Lawyers are split after the shock ruling by the Court of Appeals (CA) to invalidate the acquittal of former senator and now congresswoman-elect Leila de Lima in an illegal drug trafficking case.
Lawyer Antonio Carpio, a former Supreme Court justice, said the CA 8th Division erred in voiding the De Lima acquittal on grounds of a hazy decision by the Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 204.
“I think mali ‘yung CA in saying the decision is void for failure to comply with the Constitution. Hindi naman nire-require ng Constitution na napakaganda ng ponentia mo, ng decision mo,” former justice Carpio said. “Marami namang decision diyan na very bare lang. As long as you state the facts of the law, pwede na ‘yon.”
(I think it was wrong for the CA to say the RTC decision is void for failure to comply with the Constitution. The Constitution does not require court rulings to be nicely written… There has been a number of court decisions that were very bare. As long as you state the facts of the law, it will be alright.)
For lawyer Ferdinand Topacio, however, the CA was correct in remanding the case against De Lima back to the lower court.
“The trial of Ms. De Lima was indeed heavily suffused with the interference of foreign meddlers from the European Parliament, heavy subjudice propaganda from the De Lima camp,” commented Topacio, one of the original private complainants in the case against the former senator.
“It is hoped that with the Court of Appeals ordering a trial de novo, the case will be heard minus such undue and improper influence, so that the truth will finally out,” Topacio added in his public statement issued May 16.
“Trial de novo” means a completely new trial, as if the previous trial never occurred.
For De Lima, the CA ruling was not a reversal of her acquittal. She said the appellate court just wanted the RTC decision to be fixed.
De Lima said the CA would just want to clarify some issues which she and her lawyers believe might no longer be needed since “the RTC’s decision was clear.”
In a stunning announcement last May 15, the CA 8th Division said it granted the option of the Office of the Solicitor General’s (OSG) for certiorari that assailed De Lima’s acquittal in the drug case. It remanded the case to the RTC and ordered Judge Abraham Joseph Alcantara to write a new decision.
The CA stressed the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion as it supposedly failed to explain the specific facts as well as the laws on which de Lima’s acquittal was based. The higher court also noted that the acquittal was based solely on the recantation of witness Rafael Ragos.
Ragos, a former Bureau of Corrections chief, withdrew his original testimony that he personally delivered sometime in 2021 as much as PHP10-million in drug money to then Justice Secretary De Lima through her aide, Ronnie Dayan.
De Lima and Dayan were later charged with conspiracy to commit drug trading as they allegedly allowed the trafficking of drugs inside the New Bilibid Prison in exchange for bribe money.
According to Ragos in his recantation, he was coerced to make a false testimony against De Lima, leading the RTC to order the acquittal.
Two other drug related cases were filed against De Lima in other courts. Both were also dismissed.
