plunder in pork barrel scam case

MANILA- The Sandiganbayan acquitted former Senator Ramon "Bong" Revilla Jr. of plunder on Friday in his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel scam case. 

Two of his co-accused, Janet Lim Napoles and Richard Cambe, were found guilty of plunder by the anti-graft court. 

Prosecutors had accused the actor-turned-politician of embezzling P224 million in discretionary funds while he was still senator. He, however, is still facing separate PDAF graft cases. 

The former action star has been detained at the Police Custodial Center in Camp Crame since 2014.

Revilla, along with former Senators Juan Ponce Enrile and Jinggoy Estrada, were accused of receiving kickbacks from alleged pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Lim Napoles in exchange for funneling part of their discretionary funds to bogus non-government organizations. ​

Revilla has repeatedly denied accusations that he misused his congressional allocation.

"I never received money from Janet Lim Napoles at sa mga kasamahan niya (and her colleagues),” Revilla said during one of the hearings of his plunder case.

The country's former top graft buster Conchita Carpio Morales said Revilla should be convicted of plunder over his alleged involvement in the multibillion-peso racket.

"Given the evidence the office gathered, if I were a judge, I would convict him. Period," she said in statement released Thursday.



  • buddywbuddyw Member ✭✭✭

    Court acquits Bong Revilla, convicts Janet Lim Napoles in plunder case

    Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, December 6) — The Sandiganbayan on Friday acquitted former Senator Ramon "Bong" Revilla Jr. of plunder. The first division of the anti-graft court said the prosecution failed to prove Revilla's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

    His co-accused, alleged pork scam mastermind Janet Lim Napoles and Revilla's staff Richard Cambe, were found guilty of plunder. They were sentenced to reclusion perpetua or maximum of 40 years of imprisonment.

    The verdict comes four and a half years after the case was filed by the Ombudsman in 2014, and is the first to be resolved among dozens of cases involving lawmakers' Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). 

    Revilla, who is seeking a Senate seat in 2019, was accused of amassing P224.5 million-worth of kickbacks from Napoles when he was a senator.

    It was allegedly in exchange for endorsing her five bogus non-government organizations as the beneficiaries of his PDAF, also known as pork barrel or funds a lawmaker can spend for projects.

    An estimated P10 billion in government funds were allegedly lost to the scam, with money going into the pockets of Napoles and several lawmakers.

    PDAF scam

    In September 2013, the Department of Justice through the National Bureau of Investigation filed plunder, graft and corrupt practices, malversation, and bribery charges against Napoles, then-Senators Revilla, Juan Ponce Enrile, and Jinggoy Estrada, and at least 32 other people for their involvement in the scam. Two months later, Supreme Court magistrates voted unanimously against pork barrel, declaring past and present congressional pork barrel laws unconstitutional.

    After finding probable cause to indict them, the Ombudsman filed separate plunder charges against the three former lawmakers in June 2014, with the Sandiganbayan ordering their arrest later that month. This led to Revilla's surrender and detention at the PNP Custodial Center in Camp Crame.

    Meanwhile, both Estrada and Enrile were allowed to post bail.

    Revilla's plunder trial began in June 2017 or a little over three years after the filing of the case. There were several delays due to the various motions filed by the former senator/actor's camp.

    The trial took a major turn in June 2018 after a whistleblower in the pork barrel scam controversy backtracked on her 2016 testimony against Revilla.

    She said she did not personally see the former senator receive money from Napoles. She said she saw Benhur Luy, a relative and former Napoles employee, forge Revilla's signature on endorsement letters for the release of his pork funds to the fake NGOs. She claimed she was earlier coached by prosecutors from the Office of the Ombudsman to corroborate the statements of Luy against Revilla.

    Revilla is still facing graft charges at the Sandiganbayan.

  • lechon xlechon x Olats ✭✭✭

    "There is a crime but there is no criminal."

    Ghost deposited money on Revilla bank account.

    Sandigang bayan.

  • peterinpeterin Member ✭✭✭




    Ano ba namang claseng prosecution iyan? Ano ba ang nag investiga?  Abogado, hindi gumamit ng mga CPA?  


  • lechon xlechon x Olats ✭✭✭
    edited December 2018

    ‘Guilty ang nanuhol pero not guilty ang sinuhulan'

    ~Ombudsman Samuel Martires


  • buddywbuddyw Member ✭✭✭

    Sandigan orders ‘accused’ to return P124-M to nat’l treasury

    MANILA, Philippines — So, who owes the government P124.5 million — former Senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr., Janet Lim-Napoles, or Richard Cambe?

    This question emerged as it remains unclear who among the three should return the amount to the National Treasury as the Sandiganbayan acquitted Revilla while it convicted Napoles and Cambe, a former staff Revilla.

    Revilla, Napoles, and Cambe were all named accused in the P10-billion pork barrel scam.

    In the dispositive portion of the decision penned by Associate Justice Geraldine Faith Econg, the Sandiganbayan Special First Division ordered:

    Moreover, in view of the discussion above, and pursuant to Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, accused are held solidarily and jointly liable to return to the National Treasury the amount of PhP 124,500,000.00.”

    The ruling noticeably did not categorically state who among the three accused should return the P124.5 million to the National Treasury or if the three should split the bill.

    The Special Division voted 3 to 2, acquitting Revilla on grounds that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Cambe and Napoles were unanimously convicted.

    According to Revilla’s lawyers, he is not required to return a part of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), as the decision cited Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

    Article 100 of the RPC says “every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable”. In retrospect, Revilla’s counsel argued that since their client was not found criminally liable of plunder, he is also not civilly liable and is therefore spared from paying.

    Revilla was accused of misusing his PDAF when he allocated around P224 million to bogus non-government organizations owned by Napoles.

    This case was the first to be resolved out of the several other pork barrel scam-related cases, including those involving co-accused and fellow former Senators Juan Ponce Enrile and Jinggoy Estrada

  • knorrknorr 8anned by Abmin PExer

  • knorrknorr 8anned by Abmin PExer
    .                                          .

  • buddywbuddyw Member ✭✭✭

    Majority justices ’took the cudgels’ for Revilla – dissenter

    ‘One need only turn a discerning eye, and not look the other way,’ says Justice Ma. Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta

    MANILA, Philippines – Former senator Ramon “Bong” Revilla Jr did not present any documentary evidence during trial. The defense merely presented him as witness and two other Napoles employees, so why should justices provide defense for an accused who did not even bother?

    These were among the points raised by Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Maria Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta in her dissenting opinion.

    “The accused never even attempted to debunk the findings of AMLC [Anti-Money Laundering Council] in his own defense. He simply wallowed in his own defense of denial and forgery,” said Estoesta, one of the two dissenters in the 3-2 decision that acquitted Revilla.

    “Why should the majority opinion now take the cudgels for him?” Estoesta said in her strongly-worded dissenting opinion.

    One of the strongest evidence of the prosecution was an Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) report which showed deposits to Revilla accounts matching details in Benhur Luy’s ledger when he supposedly delivered kickbacks.

    This report was never addressed by the Revilla camp.

    The other dissenting justice, Associate Justice Efren Dela Cruz, said Revilla did not even explain the source of millions of deposits to their company’s account at a time when it was not operating.

    As Estoesta said, “The unexplained wealth of Senator Revilla is one glaring fact, left unrelated, to gloss over.”

    The majority decision greatly relied on a handwriting expert who said the Revilla signatures on endorsement letters were forged. This reasoning was “to a great fault,” Estoesta said.

    “This consequential ruin runs deep, and may eventually free a man once accused of having conspired in raiding the public treasury to hundreds of millions,” said Estoesta.


    Another evidence that Revilla did not address are Luy's records which included details of the former senator’s Special Allotment Release Order (SARO).The majority justices cast a doubt on the records because of a digital forensic footprint that indicated it was modified in 2013 when the scandal already broke in the news.

    Estoesta said the court should have listened to prosecution experts who said the modification was just due to a change in the operating system of the computer which it was last copied to, which was from Windows to Mac.

    “It was not even Senator Revilla who lifted a finger to challenge the authenticity of the March 2007 disbursement file. Certainly, it should not be this Court," she said.

    Combining all evidence, especially indications of unexplained wealth, Estoesta said: “If this should not be considered as the end-all to the PDAF conspiracy, where should this lead to instead?”

    The majority decision ordered the return of P124.5 million to the national treasury, but it did not categorically state who must return it. Revilla’s lawyers claim the former senator is not included in the civil liability because of his acquittal.

    The court said the parties can file a motion for clarification.

    But to Estoesta, the civil liability applies to the 3 accused.

    “It only goes to say therefore that since all three accused were made to answer for the same civil liability, the source of the accumulation of wealth as found in the criminal liability should only be the same,” said Estoesta.

  • peterinpeterin Member ✭✭✭

    Why not file a case to forfeit the money or equivalent value from the assets of the Revillas?  Unexplained wealth.  Should not be enjoyed by the corrupt and family.


    Whooohooooo. Unexplained wealth.   Palagay ko, maraming ganyan. Palagay ko rin, dapat bantayan ang pag gastos nitong mga nag vote for acquittal.  O mga favors sa mga familia from the government.  Baka may lalabas na milagro.

  • buddywbuddyw Member ✭✭✭

    2 justices say Bong Revilla made P87.6M unexplained bank deposits

    MANILA, Philippines — Former Senator Ramon ‘Bong’ Revilla Jr. and his immediate family made numerous deposits to various bank accounts and made investments worth P87.6 million within 30 days and yet no explanation was made about the source of the money, two Sandiganbayan justices said in their separate dissenting opinions.

    Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Efren De la Cruz, First Division chairperson and Associate Justice Maria Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta said Revilla remained silent on the report of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) that the former senator and his family made a total of P87,626,587.63 deposit from April 6, 2006 to April 28, 2018.

    Both Justices pointed out that the dates corresponding to the deposits were mentioned in the ledger of government witness Benhur Luy who indicated that Revilla received commissions through his chief of staff, Atty. Richard Cambe from Janet Lim-Napoles.

    De la Cruz said Revilla did not give an explanation as to how he and his family managed to make deposits worth P87.6 million in only 30 days.

    “The Court cannot engage in guesswork and conjecture that Revilla was monetarily capable to make such deposits and investments out of his income from being a senator, producer and actor. He did not present an iota of evidence of his financial capacity,” De la Cruz said.

    Revilla met the evidence against him with nothing more than either denial or silence,” he added.

    Estoesta, in her separate dissenting opinion said Revilla, in his SALN for 2006 did not declare any cash on hand or deposit in banks while in 2007 declared only a total of P3.3-million cash deposits.

    However, Estoesta said the majority of the justices who voted for the acquittal said the AMLC report was “not conclusive” for its failure to indicate whether the accounts it has examined solely came from Revilla or if those are “fresh funds” or withdrawn from another account.

    “Point is, this was never the concern of Senator Revilla. The accused never even attempted to debunk the findings of AMLC in his own defense. He simply wallowed in his own defense of denial and forgery,” Estoesta said.

    She then asked “why would the majority opinion now take the cudgels for him?”

    Last Friday, the Anti-Graft Court issued a verdict acquitting Revilla but convicting Cambe and Janet Lim-Napoles of plunder.

    Estoesta and De la Cruz said Revilla should have been convicted along with Cambe and Napoles because they conspired to divert funds from the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) to bogus non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

    De la Cruz said with the numerous communications between Revilla’s office, the Commission on Audit and the supposed NGOs, it would be improbable for Revilla not to know about it.

    “Revilla is a seasoned senator. He is not naive to allow Napoles and Cambe to solely steer the course of a PDAF,” he said.

    He added that PDAF was a fund allocated to Revilla by virtue of his office thus Napoles or Cambe cannot dip their hands into it by themselves.

    “They needed Revilla,” De la Cruz said.

    “Revilla’s designation of Cambe as his authorized representative further proves the prosecution’s contention that Cambe operated under Revilla’s authority, and Revilla was all over the scam scene, although he remained in the shadow,” Dela Cruz said.

    “Conspiracy only thrives in secrecy. The PDAF scheme would have gone undetected, absent any positive act to admit to its commission, had it not been detected for the miscalculated slip committed by the grand designer which cut loose one tongue, then another, until all there is to know had been revealed,” Estoesta added.

    In the dispositive portion of the main decision, the Sandiganbayan orders the accused to return P124.5 million to national coffers. The main ruling did not offer an explanation how the court arrived at the amount nor specify who will pay “solidarily and jointly.”

    Estoesta said she found it odd that “while the majority opinion thrived on speculating whether the ‘various sums of money deposited in the accounts of Revilla as found by the AMLC are the very same money from Napoles,’ it did not extricate Senator Revilla from the civil liability found for all accused in the [re-computed] amount of P124. 5 million which they should answer for in a joint and several capacity.”

    “It only goes to say therefore, that since all three accused were made to answer for the same civil liability, the source of the accumulation of wealth as found in the criminal liability should only be the same,” she added.

    Estoesta and Associate Justice Georgina Hidalgo were the additional justices when a special division of five was created.

    Original members of the Sandiganbayan First Division are De la Cruz, Associate Justices Geraldine Faith Econg who wrote the decision and Edgardo Caldona. Of the five justices, it is only De La Cruz who was already at the Sandiganbayan since the case was filed by the Ombudsman in 2014. 

  • peterinpeterin Member ✭✭✭

    From Article “Sandigan justice defends Revilla verdict

    Lifted from article:

    … “Justices De La Cruz and Estoesta said their three fellow magistrates should not have given too much weight on Revilla’s forgery claim, especially as the prosecution was able to present as evidence Revilla’s confirmation letter to the Commission on Audit dated dated July 20,201 attesting to the authenticity of his signature on the endorsement letters.

    “On this point, I take exception to the ponente’s reliance on Sula’s and Baltazar’s casual recantation in support of the claim of Revilla that his signature on the endorsement letters was forged, giving an impression that it was Luy who authored the forgery,” De La Cruz said.”…



    Sino baa ng dapat paniwalaan ng courte, yung secondhand witness, o ang nagpatunay na sya ang purmirma mismo, in writing?  Parang mali.


    Also, witnesses can lie, but documentary evidences like the bank transactions, and AMLC’s documents will not.

    Medyo tumagilid ang judgment ditto, IMO.  Dapat yatang imbistigahan ng SC ang mga judges na nagsara ng mata.

  • peterinpeterin Member ✭✭✭
    This Revilla case is a glaring example of how skewed, how skewed (baluktot) justice is in the Philippines, MY OPINION.

    Paano na ang  anti corruption stand natin? 
  • buddywbuddyw Member ✭✭✭

    Bong Revilla bank records mirror Benhur Luy’s ledger – AMLC

    (Updated 6 p.m.) A representative of the Anti-Money Laundering Council on Thursday provided evidence that detained Sen. Ramon Bong Revilla Jr. may have engineered a money laundering scheme using funds taken from his Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel.

    In his direct testimony during the bail hearing of Revilla, who is facing plunder charges at the Sandiganbayan, lawyer and AMLC bank investigator Leigh Vhon Santos presented a 63-page report on the findings of their investigation on Revilla's bank assets.
    "Between April 6, 2006 to April 28, 2010, Revilla and his immediate family made numerous deposits to their various bank accounts and placed investments totaling P87,626,587.63 within 30 days from the dates mentioned in Benhur Luy's ledger when Revilla, through Cambe, allegedly received commissions of rebates to his PDAF in cash," Santos said.

    Cambe is lawyer Richard Cambe, senior staff of Revilla, who is a co-accused in the graft and plunder charges filed against the senator. Both are currently detained at the PNP Custodial Center.

    Napoles NGOs used

    Revilla allegedly siphoned off millions in his PDAF allocations and channelled these to bogus non-government organizations owned by businesswoman Janet Lim-Napoles, who has been tagged as the mastermind of an elaborate pork barrel scam involving legislators' discretionary funds.

    The senator, who is accused of pocketing P224 million in kickbacks from his PDAF allotment, has repeatedly denied involvement in the pork barrel scam.

    Citing the AMLC report, Santos also explained that the bank accounts of bogus NGOs owned by Napoles served as temporary places to hold money.

    "[The NGOs were] merely temporary repository of funds as withdrawals take place immediately after a deposit is made, and the balances remained relatively minimal," the AMLC report said.

    Santos identified at least four NGOs that were periodically filled and emptied with money.

    “Verification of the check deposits... confirms that NGOs controlled by Napoles were indeed used as beneficiaries of the PDAF allocations of Revilla. It was verified that the information as shown in the JLN cash/check disbursement, which is similar to the entries in the Benhur Luy ledger, corresponds to and is consistent with the withdrawals reflected in bank documents,” Santos said.

    The AMLC noted that checks were not used in making large deposits to Revilla’s accounts.

    “The withdrawals were made in cash despite the large amounts involved, contrary to ordinary business practice,” the AMLC report said.

    'Unexplained wealth'

    In his testimony, Santos also said he and a team of three other bank investigators found discrepancies in Revilla's Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Net Worth from 2004 to 2010.
    "The disparities between the cash and investment balances of Revilla as declared in his SALNs and as culled from his financial records show some indication of unexplained wealth," he said.

    Santos explained that Revilla’s cash balances were different from what he declared in his SALN.

    “From 2004 to 2010 there is a portion that you have to state your cash balances. We looked at bank records maintained by the senator and they did not match,” he said.

    Santos said the AMLC conducted their investigation following the six-part report of the Philippine Daily Inquirer that blew the lid off of the alleged scam, and also upon the separate requests from the National Bureau of Investigation and the Office of the Ombudsman.

    Strong evidence

    Justice Undersecretary Jose Justiniano, who serves as special prosecutor in the PDAF cases, said that Santos’ testimony is valuable to the prosecution panel since it proves Revilla benefitted directly from the scam.

    “This just confirms Benhur Luy’s testimony. There were deposits to Revilla’s bank after eh. Doon mo talaga makikita na yung tinanggap ni Cambe nakarating kay Revilla,” he said.

    Prior to Santos' testimony, the prosecutors were unaware of the scope of Revilla’s assets, Justiniano said.

    “Nagulat din kami kasi may bank secrecy law, di ba? Di naman namin ma-examine yun on our own. Kaya definitely napakalakas ng testimony na ito,” he said.

    Justiniano said the AMLC’s testimony strengthens their cases. 

    “May unexplained wealth eh. By definition that means may kayamanan na 'di tugma sa kinikita. Sabi ng witness it seems meron ngang ill-gotten wealth,” he said.
  • BeerhandBopBeerhandBop I Am WHIP ✭✭✭
    here is my question, may PRO PDUTS bang sumasang ayon sa pagpapalaya kay bong revilla? 

  • nikkilovenikkilove Member ✭✭✭
    I hear news about a moms who get locked up because they tried to steal milk frrom  grocery stores to feed their hungry children,

    then there is this news, where 3 accused plunderers who took milllions of pesos from the taxes of hard working Filipinos, walked away scot free.

    wow. just wow. justice in the Philippines.

  • peterinpeterin Member ✭✭✭
    Was the 87m still in the bank when investigation was going on?  Did the investigators  asked and was granted plea to freeze the money?

    IF it was frozen, it is already available for paying part of the 124m reinstatement money.  Was the court wise enough to declare the 87m to be returned to the government to satisfy the amount already due to the government?

    Or, was the investigators negligent in freezing assets of the senator and the court declaring any bank accounts eligible for forfeiture to satisfy the decision? 

    Note that the obligation to return is solidary, and there should be no waiting, no turuan kung sino ang magbabayad.  Nanjan na ang pera, bakit hindi i bigay ng court sa government?  O baka naman ang mahinang corte (IMO) ay ne-release na nuon pa.


    Again bakla decision?  

    ****   ****

    This bakla decision of the court in a way proves true the saying:  Crime pays.  

    The 87m can be used to seed the candidacy of Revilla.  and then.....  

    ****  ****

    Has the government a process to collect?  RESTITUTION. A BIG PROBLEM IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
  • peterinpeterin Member ✭✭✭
    Even at the COA, recommendation is 'TO RETURN" the money OVERPAID OR CORRUPTED..  why not, "THE GOVERNMENT TO COLLECT" (Preferably a unit tasked to do so in similar cases)?  

    Bakla recommendation?  O walang plano   EVER  ang government to institute proceedings TO COLLECT? 
  • peterinpeterin Member ✭✭✭

    when will we have a bawi system in government?
  • buddywbuddyw Member ✭✭✭

    Money laundering report sa yaman ni Revilla, binalewala ng Sandiganbayan?

    Tinatayang nasa P87 milyon ang pumasok sa mga bank account nina dating senador Ramon "Bong" Revilla at ng kaniyang pamilya mula 2006 hanggang 2010, ayon sa ulat ng Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). 

    Ang mga petsa ng pagdeposito ay nasa 30 araw mula sa mga petsang inilista ng whisteblower na si Benhur Luy sa kaniyang ledger kung kailan ibinigay niya umano ang mga "kickback" ni Revilla sa "pork barrel scam" sa staff ng dating senador na si Richard Cambe.

    Ayon pa sa ulat, walang idineklara si Revilla sa kaniyang Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) na cash o ibang bank accounts na pagkukuhanan ng pera sa mga taong iyon.

    Isa ang ulat ng AMLC sa mga ebidensiyang ipinresenta ng prosekusyon laban kay Revilla, na inabsuwelto ng Sandiganbayan noong Biyernes sa kasong plunder.

    Inakusahan si Revilla ng plunder dahil sa pagbulsa umano ng P224 milyon sa kaniyang Priority Development Assistant Fund (PDAF) o "pork barrel" mula 2006 hanggang 2010.

    Kinulimbat umano ni Revilla ang PDAF sa pamamagitan ng pagdaan ng mga ito sa mga "bogus" non-government organizations (NGO) ni Janet Lim Napoles.

    Ayon sa dissenting opinion ni Sandiganbayan Justice Efren Dela Cruz, malakas na katibayan ang ulat ng AMLC na nakinabang si Revilla sa sariling PDAF, lalo at isa sa mga nabanggit na kompanya ni Revilla na nakatanggap ng halos P28 milyon ay wala namang operasyon noong mga panahong iyon.

    Nagtataka ang dating tagapagsalita ng Korte Suprema na si Theodore Te kung bakit hindi ito binigyan ng bigat ng majority opinyon sa pagdedesisyon sa kaso laban kay Revilla.

    "It's hard for me to understand why the court would not accept that," sabi ni Te.

    "That would have triggered the court to say, 'Okay, this is a red flag.' There is an AMLC certification. There is a testimony, there is something that says this part of the money went to his bank account," ani Te.

    [Dapat itong nagtulak sa korte para magsabi na ito ay 'red flag.' Mayroong sertipikasyon ng AMLC. Mayroong testimonya. Mayroong nagsasabi na ang bahagi ng pera ay napunta sa kaniyang bank account.] 

    Ayon sa majority opinion, hindi napatunayan na galing kay Revilla o kay Napoles at Cambe ang perang naideposito sa mga bank account.

    Nanindigan naman ang abogado ni Revilla na hindi tugma ang halaga ng pera sa listahan ni Luy at sa mga pumasok sa bank accounts.

    "The AMLC should have gone beyond simply summarizing the deposits. They should have actually investigated the origin of these deposits," sabi ni Atty. Ramon Esguerra.

    "Dapat itinahi o tahi-tahi 'yong circumstantial evidence na 'yon," dagdag ni Esguerra.

    Ayon pa kay Esguerra, hindi obligasyon ni Revilla na ipaliwanag kung saan galing ang pera at hindi rin naman ito tinanong habang nililitis ang kaso.

    Ayon naman sa isang complainant na si Levito Baligod, hindi nagtugma ang mga numero sa Ledger ni Luy at AMLC report dahil nakatanggap umano ng komisyon si Cambe.

    "Both records involve thousands of characters and it will be too much of a coincidence for thousands of figures matching. Sinabi naman ng mga witnesses na Atty. Cambe also had a percentage from the commission," sabi ni Baligod. 

  • C.I.C.C.IC.I.C.C.I Member ✭✭✭
    This is sad

    BUT he will be elected again by Filipinos who never learn their lesson...

    kaloka !!!

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file