SolGen defends DOJ move allowing convicts as witnesses vs De Lima

Using convicts as state witness is the judgment call of the prosecution, Solicitor General Jose Calida said on Tuesday during the third part of of the oral arguments on the petition that Sen. Leila de Lima filed at the Supreme Court.

Calida was defending the move of the Department of Justice allowing convicted inmates to serve as witnesses for the government in the cases against De Lima.

The senator is facing three cases for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, accusing her of conspiring with high-profile inmates at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) to sell illegal drugs, part of the proceeds of which she allegedly used to fund her senatorial bid.

In a resolution, the Department of Justice dismissed the complaint against convicts Herbert Colanggo, Engelberto Durano, Vicente Sy, Jojo Baligad and Wu Tuan Yuan, also known as Peter Co, Nonilo Arile so that they could serve as witnesses for the government.

But Associate Justice Marvic Leonen pointed out: “The law is very clear, they must not have been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.”

Leonen was referring to the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act (Republic Act 6981).

He noted that Arile had been convicted of murder and kidnapping, Baligad with homicide, Colanggo of robbery, with 14 more pending cases of robbery, among others.

Calida said that the convicts were even given legislative immunity.

But Leonen said: “We are not Congress. We are courts of law so we have no concern about legislative grant of immunity. I am concerned about we have a law, the law is supposed to be implemented by the secretary of justice. It actually says in [the Witness Protection Law]: Anybody involved in moral turpitude cannot be allowed into WPP and more importantly cannot be discharged as state witness.”

Calida argued: “This is prosecutorial privilege if there are no other witnesses.”

In her petition to the Supreme Court, De Lima is saying that the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court, where the cases against her are filed, has no jurisdiction over her because she allegedly committed the accusations against her while she was still justice secretary. The cases, she said, should have been filed at the Office of the Ombudsman.

Technically, what she filed was a “Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, and Urgent Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO).” /atm/rga