Muntinlupa court junks DOJ's appeal to reopen De Lima's 2nd drug case

MANILA, Philippines — A Muntinlupa court has junked the prosecution's bid to reverse the acquittal of former Sen. Leila De Lima from one of her two remaining drug trafficking charges in May.

In a decision dated July 6, the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 204 said that the motion for prosecution filed by the prosecution is "denied for lack of merit."

In May, the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 204 dismissed the case filed by the justice department against De Lima and her former driver Ronnie Dayan in February 2017. The two were cleared of conspiring to commit illegal drug trading. 

For this case, the Muntinlupa court based its decision on the recantation of one of the witnesses against De Lima, former Bureau of Corrections chief Rafael Ragos, in junking the charges against her. 

“Every acquittal becomes final immediately upon promulgation and cannot be recalled for correction or amendment. With the acquittal being immediately final, granting the State's motion for reconsideration in this case would violate the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy because it would effectively reopen the prosecution and subject the accused to a second jeopardy despite their acquittal,” the decision read.

According to the decision, the prosecution in their appeal asked the court to review its judgment, taking into account the Supreme Court's statement that a mere recantation of a prosecution witness does not automatically invalidate their original testimony if it is deemed credible.

But according to the decision of the court, "In criminal cases, no rule is more settled than that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and unappealble upon its promulgation, and that accordingly, the prosecution may not seek its review without placing the accused in double jeopardy."

In the court's decision, it stressed that the rule against double jeopardy is "only subject to extremely rare exceptions." These are the following: when there has been a deprivation of due process and where there is a finding of a mistrial; or where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances. — Cristina Chi with reports by Kristine Joy Patag