Watch more in iWantv or TFC.tv

MANILA - The Sandiganbayan ruling that cleared former Senator Ramon "Bong" Revilla Jr. of plunder charges raises several questions, a former Supreme Court spokesperson said Monday.

For one, lawyer Theodore Te said the anti-graft court did not explain why Revilla, despite his acquittal, was ordered along with the convicted to return over P124 million in public funds.

"I didn't see a reason explaining directly the civil liability for all accused. That's significant because they did not distinguish as to who were the accused. I am pretty sure they would probably ask, at the very least, a clarification of that," he told ANC.

In the ruling, the Sandiganbayan ordered Revilla, his former aide Richard Cambe, and pork barrel scam mastermind Janet Napoles to "solidarily" return the amount to the National Treasury.

The Sandiganbayan First Division earlier acquitted Revilla of plunder charges for the prosecution's "failure" to prove that he received kickbacks from the multi-billion peso scam.

While the ruling, which clearly establishes that public money has been taken, acquitted the former senator, it does not mean that he is innocent given the civil liability he needs to pay, said Te.

"The court is required to say in specific language that the acquittal is absolutely because of absence of guilt or it is only the prosecution failed to prove the guilt. Those are two different things. The court did not say the first," the lawyer explained further.

Revilla's lawyer Ramon Esguerra however said Te's interpretation that the former senator has to return the money with Napoles and Cambe was a "misreading."

"There is mention of Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code—one of the shortest provisions, simply saying that every person found criminally liable for a felony should also be held civilly liable," he said, stressing Revilla was cleared by the court.

Asked if Revilla will return the money, Esguerra said: "No, very clearly."

No red flags over AMLC report?

Watch more in iWantv or TFC.tv

Te said he is puzzled why an Anti-Money Laundering Council report on Revilla's transactions during the supposed time indicated by scam whistleblower Benhur Luy, did not seem to raise red flags.

An AMLC report earlier said the bank deposits and investments made by Revilla and his family amounted to over P87.6 million from April 6, 2006 to April 28, 2010.

Before that, Luy claimed that Revilla received commissions or rebates from his transactions with Janet Napoles involving his Priority Development Assistance Fund during this period.

"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," Te said.

"It's a question of who the court will believe, this is AMLC, this is a body that we trust to establish these things. So it's a bit difficult for me to understand why the majority would not accept that," the lawyer added.

But Esguerra said the AMLC report that Te earlier mentioned was never the subject of questioning before the anti-graft court.

"AMLC report on Revilla's case was considered. The decision has a very lengthy explanation on why the AMLC report cannot be given credence, to the majority it has no probative value," Esguerra added.