THE testimony of a lawyer from the Public Attorneys’ Office (PAO) under the Department of Justice (DOJ) will take only one day and will not unnecessarily delay the resolution of the second drug case filed by the government against former senator Leila de Lima, state prosecutors said yesterday after they asked a Muntinlupa court to reopen the case.
In a six-page motion, the panel told Muntinlupa RTC Branch 204 Judge Abraham Joseph Alcantara that their new witness, PAO lawyer Demiteer Huerta, will only take the witness stand for a day.
The motion was filed after the prosecution and defense panels agreed on Monday to close the case and submit it for resolution, which the court scheduled for May 12.
Alcantara’s sala is handling the case against De Lima for one count of violation of Section 5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act which penalizes the “sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of illegal drugs.”
Aside from Huerta, the prosecution said they also intend to submit exhibits during the presentation of evidence of De Lima’s co-accused Ronnie Dayan.
“The prosecution undertakes to present its rebuttal evidence in one day only as the Calendar of the Court may permit and prior to the date of promulgation,” the prosecution panel’s motion said, stressing that it “does not intend to delay the proceedings in this case but solely for reasons stated above.”
The panel explained that the function of the rebuttal evidence is to “explain, repel, counteract or disprove” the evidence of the De Lima camp.
“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,” the panel further said.
State prosecutors did not state what would Huerta testify to.
The indictment against De Lima before Branch 204 alleged that between November 12 and March 2013, she received P10 million from former Bureau of Correction director Rafael Ragos and Dayan that were allegedly extorted from inmates at the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City. The money was supposedly intended to fund her 2016 senatorial run.
Prosecutors alleged inmates trafficked narcotics inside the national penitentiary to produce the amount.
Ragos last year retracted his allegations against De Lima, saying he was coerced by former justice secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II to implicate the then opposition lawmaker in the illegal drugs trade.
De Lima has a pending petition for bail before Branch 256 of the Muntinlupa RTC which is handling the first case lodged against her.
In February 2021, Branch 205 of the Muntinlupa RTC junked one of the three drug cases against de Lima.
Lawyers of De Lima decried the DOJ move as a “capricious and clearly unreasonable” move meant to delay the resolution of the case.
In a 5-page motion, defense counsel Teddy Esteban Rigoroso “vehemently opposed” the prosecutors’ plea and stressed there is no basis to reopen the case.
Rigoroso said the prosecution has agreed to terminate the proceedings in open court last April 17 and to submit the case for resolution.
“Thus, both parties, having categorically, unequivocally and clearly agreed to submit the case for decision, the Honorable Court then set the promulgation of judgment on May 12, 2023,” he said.
As to Dayan’s case, the defense motion said the presentation of evidence was already terminated last March 10, 2023.
“More than a month has already lapsed since the said date and the panel remained silent as to its intent to introduce rebuttal evidence. For the first time, through the challenged motion, or 37 days after the last hearing, and after already agreeing in open court to submit the case for decision, the Panel suddenly moves to offer rebuttal evidence,” the motion said.
“The above-mentioned facts point to the underhanded maneuvering of the panel to inevitably delay the proceedings in this case. The prosecution had six long years to prove its case,” it added.
Moreover, De Lima’s camp said there is no showing that the presentation of Huerta would add anything of value to the lengthy cross examination of Ragos.
It added the prosecution’s failure to debunk Ragos’ recantation highlights the “whimsical nature of the motion.”
“Contrary to the desire of the panel, the reopening of a criminal case earlier declared to be terminated cannot be done whimsically, capriciously and or unreasonably. Neither can it be made dependent on the ever-changing modes of the panel. The Rule of Criminal Procedure simply cannot be supplanted with pleasure borne out of the lackadaisical attitude of a party,” it also said.
Lastly, De Lima’s lawyer said Huerta was not even a new witness as what the DOJ described him since he was already known to the panel of prosecutors at the time they agreed to terminate the case and submit it for resolution, and that he was even present in the courtroom when Ragos formally recanted his testimony.
