Former senator Leila de Lima vehemently opposed the reopening of the trial for one of her two remaining drugs cases that has been set by a Muntinlupa court for decision on May 12.
Former senator Leila de Lima at the Muntinlupa Hall of Justice in February (Contributed photos)
Through her lawyer, De Lima filed an opposition to the motion filed by Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors who have asked the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 204 to reopen the trial for case 17-165 so they can present a new witness, lawyer Demiteer Huerta of the Public Attorney’s Office.
The case, filed in February 2017 by the DOJ, accused De Lima and Ronnie Dayan of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading allegedly done during her time as justice secretary.
The case alleged that De Lima received P10 million in 2012 from former Bureau of Corrections officer-in-charge Rafael Ragos. The money supposedly came from the illegal drug trade at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa.
But Ragos, in an affidavit he issued in April last year, recanted all his allegations against De Lima and Dayan. He also testified in court to affirm his recantation, saying De Lima and Dayan were innocent of the charges.
In the new motion, De Lima said government prosecutors “and the defense both agreed in open court on 17 April 2023 to terminate the proceedings and to submit the case for resolution, after herein Accused has signified to the Honorable Court that she would no longer be presenting further evidence as she has already adopted the Formal Offer of Exhibits filed by her co-accused [Ronnie Dayan].”
“Thus, both parties having categorically, unequivocally, and clearly agreed to submit the case for decision, the Honorable Court then set the promulgation of judgment on 12 May 2023,” De Lima said.
The former senator’s motion also pointed out that the April 17 hearing “was scheduled after the termination of the presentation of evidence for Accused Ronnie Dayan last 10 March 2023.”
“More than a month has already lapsed since the said date and the Panel [of Prosecutors] remained silent as to its intent to introduce rebuttal evidence. For the first time, through the challenged Motion, or 37 days after the last hearing, and after already agreeing in open court to submit the case for decision, the Panel suddenly moves to offer rebuttal evidence,” it added.
De Lima said “The above mentioned facts point to the underhanded maneuvering of the Panel to inevitably delay the proceedings in this case. The Prosecution had six long years to prove its case.”
The motion also added that prosecutors were given the chance to cross examine Ragos in four hearing dates.
“The Panel also failed to even explain the substance of the testimony of Atty. Huerta and the additional matters that would be raised. This failure highlights the whimsical nature of the motion,” De Lima said.
It said that “contrary to the desire of the Panel, the re-opening of a criminal case earlier declared to be ‘terminated’ cannot be done whimsically, capriciously and/or unreasonably. Neither can it be made dependent on the ever-changing moods of the Panel.”
Prosecutors, she said, should have known as of April 17 that Huerta’s “testimony will be material, if at all, for the Panel of Prosecutors and should have pleaded to the Court to allow them to present him as a rebuttal witness – instead of manifesting their agreement to consider the case closed and submitting the entire case for decision.”
“The Panel’s agreement to submit the case for decision constitutes a waiver of their opportunity to further present rebuttal evidence. Trials must end at some point. They cannot be subjected to the whims and caprices of any party who, after agreeing to submit the case for decision, changes its mind and opts for a continuation of an already terminated trial,” the motion added.
It added, “In this case, the Prosecution was in a perfect situation to determine the necessity of presenting Atty. Huerta but they chose not to and, instead, joined the defense in submitting the case for decision. Thus, to allow this capricious and clearly unreasonable move of the Panel is gravely prejudicial to the accused.”
Through the motion, De Lima is asking the Muntinlupa court to deny the prosecutors’ request to reopen the trial.