Former senator Leila de Lima filed a demurrer to evidence with a Muntinlupa court seeking to dismiss her last remaining drug case filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in February 2017 under the Duterte administration. 

A demurrer to evidence is filed by the accused after the prosecution rests seeking to dismiss the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. 

Former senator Leila de Lima (Screenshot from Leila de Lima's video)

“Once a demurrer to evidence has been granted in a criminal case, the grant amounts to an acquittal. Any further prosecution for the same offense would violate the accused's constitutional right against double jeopardy,” according to a previous Supreme Court ruling. 

The demurrer to evidence was filed by De Lima with the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 206, which is handling case 17-167, one of the three cases filed by the DOJ in 2017. 

The three cases originally charged De Lima and others of illegal drug trading but the DOJ later changed it to conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading. Two of the three cases were dismissed by Muntinlupa courts in 2021 and 2023. 

In 17-167, the DOJ charged that between March 2013 and May 2015, De Lima, former Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) director Franklin Jesus Bucayu, Ronnie Dayan, Joenel Sanchez and Jose Adrian Dera 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.

Last November, the Muntinlupa RTC Branch 206 granted bail to  De Lima and her co-accused.  De Lima was released from detention after she posted bail amounting to P300,000 that was set by the court. 

In the demurrer to evidence,  De Lima said, “This Demurrer to Evidence seeks the dismissal of the charge against herein Accused without further need of the presentation of her evidence on the ground that based on the Prosecution's testimonial and documentary evidence duly admitted by the Honorable Court, the Prosecution has not only failed to present sufficient evidence that would sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt, it has more so failed to present strong evidence of the Accused's guilt, in accordance with the Order of the Honorable Court dated 10 November 2023 granting her motion for reconsideration of the previous Order dated 7 June 2023 denying her application for bail, thereby granting herein Accused as well as all her co-accused provisional liberty, pending the trial of this case.”

The motion added emphasized that “what is significant in this case is that almost all of the most important evidence of the Prosecution have already been presented during the hearing for bail, and therefore passed upon by the Honorable Court in its 10 November 2023 Order declaring that the Prosecution's evidence is not strong, thereby granting herein Accused her application for bail.” 

According to the motion, the prosecution’s bail witnesses “have failed to prove the charge of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading among all the accused. They also failed to convey personal knowledge that herein Accused herself came into an agreement with her other co-accused and the Bilibid "drug lords" (whoever they may since not a single one of them is indicted in this case) to trade in illegal drugs using cellular phones and other gadgets and devices.”

It emphasized that several government witnesses, including persons deprived of liberty, expressed their desire to recant their testimonies against De Lima under the case. 

They include PDLs Rodolfo Magleo and Nonilo Arile who sent a letter to De Lima and Bucayu last year, expressing their intention to recant their testimonies because they were “bothered by our conscience. We do not want you to be victims of mistrial.”

“Based on the record of the case, the Prosecution failed to show evidence of the supposed conspiracy between Accused De Lima and the other accused to commit illegal drug trading. More particularly, the Prosecution miserably failed in alleging what specific actions were committed by Accused De Lima which may be considered as in pursuit of the supposed conspiracy,” De Lima’s demurrer to evidence stated. 

It added, “The records of the case readily disclose that even in the Amended Information itself, it remains unclear when and how exactly Accused De Lima conspired to commit drug trading. If she did, it is incumbent upon the Prosecution to have as part of its evidence the object of such trading. An analysis of the entire evidence of the Prosecution shows the absence of any specific drug transaction and object evidence that is the subject matter of the Prosecution's accusations.”

“The testimonial and documentary evidence offered by the Prosecution are fabricated or manufactured, if we go by these manifestations. These manifestations to recant their testimonies made by Arile, Durano, Patcho, Magleo, and Peter Co only cast doubt on the truthfulness and veracity of the other testimonial evidence presented by the Prosecution, especially that of non-recanting witnesses Herbert Colanggo, Joel Capones, Noel Martinez, Reynante Diaz, Jerry Valeroso, and Jojo Baligad. These manifestations of intent to recant fabricated testimonies only serve to further erode the veracity of the accusations, as well as the credibility, of the other Bilibid inmate witnesses who may not have,” according the motion. 

“Herein Accused contends that with nothing substantial to add to its bail hearing evidence, finishing off with a whimper consisting of inconsequential and recycled witnesses and a clutter of irrelevant, even exculpatory documents that indicate the absence of any financial transaction involving the Accused with any supposed drug lord who all remain unindicted in this case or the two other drug cases, the Prosecution is still unable to discharge its burden of establishing that the guilt of the Accused is strong,” the motion added. 

It asked the Muntinlupa court that “Accused prays of the Honorable Court that Accused's Demurrer to Evidence be granted, and that she be acquitted and declared not guilty for failure of the Prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”