Court of Appeals overturns de Lima鈥檚 acquittal in a drug case
Former senator Leila de Lima | PHOTO: INQUIRER FILE PHOTO/ KIMBERLY DELA CRUZ
MANILA, Philippines — The Court of Appeals (CA) has overturned the acquittal of former Sen. Leila de Lima in one of her drug charges.
It cited grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Muntinlupa Court that initially cleared her of a drug case.
In its ruling made public Thursday, the appellate court’s 8th Division said the Muntinlupa Court’s decision failed to explain the specific facts as well as the laws on which the acquittal was based.
Agreeing with the contention of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the CA said it appeared that the acquittal ruling was based solely on the recantation of witness Rafael Ragos.
“He lauded that the testimony of witness Ragos is necessary to sustain any possible conviction, and, without his testiomony, the crucial link to establish conspiracy is shrouded with reasonable doubt,” the CA noted.
It pointed out that the lower court’s ruling failed to perform the following actions:
- state the particular statements which Ragos specifically retracted
- state, in particular, the effects of the retracted statements on the facts proven by the prosecution
- state which particular element of the crime charged was not proven
“The failure to comply with the constitutional injunction is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,” the ruling stated.
The court also dismissed the argument that retrying de Lima would constitute double jeopardy.
It asserted that the initial acquittal, being based on a void judgment, does not qualify for protection against double jeopardy.
“In this case, however, the acquittal was not a valid acquittal, it being based on a void judgment,” the CA stated.
“The presence of grave abuse of discretion effectively nullifies the public respondent’s jurisdiction, thereby negating the second requisite of double jeopardy,” it explained.
The case is remanded back to the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City for a new decision, adhering to the legal standards mentioned in the CA’s ruling.
The decision was written by CA Associate Justice Eleuterio Bathan, and concurred by Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Florencio M. Mamauag Jr. /apl
