The Court of Appeals (CA) has nullified and voided the decision of the Muntinlupa City regional trial court (RTC) that acquitted Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Party List congresswoman-elect Leila M. De Lima, former senator and secretary of justice, in an illegal drugs case.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Eleuterio L. Bathan, the CA’s 8th Division granted the petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) as it declared that RTC Judge Abraham Joseph B. committed grave abuse of discretion when it acquitted De Lima on the sole basis of the recantation of former Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) chief Rafael Ragos, who served as a witness for the prosecution.

The appellate court said that the RTC’s decision that acquitted De Lima violated the Constitution and the Rules of Court which mandates “transparency and reasonableness of the decision making-process.”

Specifically, the CA said that the RTC failed to state the specific facts retracted by Ragos in relation to the facts proven by the prosecution, and failed to identify the specific factual statements that were purportedly retracted by the witness.

“The clear and unequivocal articulation of such retractions is indispensable, particularly in cases where the credibility of testimony plays a pivotal role in the adjudication of factual issues,” the CA said.

It also said: “The absence of a detailed enumeration or substantive discussion of the statements allegedly withdrawn by witness Ragos renders it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to discern the rationale behind the public respondent’s (RTC judge) findings and ultimate conclusion.”

At the same time, the CA said the RTC judge failed to provide a detailed discussion of the specific element of the crime charged that was allegedly not established by the prosecution.

“Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the public respondent to identify and examine the fundamental elements of the crime and determine which among them, if any, lacked evidentiary support or were materially affected by the recantation of witness Ragos,” it pointed out.

Thus, the CA said that “in the absence of such a substantive analysis, the public respondent’s disposition is bereft of both factual and legal justification.”

The appellate court also junked De Lima’s claim that the appeal filed by the OSG amounted to double jeopardy or the prosecution of a person for the same offense after he or she has been acquitted, convicted, or the case dismissed with finality.

It said that double jeopardy cannot be invoked since the trial court’s verdict of acquittal is void and issued with grave abuse of discretion.

“To this, therefore, an acquittal rendered through a judgment marred by grave abuse of discretion cannot be considered an acquittal entitled to the protection against double jeopardy,” the CA pointed out.

With its decision, the CA remanded the case to the RTC for it to decide the case in accordance with the rules.

In May 2023, the RTC acquitted De Lima and Ronnie Dayan of the conspiracy to commit illegal drugs trading charges in the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) when she was still the justice secretary.

Before he recanted his testimony, Ragos claimed that he delivered a total of P10 million to De Lima’s house in Parañaque City in November and December 2012.

Ragos claimed that the money which he alleged came from illegal drugs trade, would fund De Lima’s candidacy for the Senate.

In challenging the RTC’s decision, the OSG said the trial court’s ruling must be reversed due to the judge’s failure to substantiate his perception that Ragos’ recantation has rendered the prosecution’s case insufficient to convict De Lima

The OSG pointed out: “The public respondent (Judge Alcantara) acquitted the private respondents (De Lima and Dayan) on the sole basis of the recantation of Ragos but was made with neither analysis of the entire evidence on record nor reference to the legal bases for his conclusion on the supposed resulting inefficiency of the rest of the prosecution’s evidence, in stark violation of the Constitution.”

In granting the OSG’s petition, the CA said: “The Supreme Court consistently ruled that when grave abuse of discretion taints a judgment, it becomes wholly void.”

It also cited another SC decision which stated: “A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to a valid judgment, but may be entirely disregarded or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. By it, no rights are divested."

The dispositive portion of the CA decision:

“For these reasons, the petition for certiorari is hereby granted. The decision dated 12 May 2023 and the order dated 06 July2023 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 204, Muntinlupa City, in Criminal Case No, 17-165 are declared null and void.

“We remand the case to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 204, Muntinlupa City, for it to decide the case in accordance with the rules stated in this Decision. So ordered.”

Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Florencio M. Mamauag Jr. concurred in the decision.