THE Court of Appeals (CA) has nullified the decision of the Muntinlupa regional trial court acquitting former senator Leila de Lima and her driver, Ronnie Dayan, in one of three drug-related cases filed during the Duterte administration.
In a ruling dated April 30 but made public only yesterday afternoon, the CA’s 8th Division granted the petition for certiorari filed by the Office of the Solicitor General and ruled that Branch 204 of the Muntinlupa trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it cleared De Lima and Dayan in one of the drug cases.
“The petition for certiorari is hereby granted. The petition dated May 12, 2023 and the order dated July 6, 2023 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 204, Muntinlupa City, in Criminal Case No 17-165 are declared null and void,” it said in a 12-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Eleuterio Bathan and concurred with by Associate Justices Nina Antonio-Valenzuela, and Florencio Mamauag Jr.
It also ordered the remand of the drug case to the trial court “for it to decide the case in accordance with the rules stated in the Decision.”
In a statement, De Lima said: “Kataka-taka itong desisyon na ito na mistulang pinapaulit ng CA ang pagkasulat ng desisyon ng RTC dahil daw hindi ito masyadong malinaw (The ruling of the CA ordering a retrial of the case because the lower court’s ruling is supposedly not clear is puzzling).”
“Gayunpaman, iaapela namin ang decision ng CA hanggang Supreme Court kung kinakailangan. Samantala, hindi pa ito nangangahulugan na wala nang bisa ang aking acquittal. Final and unappealable ang aking acquittal dahil sa prinsipyo ng double jeopardy (We will appeal the CA ruling up to the Supreme Court, if necessary. However, this does not mean that my acquittal has been cancelled. My acquittal is final and unappealable because of the principle of double jeopardy.”
In its decision, the CA said the lower court failed to explain the specific facts and the laws that it used as the basis to acquit De Lima and Dayan, agreeing with the OSG’s contention that the former senator’s acquittal was “based solely on the recantation of witness Rafael Ragos.”
“He lauded that the testimony of witness Ragos is necessary to sustain any possible conviction, and, without his testimony, the crucial link to establish conspiracy is shrouded with reasonable doubt,” the appellate court held.
“The public respondent’s decision to acquit the private respondents appears to rest predominantly on the purported failure to prove the existence of conspiracy. It must be emphasized, however, that conspiracy, within the context of the present case, is not an independent offense but merely a mode of perpetrating the crime charged,” it added.
Specifically, the CA division said the trial court failed to state the particular statements which Ragos specifically retracted, state in particular the effects of the retracted statements to the facts proven by the prosecution, and state which particular element of the crime charged was not proven.
It stressed that the trial court’s failure to fully state and explain the above-mentioned facts shows that it abused its discretion in clearing De Lima.
“The failure to comply with the constitutional injunction is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,” it said.
The CA said it was incumbent on Branch 204 Judge Abraham Alcantara to identify and examine the elements of the crime and determine which evidentiary support was affected by Ragos’ recantation.
“In the absence of such a substantive analysis, the public respondent’s disposition is bereft of both factual and legal justification,” it said.
“The public respondent acquitted the private respondents on the sole basis of the recantation of Ragos but (it) 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,” it added.
Addressing questions about the risk of double jeopardy since De Lima would be tried for the same offense she was previously cleared of, the appellate court said that since her initial acquittal is based on a void judgment, double jeopardy does not apply in the case.
“In this case, however, the acquittal was not a valid acquittal, it being based on a void judgment. The presence of grave abuse of discretion effectively nullifies the public respondent’s jurisdiction, thereby negating the second requisite of double jeopardy,” it said.
Branch 204 acquitted De Lima of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading “on the ground of reasonable doubt,” a year after Ragos, a former Bureau of Corrections OIC retracted his claim that he delivered drug money to her in her residence in Paranaque City in 2012.
In a separate statement, De Lima’s legal team said: “We have already read the decision of the Court of Appeals in one of the trump-up drug cases against Congressman-elect Leila M. De Lima, remanding the case back to the RTC.”
“Per our understanding, the acquittal was not reversed. The case was ordered to be remanded only for the trial court to render a decision in accordance with the guidelines set by the Court of Appeals. This decision of the CA is not yet final,” the statement said.
It added: “We believe that the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error. Hence, we will file a motion for reconsideration.”
Her legal team said De Lima will “continue to be free” and will “proceed with her preparations for public office.”
“Truth is on her side, so she is unfazed by this latest development,” they added.
De Lima was detained for seven years before she was able to regain her freedom in 2023.
A staunch critic of the Duterte administration, De Lima said she earned the ire of the former president after she launched an investigation into the alleged abuses and killings that attended the brutal crackdown on illegal drugs.
In a twist of fate, Duterte was arrested and flown to the Netherlands last month to face the crime against humanity charges before the International Criminal Court.
