Manila Bulletin
Philippines
Metro Manila
Muntinlupa court denies DOJ's appeal to reopen De Lima case
Philippines
Metro Manila
Muntinlupa court denies DOJ's appeal to reopen De Lima case
Muntinlupa court denies DOJ's appeal to reopen De Lima case
Published Jul 28, 2023 09:30 am
A Muntinlupa court denied the appeal of the Department of Justice (DOJ) panel of prosecutors to reopen a drug case of former senator Leila de Lima after she was acquitted.
Last May 12, the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 204 dismissed case No. 17-165 filed by the DOJ against De Lima and Ronnie Dayan in February 2017.
Former senator Leila de Lima at the Muntinlupa Hall of Justice (Contributed photo)
The two were acquitted in the case, which accused them of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading allegedly done during her time as justice secretary. “Wherefore, both accused Leila M. De Lima y Magistrado and Ronnie Palisoc Dayan are hereby acquitted of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt,” Presiding Judge Abraham Joseph Alcantara said in his decision. After the court ruling was released, the DOJ prosecutors filed a motion for reconsideration with the court to reverse its ruling. In a decision dated July 6, Judge Alcantara ruled that “the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the prosecution is denied for lack of merit.” “Every acquittal becomes final immediately upon promulgation and cannot be recalled for correction or amendment. With the acquittal being immediately final, granting the State's motion for reconsideration in this case would violate the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy because it would effectively reopen the prosecution and subject the accused to a second jeopardy despite their acquittal,” the judge wrote in his decision. In its appeal, according to the decision, “the prosecution pleads this Court to take a second look at its judgment by considering the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that mere recantation of a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate his or her original testimony if credible.” “The prosecution contends that the subsequent recantation of witness Ragos was not sufficient to vitiate his original testimony which was voluntarily and solemnly given on numerous occasions before Congress, the Senate, the media, and the Court-under oath, in the presence of a judge, subjected to extensive cross-examination, and corroborated by other prosecution witnesses,” the decision read. It added, “Further, the prosecution relies heavily on the argument that to set aside testimony which was solemnly given before a court of justice in an open and free trial simply because the witness later on changed his mind would make a mockery of our criminal justice system.” In response to the prosecution’s appeal, De Lima filed a motion to expunge with the court, “asserting that the motion for reconsideration should be expunged outright from the records as a mere scrap of paper because proceedings in this case have already been concluded with finality. A judgment of acquittal is final and executory immediately, hence unappealable, whether by motion for reconsideration with the trial court or by appeal to a higher court.” According to the court, “In criminal cases, no rule is more settled than that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and unappealable upon its promulgation, and that accordingly, the prosecution may not seek its review without placing the accused in double jeopardy. Such rule proceeds from the accused's constitutionally-enshrined right against prosecution if the same would place him under double jeopardy.” “Thus, a judgment in such cases, once rendered, may no longer be recalled for correction or amendment — regardless of any claim of error or incorrectness. Under the pending motion, the prosecution sought reconsideration of the Court’s decision acquitting herein accused. In doing so, the appreciation of evidence presented before this Court is again raised as an issue. Said factual issue necessarily requires a review of the evidence which is barred by the Constitutional right against double jeopardy,” it added. “On a final point, this Court has taken great care and prudence in evaluating all testimonies and pieces of evidence submitted by both the prosecution and defense. The Court gave the prosecution full and ample opportunity to present its case. To emphasize, the Court allowed the prosecution to extensively cross-examine the recanting witness Ragos which was conducted in multiple lengthy hearings. During cross-examination, the prosecution was further permitted to confront witness Ragos with the video recording of his interview before the Public Attorney's Office,” the decision noted. It added, “After the defense rested their case, the Court upon motion by the prosecution, even reopened trial and allowed the prosecution to present rebuttal evidence. Notably, the prosecution admitted that ‘while the presentation of rebuttal evidence is discretionary with the prosecution in a criminal action, in the instant case, the overwhelming import of the new facts disclosed by the accused which have a damaging effect on the complainant's version is imperative and necessary for the prosecution to present rebuttal evidence.’” According to the court, it “finds no compelling reason to reconsider the acquittal. The rule against double jeopardy is only subject to extremely rare exceptions: (1) Where there has been deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or (2) Where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances. Here, the prosecution was fully afforded due process and given all the opportunity to present its case. However, upon appreciation of the totality of evidence presented by both parties, this Court found reasonable doubt to acquit the accused.” Meanwhile, the hearing on the last remaining drug case of De Lima is set on Aug. 1 at the Muntinlupa RTC Branch 206.
Former senator Leila de Lima at the Muntinlupa Hall of Justice (Contributed photo)
The two were acquitted in the case, which accused them of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading allegedly done during her time as justice secretary. “Wherefore, both accused Leila M. De Lima y Magistrado and Ronnie Palisoc Dayan are hereby acquitted of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt,” Presiding Judge Abraham Joseph Alcantara said in his decision. After the court ruling was released, the DOJ prosecutors filed a motion for reconsideration with the court to reverse its ruling. In a decision dated July 6, Judge Alcantara ruled that “the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the prosecution is denied for lack of merit.” “Every acquittal becomes final immediately upon promulgation and cannot be recalled for correction or amendment. With the acquittal being immediately final, granting the State's motion for reconsideration in this case would violate the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy because it would effectively reopen the prosecution and subject the accused to a second jeopardy despite their acquittal,” the judge wrote in his decision. In its appeal, according to the decision, “the prosecution pleads this Court to take a second look at its judgment by considering the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that mere recantation of a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate his or her original testimony if credible.” “The prosecution contends that the subsequent recantation of witness Ragos was not sufficient to vitiate his original testimony which was voluntarily and solemnly given on numerous occasions before Congress, the Senate, the media, and the Court-under oath, in the presence of a judge, subjected to extensive cross-examination, and corroborated by other prosecution witnesses,” the decision read. It added, “Further, the prosecution relies heavily on the argument that to set aside testimony which was solemnly given before a court of justice in an open and free trial simply because the witness later on changed his mind would make a mockery of our criminal justice system.” In response to the prosecution’s appeal, De Lima filed a motion to expunge with the court, “asserting that the motion for reconsideration should be expunged outright from the records as a mere scrap of paper because proceedings in this case have already been concluded with finality. A judgment of acquittal is final and executory immediately, hence unappealable, whether by motion for reconsideration with the trial court or by appeal to a higher court.” According to the court, “In criminal cases, no rule is more settled than that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and unappealable upon its promulgation, and that accordingly, the prosecution may not seek its review without placing the accused in double jeopardy. Such rule proceeds from the accused's constitutionally-enshrined right against prosecution if the same would place him under double jeopardy.” “Thus, a judgment in such cases, once rendered, may no longer be recalled for correction or amendment — regardless of any claim of error or incorrectness. Under the pending motion, the prosecution sought reconsideration of the Court’s decision acquitting herein accused. In doing so, the appreciation of evidence presented before this Court is again raised as an issue. Said factual issue necessarily requires a review of the evidence which is barred by the Constitutional right against double jeopardy,” it added. “On a final point, this Court has taken great care and prudence in evaluating all testimonies and pieces of evidence submitted by both the prosecution and defense. The Court gave the prosecution full and ample opportunity to present its case. To emphasize, the Court allowed the prosecution to extensively cross-examine the recanting witness Ragos which was conducted in multiple lengthy hearings. During cross-examination, the prosecution was further permitted to confront witness Ragos with the video recording of his interview before the Public Attorney's Office,” the decision noted. It added, “After the defense rested their case, the Court upon motion by the prosecution, even reopened trial and allowed the prosecution to present rebuttal evidence. Notably, the prosecution admitted that ‘while the presentation of rebuttal evidence is discretionary with the prosecution in a criminal action, in the instant case, the overwhelming import of the new facts disclosed by the accused which have a damaging effect on the complainant's version is imperative and necessary for the prosecution to present rebuttal evidence.’” According to the court, it “finds no compelling reason to reconsider the acquittal. The rule against double jeopardy is only subject to extremely rare exceptions: (1) Where there has been deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial, or (2) Where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances. Here, the prosecution was fully afforded due process and given all the opportunity to present its case. However, upon appreciation of the totality of evidence presented by both parties, this Court found reasonable doubt to acquit the accused.” Meanwhile, the hearing on the last remaining drug case of De Lima is set on Aug. 1 at the Muntinlupa RTC Branch 206.