The camp of Ronnie Dayan, the former aide of former senator Leila de Lima and co-accused in a pending drug case, has asked a Muntinlupa court to deny the prosecution’s appeal that aims to prevent the testimony of Rafael Ragos, former officer-in-charge of the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor).

Dayan and De Lima are co-accused in case 17-165, filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in 2017, which accused them of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading when De Lima was still the justice secretary.

Ragos was originally a co-accused but the DOJ dropped him from the case and he became a key government witness.

He originally stated in his affidavits and testimonies that he delivered P10 million to De Lima’s house in Paranaque in November and December 2012. The cash allegedly came from the illegal drug trade at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa.

But last April 30, Ragos executed a new affidavit, exonerating De Lima and Dayan, and stating that he did not deliver the money to her house. He said he was forced to testify against them.

The Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 204 granted Dayan’s urgent motion to recall Ragos and issued a subpoena to him and his lawyer Michael de Castro to appear and testify on Sept. 30 and Oct. 28.

However, Ragos was unable to testify on Sept. 30 after the panel of prosecutors filed a motion for reconsideration opposing the order.

In their motion for reconsideration, the prosecutors cited “procedural and substantive grounds” in opposing Ragos’ testimony.

“First, it must be emphasized that Mr. Ragos is a prosecution witness who has already testified for the prosecution, and the prosecution already offered its evidence as well as rested its case. With all due respect, to recall Mr. Ragos pursuant to Sec. 9 of Rule 132 is procedurally flawed,” the prosecutors told the Muntinlupa court.

They added, “Lastly, we have emphasized that recantations are typically viewed with suspicion and hardly given much weight. With more reason in this case where Mr. Ragos’s testimony during his presentation in open court on 07, 14, and 28 of June 2019 was consistently repeated in congress.”

“Obviously, Mr. Ragos’ alleged recantation is nothing but an afterthought. The timeliness and circumstances of the alleged recantation is clearly suspect and even amounts to perjury,” they added.

Dayan’s lawyer, Haidee Soriano, filed with the court an opposition to the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration.

In the opposition, Soriano emphasized that “the role of the prosecution in the criminal justice system is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.”

“Second, suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process when the evidence is material to either guilt or punishment, irrespective of good faith or bad faith of the prosecutor,” she said.

“With the foregoing background of basic concepts in criminal prosecution, Accused Dayan hereby interposes his vehement opposition to the Prosecution’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. Accused Dayan respectfully submits that such action from the Prosecution is clearly misplaced and merely dilatory,” according to the opposition.

She added, “As correctly held by this honorable Court, there is no question that trial courts have the discretion to grant leave for the recall of a witness as stated in Section 9 of Rule 132. The Rules only require that there must be a satisfactory showing of some concrete and substantial ground for the recall.”

Soriano said “contrary to the claim of the Prosecution, Accused Dayan provided concrete and substantial ground in support of the request to recall Mr. Ragos as a witness. Such recall of Mr. Ragos is critical to establish the truth in relation to the supposed deliveries of ‘drug money’ as alleged in the criminal information.”

“As raised in the previous Motion of herein Accused Dayan, the recall of Mr. Ragos is not only for the interest of justice, but in fact, the only way for justice and truth to be achieved in this case. It must be also noted that the recantation of Mr. Ragos was done after he was presented in court. Accordingly, Accused Dayan, and even the prosecution and the honorable Court, had no opportunity to ask questions regarding matters belatedly raised in Mr. Ragos’ recantation,” she said.

Dayan’s lawyer also stated that “accused Dayan also raised that the recall of Mr. Ragos is necessary for his defense and in his exercise of his constitutional right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence on his behalf. Accused Dayan respectfully submits that this reason alone, the exercise of a constitutional right, is more than sufficient as a ground to justify the motion to recall Mr. Ragos.”

With Ragos’ recantation, she said, “there is more reason for the prosecution to support or even initiate the recall of Mr. Ragos as a witness. It is now known that the affidavit of recantation of Mr. Ragos explains that members of the Department of Justice had direct participation in coercing Mr. Ragos to falsely testify in this case. The affidavit even claims that all prosecutors in this case are aware that the allegations against co-accused De Lima never happened. Considering these very serious allegations against the prosecution, it is best that Ragos be presented in court.”

“Wherefore, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the Prosecution’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration dated 29 September 2022 be denied for utter lack of merit,” Soriano added.