THE Court of Appeals (CA) declared the 2023 acquittal of former senator Leila M. de Lima in one of her drug-related cases as “null and void,” just days after she secured a seat in Congress.
The CA Eighth Division granted the petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, which challenged the ruling and subsequent order issued by Judge Abraham Joseph B. Alcantara of the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court, Branch 204.
The court found that the acquittal was based “solely” on the recantation of former Bureau of Corrections Director General and ex-National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Deputy Director Rafael Z. Ragos, a key prosecution witness, without adequately assessing its impact on other evidence or clarifying which elements of the alleged crime remained unproven.
The ruling deemed the trial court’s decision “void” for lacking the constitutionally required discussion of facts and legal basis.
In a statement on Thursday evening, Ms. De Lima said they will appeal the CA decision, noting that it did not nullify her acquittal which is “final and unappealable.” She added they will appeal the decision, up to the Supreme Court if necessary.
She also dismissed the CA decision as an issue of clarification, rather than a reversal of her acquittal.
“I also want to clarify that the CA did not reverse my acquittal, rather the court wants us to put the content of the decision in order, which in our opinion, is not necessary because the RTC’s decision is clear,” she said in Filipino.
“The way we see it: this is an issue of clarifying and explaining to the CA questions raised in the decision.”
The CA division held that while a judgment of acquittal is generally final, it may be assailed through a petition for certiorari, to review if the court acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. It defined grave abuse of discretion as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment amounting to an evasion of positive duty.
“The presence of grave abuse of discretion effectively nullifies the public respondent’s jurisdiction, thereby negating the second requisite of double jeopardy,” the ruling penned by Justice Eleuterio L. Bathan read.
“To this, therefore, an acquittal rendered through a judgment marred by grave abuse of discretion cannot be considered an acquittal entitled to the protection against double jeopardy,” it added.
The CA noted that the RTC Decision and Order failed to meet the constitutional and procedural standards for a valid judgment.
It pointed out that the RTC judge acquitted the private respondents solely based on Mr. Ragos’ recantation but failed to state the particular statements that witness Mr. Ragos specifically retracted. It also failed to state the effects of the retracted statements on the facts proven by the prosecution, and state which particular element of the crime charged was not proven.
The case sought to nullify the Muntinlupa RTC’s ruling that cleared Ms. De Lima and her former aide, Ronnie P. Dayan.
It involved allegations that Ms. De Lima received P10 million in drug proceeds from inmates at the national penitentiary in 2012 during her tenure as justice secretary.
The assailed RTC Decision, dated May 12, 2023, acquitted Ms. De Lima and Mr. Dayan of violating Section 26(b) in relation to Section 5, Section 3(jj), and Section 28 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. — Chloe Mari A. Hufana with Kenneth Christiane L. Basilio
