In reconsideration plea vs De Lima case, prosecutors say court should give weight to original testimony
MANILA, Philippines (2nd update 8:50 p.m.) — Prosecutors have asked the Muntinlupa court to reconsider its dismissal of the second drug case against former Sen. Leila de Lima, as they asserted that star witness Rafael Ragos' retraction was not enough to destroy his original testimony against her.
The prosecution filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 204 that acquitted De Lima on May 12—clearing her of her second conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading charge.
“In view of the foregoing, the Prosecution most respectfully prays that the Honorable Court’s Decision dated May 12, 2023 be reconsidered, and a new Decision be rendered declaring both accused guilty of the crime charged,” the appeal read.
De Lima had her former aide Ronnie Dayan as co-accused in the case.
READ: Drug case vs De Lima crumbles due to star witness' recantation
They argued that Ragos' recnatation was not sufficient to destroy his original testimony that he gave to panels of the House of Representatives and the Senate, the media and the court, and in the presence of a judge.
Ragos walked back on his testimony that he delivered P10 million—delivered in two tranches through Dayan—to De Lima. The money allegedly came from illegal drug trading inside the New Bilbid Prison.
The former corrections chief later said that he was coerced to make false allegations against De Lima.
“To set aside a testimony which was solemnly taken before a court of justice in an open and free trial and under conditions precisely sought to discourage and forestall falsehood simply because one of the witnesses who had given testimony later on changed his mind would simply make a mockery of our criminal justice system,” the prosecutors added.
In a statement, De Lima’s lawyers said they will file a motion to expunge the motion for reconsideration.
They also said the appeal is a “mere scrap of paper” since proceedings in the case “have already been concluded with finality with the judgment of acquittal.”
“Nothing short of a Supreme Court decision re-opening the case can vest the judge with jurisdiction anew to alter a judgment of acquittal which is final and executory immediately, hence unappealable, whether by MR with the trial court or appeal to a higher court,” they added.
'Retraction is suspect'
The prosecutors told the court that Ragos’ “sudden retraction” raises doubt about his motive.
They pointed out that the witness was silent for four years, and then walked back on his previous testimony, just eight days before the 2022 national polls where De Lima had sought re-election.
Citing the Supreme Court in previous rulings, they stressed: “Mere retraction by a Prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony if credible.”
They added: “Verily, the precipitous recantation of former [National Bureau of Investigation] Deputy Director [Ragos] is coming off as highly suspect and should not be the sole barometer and guiding threshold in rendering the assailed judgment.”
Prosecutors also asserted that Ragos had “extensively testified on his original statements” before lawmakers, media, preliminary investigation and the courts of law, and that he had been consistent in saying he delivered the money to Dayan and De Lima.
They added that other witnesses corroborated his testimony on all material points.
The prosecutors also questioned Ragos’ claim that former Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II coerced him to make false allegations against De Lima.
One case left
In clearing her on the said drug case, the court said that without Ragos’ testimony, “the crucial link to establish conspiracy is shrouded with reasonable doubt.”
It added: The court said that while recantations are “viewed with suspicion and reservation” and are “exceedingly unreliable,” there are special circumstances under which these can be given consideration.
Three drug cases were filed against De Lima, and she has already been acquitted in two. She has one case left, where she has already moved to file bail.
The resolution on her plea for temporary liberty is still pending.
- Latest
- Trending
