Former senator Leila de Lima filed a motion for reconsideration to reverse a ruling by a Muntinlupa court that denied her petition for bail in the last remaining drug case she is facing.
In a decision dated June 7, Presiding Judge Romeo Buenaventura of the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 256 denied the petitions and motions for bail filed by De Lima and co-accused former Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) director Franklin Jesus Bucayu, Ronnie Dayan, Joenel Sanchez and Jose Adrian Dera in case 17-167.
Former senator Leila de Lima at the Muntinlupa Hall of Justice last month (Juan Carlo De Vela)
Under the case, filed by the Department of Justice in February 2017, De Lima, Bucayu, Dayan, Sanchez, Dera, Wilfredo Elli and Jaybee Sebastian (now deceased) were charged for conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading.
The DOJ alleged that between March 2013 to May 2015, the accused used inmates at the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa to sell and trade dangerous drugs using mobile phones and other electronic devices, and allegedly got the proceeds amounting to P70 million.
The court stated that the evidence of the prosecution was strong against De Lima.
De Lima, through her lawyer, filed a motion for reconsideration on June 13, saying that “the Honorable Court committed grave but reversible errors in its 07 June 2023 Order finding that the Prosecution has met the burden of proof necessary in a bail hearing, purportedly showing that the evidence of the Prosecution against herein Accused is strong so as to deny her the right to bail in a capital offense case.”
“Herein Accused therefore moves that the Honorable Court reconsider its Order denying bail to Accused and her co-accused” based on several grounds.
According to the motion, “The Honorable Court gravely erred in using probable cause as the standard of proof in denying bail, instead of proof that the evidence of guilt is strong.”
“Instead of using the standard of strong evidence of guilt in determining whether the accused in this case should be granted bail, the Honorable Court applied the test in determining probable cause. This can be especially gleaned from the fact that in disposing of the whole bail incident, the Honorable Court never, for a single instance, cited the points raised by herein Accused during the cross-examination of the Prosecution’s witnesses and extensively argued in her Motion for Bail and Supplemental Motion for Bail,” it added.
De Lima’s motion noted that “in doing so, the Honorable Court merely relied on the testimonies of the Prosecution’s witnesses, as if no cross-examination was ever conducted by all the accused in this case. This is tantamount to relying merely on the affidavits of the Prosecution witnesses, which may be proper in the judicial determination of probable cause, but definitely not in a hearing and disposition of an application for bail.”
“Instead, the evidence of guilt must be strong, and in establishing this, the Honorable Court cannot rely merely on affidavits, which is what it did when it disposed of the bail hearings in a manner as if only the direct testimonies of the witnesses are on record, sans all of the accused’s cross-examination and arguments,” according to the motion.
De Lima also alleged that “in several instances in its questioned Order, the Honorable Court has failed to perform and fulfill this mandate as imposed by the Supreme Court on trial courts conducting bail proceedings. This is no more apparent than in the manner the Honorable Court made a blanket adoption of the testimonies of the convict witnesses, regardless of their status as such, and regardless of the stage of the proceedings where more than their affidavits, their testimony including on cross-examination should have been discussed instead of peremptorily sidestepped in what purports to be a full discussion of the evidence presented in the bail hearings.”
She also questioned the testimonies of inmates who became government witnesses against her in the case.
“Criminal convicts who admitted to committing the crime charged are saved from prosecution and criminal liability by the mere expedient and say-so of the DOJ that it is the government’s prerogative who to prosecute, even if those not prosecuted are the most guilty by admission and confession, and those prosecuted are the innocent public officials once tasked to enforce the law against them,” the motion stated.
It added, “It is not merely an error of law, but an error of jurisdiction, when the Honorable Court ignored all provisions of law, Rules of Evidence, and Supreme Court jurisprudence on the credibility of convicted criminals as witnesses, and instead found them credible and adopted all their testimonies en toto. In maintaining that convicted criminals are credible witnesses and should be believed, the Honorable Court has run roughshod of not one, not two, but several legal provisions, jurisprudence, and rules.”
De Lima also appealed the Muntinlupa court’s decision that denied her bail on humanitarian reasons including health.
“Herein Accused notes that of the several humanitarian grounds presented in her Supplemental Motion for Bail, the questioned Order only traversed two (2) grounds, namely, her status as a senior citizen with health issues and her harrowing experience during the hostage-taking incident,” according to the motion.
It added, “Relative to the health issues, herein Accused respectfully posits that said issues need not be life-threatening ones to merit consideration. Herein Accused is hypertensive and diabetic on top of other conditions like cervical spondylosis characterized by chronic neck pain and severe headaches. These are medical conditions which she acquired only upon detention.”
“It is therefore not too much for her to pray for a respite from such a fate based on leniency, if not justice. After all, this is why the prayer is based on humanitarian grounds and equity. It is simply too much to suffer for a person yet to be punished legally but still has already undergone worse than any convicted prisoner serving a life sentence would,” it added.
De Lima also cited the comments of Justice Sec. Jesus Crispin Remulla that “she should be released regardless of the evidence, based solely on humanitarian grounds. This is a matter of public record. The only objection of the DOJ Secretary to herein Accused being granted bail is that it should not be based on the merits of the case, but exclusively on humanitarian grounds.”
“And if the reason for such insurance becomes completely absent, borne out of the DOJ Secretary’s own belief that herein Accused has suffered long enough while waiting for her long drawn-out trial to conclude, as well as his certainty that she will continue to abide by the jurisdiction of the trial court, then bail should be granted,” it said.
The motion appealed that “it is most respectfully prayed that the Order dated 07 June 2023 be reconsidered and set aside, and that a new Order be issued granting herein Accused’s December 2020 Motion for Bail Ad Cautelam and 09 March 2023 Supplemental Motion for Bail.”
De Lima has been in detention in Camp Crame for more than six years since February 2017.