Court of Appeals nullifies De Lima acquittal by Muntinlupa RTC

The Court of Appeals has declared null and void the decision of the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court to acquit former Senator Leila De Lima and Ronnie Dayan of the drug charges filed against them.

In a 12-page decision dated April 30, the Eighth Division of the CA granted the petition for certiorari filed by the Office of the Solicitor General and remanded the case to Branch 204 of the Muntinlupa RTC. 

"In the assailed Decision and Order, the public respondent acquitted the private respondents on the sole basis of the recantation of witness 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 CA said.

"However, the public respondent failed to discuss the specific proven facts as well as the laws upon which his pronouncement of acquittal was based," it added.

The decision's dispositive portion read, "For these reasons, the petition for certiorari is hereby granted. The Decision dated 12 May 2023 and the Order dated 06 July 2023 issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 204, Muntinlupa City, in Criminal Case No. 17-165 are declared null and void."

We remand the case to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 204, Muntinlupa City, for it to decide the case in accordance with the rules stated in this Decision," it added.

In a decision promulgated on May 12, 2023, the Muntinlupa court said the retraction of former Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) chief Rafael Ragos cast reasonable doubt on De Lima and Dayan’s involvement in the illegal drug trade inside the New Bilibid Prison.

The court on July 6, 2023 also denied for lack of merit, the prosecution’s motion to reverse the acquittal in the case of De Lima and Dayan, her former bodyguard. "Every acquittal becomes final immediately upon promulgation and cannot be recalled for correction or amendment," the court said in its order

The CA in its decision said that the Muntinlupa RTC in its decision and order acquitting De Lima failed to:

• state the particular statements which witness 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.

In a statement, De Lima said, "The answers to the CA’s questions in their decision can be found in the case records. Perhaps we just need to point out again, through our Motion for Reconsideration, the specific portions of the records where the answers to their questions can be found."

"Nonetheless, we will appeal the CA’s decision up to the Supreme Court, if necessary. In the meantime, this does not mean that my acquittal has lost its legal effect," De Lima said.

"My acquittal is final and unappealable due to the principle of double jeopardy, whereas the CA’s decision is still appealable up to the Supreme Court. For now, the RTC’s decision acquitting me still holds greater weight," she added

De Lima said that the CA did not say that her acquittal had been reversed.

"Rather, it only asked for the RTC decision to be clarified or revised — something we believe is unnecessary because the RTC’s ruling is already clear," De Lima said.

She said that it was "simply an issue of clarification and explanation to the CA regarding the questions they raised in their decision."

The CA in its decision said that it was the court's duty that parties to a litigation should be informed of how it was decided "with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court.

"Indeed, elementary due process demands that the parties to a litigation be given information on how the case was decided, as well as an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court," the CA said.

The case presented before us is not a simple situation of misappreciation of the facts and evidence, but, instead, a situation where the public respondent clearly disregarded the constitutional mandate that is incumbent upon his office," it added.

"The failure to comply with the constitutional injunction is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction," the CA said.

The CA said that it was impossible to discern the rationale behind his decision to acquit De Lima and Dayan after the Muntinlupa RTC branch failed to enumerate or discuss the statements that were allegedly withdrawn by Ragos. 

“Without a concrete reference to the particular portions of the testimony that were recanted, We are left to speculate as to which facts were disregarded and the extent to which such retractions influenced the outcome of the case. Such lack of particularity transgresses the transparency and reasonableness of the decision-making process mandated by the Constitution and the Rules of Court,” it added. 

The Eighth Division also said that Alcantara “likewise failed to provide a detailed discussion of the specific element of the crime charged that was allegedly not established by the prosecution.” 

“Instead, he merely posited that the recantation of witness Ragos effectively discredited the claim of conspiracy,” the decision read. 

Ragos had claimed that he and aide Jovencio Ablen Jr. delivered P5 million in proceeds from the illegal drug trade inside the NBP to De Lima's house in Parañaque City in 2012. But he retracted his statement in 2022. 

The Muntinlupa court said Ragos’ retraction  “created reasonable doubt which warrants the acquittal of both accused.” 

De Lima is expected to make a congressional comeback as first nominee of ML Party-list, which secured a seat in the House of Representatives in the 20th Congress.  –NB, GMA Integrated News