Detained former senator Leila de Lima urged a Muntinlupa court to allow Rafael Ragos, former officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor), to testify in one of the two remaining drug cases filed against her by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Ragos is the key government witness in case 17-165 filed by the DOJ in February 2017 against De Lima and her former aide Ronnie Dayan, accusing them of conspiracy to trade illegal drugs when she was still the justice secretary.
In his affidavits and testimonies, Ragos said he delivered P10 million to De Lima’s house in Parañaque in November and December 2012. The money allegedly came from the drug trade in the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa.
However, Ragos executed an affidavit dated April 30 this year and recanted all his statements against De Lima and Dayan and said he did not deliver the money to the senator’s house.
Ragos was supposed to testify in the case last Sept. 30 but the DOJ panel of prosecutors filed a motion for reconsideration and opposed it.
The Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 204, which is hearing case 17-165, partially granted the urgent motion to recall Ragos filed by Dayan.
The court directed De Lima’s camp to comment on the prosecutors’ motion for reconsideration.
In an omnibus comment filed with the court, De Lima said, “The Prosecutors should welcome more information in the interest of justice.”
“If they believe the recantation of witness Ragos is made under duress or is questionable, they would still have the right to cross-examine the recalled witness. As explicitly provided under the Code, the prosecutors should not be fixated on convicting the accused but rather ensure that justice is done. Disappointingly, the prosecutors would rather suppress the testimony of Rafael Ragos and block the truth about the accused’s innocence coming out,” she said
De Lima added, “The Prosecutors also want the Honorable Court to simply adopt their conclusion that the testimony is a ‘recantation’ that amounts to ‘perjury.’ Such is highly improper because the appreciation of the testimony and its probative value is wholly up to the Honorable Court.”
“A determination if the claims are indeed a recantation or are perjurious would only be possible after the witness is recalled and the court is allowed to weigh the statements accordingly. Hence, instead of supporting their cause, the prosecutors’ presumptive conclusions conversely provide a greater need to recall the witness,” she added.
De Lima said the panel of prosecutor’s opposition to recall “Ragos is also contrary to the public position of the Department of Justice.”
She cited the public statement of former justice secretary and now Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra who told media, “The only way to find out if witnesses are lying is to present them in court for intensive examination and cross-examination. Ultimately, it is the judge who will weigh the truthfulness and probative value of the testimony of witnesses, and will render judgment based on the totality of evidence presented by both sides at the end of trial.”
“Unless the statements were made in bad faith, the DOJ, through its then Secretary, encouraged the presentation of witness Ragos before the Court to allow the complete examination or scrutiny of his testimony. Suppressing the testimony of witness Ragos is therefore contrary to the position publicly espoused by the DOJ that Ragos must be presented in court again to testify as a witness before his recantation can be considered or scrutinized by the Honorable Court,” according to the former senator.
DOJ Sec. Jesus Crispin Remulla, according to De Lima, also said, “ased on records, Rafael Ragos, a defense witness, has not been presented before the Muntinlupa Court. Hence, the Department will rely on the Court’s sound discretion on the appreciation of the alleged evidence.”
“However, contrary to the DOJ Secretary’s statement, the prosecutors are preventing the Honorable Court from fully appreciating the evidence propounded to it. Ultimately, continuing to suppress witness Rafael Ragos’ additional testimony would be a complete repudiation of the prosecutors’ oath, their ethical responsibility, and the DOJ’s position as pronounced by the current and immediately preceding Secretaries of Justice,” she said in her motion.
Ragos was originally an accused in case 17-165 but the DOJ removed him and he became a government witness against De Lima and Dayan.
In his new affidavit, Ragos stated, “In order to be dropped from the Information in Criminal Case No. 17-165 as a co-accused of Sec. De Lima and Ronnie Dayan, I was forced to cooperate with Sec. Aguirre and the DOJ public prosecutors by agreeing to deliver all these false testimonies and sign false affidavits against Sec. De Lima and Ronnie Dayan. I was thus made a witness against Sec. De Lima and Ronnie Dayan and set free.”
Aguirre previously denied Ragos’ statements in the affidavit.
“Undoubtedly, there is a clear basis for the Honorable Court to determine that the interest of justice would best be served if the witness is recalled,” said De Lima.
Ragos filed a motion with the court to expunge and suppress evidence, saying his “self-incriminatory affidavits” and all evidence derived from them were secured in violation of his Miranda Rights, which refer to “right to remain silent, the right to competent and independent counsel, and the right to be informed of both proceeding rights.”