PURSUING JUSTICE | Under heavy guard, former Sen. Leila de Lima, in this Jan. 27, 2023, photo, arrives at the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court to attend a hearing set for one of her two remaining cases. (File photo by MARIANNE BERMUDEZ / Philippine Daily Inquirer)
MANILA, Philippines — The camp of detained former senator Leila de Lima on Wednesday asked the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court to deny the request of the prosecution to re-open the proceedings in the illegal drug case where she was accused of receiving P10-million from high-profile inmates at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP).
Atty. Teddy Esteban Rigoroso said both parties, the prosecution, and the defense, agreed in open court last April 17 to terminate the proceedings and submit the case for resolution.
He said the April 17 hearing was scheduled more than a month after the termination of the presentation of evidence for co-accused Ronnie Dayan.
“For the first time, or 37 days after the last hearing, and after already agreeing in open court to submit the case for decision, the Panel suddenly moves to offer rebuttal evidence,” he said.
De Lima, who is currently detained at the Custodial Center of the Philippine National Police (PNP) headquarters in Camp Crame, was accused of receiving P10-million from former Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) officer-in-charge Rafael Ragos and her aide Dayan. The money allegedly came from inmates inside the NBP. The money was supposed to fund her 2016 senatorial bid.
But Ragos already retracted from his earlier claim, saying he was only coerced to pin de Lima.
The court has already sent the promulgation of the decision on May 12.
But the prosecution, in a motion, asked the court to re-open the case and allow the presentation of rebuttal witness, PAO lawyer Demiteer Huerta, one of the lawyers from the Public Attorneys’ Office (PAO) who took the testimony of Ragos when he testified against de Lima.
But de Lima’s counsel said Huerta is not newly discovered evidence. In fact, he said Huerta has been present and in close and direct coordination with the panel of prosecutors the entire time that Ragos was testifying in open court.
“The Panel should have known, as of 17 April, 2023, that his testimony will be material, if at all, for the Panel of Prosecutors and should have pleaded to the Court to allow them to present him as a rebuttal witness-instead of manifesting their agreement to consider the case closed and submitting the entire case for decision,” he said.
These facts, Rigoroso said “point to the underhanded maneuvering of the Panel to inevitably delay the proceedings in this case. The Prosecution had six long years to prove its case.”
He said that agreeing to submit the case for decision is a waiver of their opportunity to present further rebuttal evidence.
“They cannot be subjected to the whims and caprices of any party who, after agreeing to submit the case for decision, changes its mind and opts for a continuation of an already terminated trial. The Rules of Criminal Procedure simply cannot be supplanted with pleasure borne out of the lackadaisical attitude of a party,” he added.
RELATED STORIES:
Muntinlupa City court wraps up case vs Leila de Lima; decision set on May 12
DOJ wants to present new witness vs De Lima