De Lima’s acquittal challenged anew

Rep. Leila de Lima (Photo from House of Representatives)

MANILA, Philippines – Government prosecutors have asked the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 204 to reverse its June 27, 2025 decision, standing by its ruling acquitting former senator, now party-list Representative Leila de Lima.

In a 15-page motion for reconsideration filed by the panel led by Provincial Prosecutor Ramoncito Bienvenido Ocampo Jr., it was maintained that despite the recantation of its principal witness, former Bureau of Corrections officer-in-charge Rafael Ragos, other pieces of evidence are sufficient to prove the crime charged.

“By accepting the subsequent recantation of witness Ragos hook, line and sinker, the Honorable Court repudiated all these solemn proceedings, without consideration on how the courts and other bodies conducted the proceedings to ensure the voluntariness and veracity of the statements/allegations made by witness Ragos, nor offered an explanation why the statements made by witness Ragos in those proceedings should not be believed and discarded,” read the motion for reconsideration

The prosecution said the other pieces of evidence establish the role played by de Lima and her former bodyguard and co-accused, Ronnie Dayan, in the illegal drug trade activities inside the New Bilibid Prisons.

In fact, Ragos’ testimony was corroborated on all material points by other witnesses.

The panel also cited the failure of the trial court to comply with the directive of the Court of Appeals’ (CA) Eight Division, which issued a ruling last May 2025 declaring as null and void the May 12, 2023 decision of the Muntinlupa City RTC acquitting De Lima of the drug charges.

In its ruling, the CA held that Muntinlupa City RTC Branch 204 Judge Joseph Abraham Alcantara committed grave abuse of discretion when it acquitted De Lima mainly due to Ragos’ recantation.

It held that Judge Alcantara violated the Constitution and the Rules of Court which mandates “transparency and reasonableness of the decision making-process.”

The CA said the trial court failed to state the specific facts retracted by Ragos and its effects to the facts proven by the prosecution and failed to identify the specific factual statements that the witness purportedly retracted.

Likewise, the appellate court noted that the trial court failed to provide a detailed discussion of the specific element of the crime charged that the prosecution allegedly did not establish.

Thus, the CA ordered the case be remanded to the trial court for it to decide the case in accordance with the rules stated in the decision.

However, despite the CA’s order, the trial court issued another ruling which affirmed its May 12, 2023 decision in favor of de Lima and Dayan.

Judge Alcantara insisted that Ragos’ recantation was ”sufficient basis for the RTC to uphold the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence.”

Prior to his recantation, Ragos claimed that he delivered a total of P10 million to de Lima’s house in Parañaque in November and December 2012.

The money, he claimed, came from the drug trade and would be used purportedly to fund de Lima’s senatorial run.

“The Prosecution respectfully submits that the directive of the Court of Appeals was not complied with. While the Honorable Court expounded on the failure to establish conspiracy of both accused to the direct participants, still, the revised Decision failed to show how the recantation of witness Ragos affected, if at all, the existence of the elements of the crime charged,” the prosecution pointed out.

“Simply put, there was no comparison made between the original statement of witness Ragos and his retracted statement, and explanation why the latter should be believed,” it added.

Likewise, the prosecution maintained that the trial court failed to consider the earlier testimony given by Ragos in open court and in other venues, attesting to de Lima’s involvement in the NBP illegal drug trade.

The prosecution panel noted that Ragos has extensively testified on numerous occasions in the House of Representatives, the Senate, before the media, during the preliminary investigation of the case, and before the courts, based on his original testimony.

“It bears stressing that in all these occasions, witness Ragos took an oath and swore to tell. In the hearings he attended up to his presentation as witness for the prosecution, he was interpelated and tested to determine if he was telling the truth,” the prosecution said.

Sought for comment, Rep de Lima said: : I don’t understand what the prosecution is trying to do! Put me in triple jeopardy after nearly seven years in unjust detention? Hindi na lang katawa-tawa ang ginagawa nila, nakakagalit na.” /gsg