FORMER Senator Leila de Lima’s bizarre detention while in jail has revived discussions on the justness of government’s cases against her.
To recall, it was at her instance that the Senate decided to hear self-confessed hitman Edgar Matobato’s testimony on the existence of the Davao Death Squad that lived up to its name when Rodrigo Duterte was Mayor.
***
De Lima was removed by her peers as justice committee chairperson a few days after Matobato’s testimony.
She was then demonized in hearings conducted by her counterparts in the Lower House. It was there that allegations on her alleged involvement in the drug trade took form.
The basic story is that she maintained a driver/lover who collected drug money to fund her campaign for a Senate seat.
There was no physical evidence (the actual money or drugs) against de Lima. The evidence had been purely anecdotal. A sharply divided Supreme Court nonetheless approved her indictment, a go-ahead for her trial that continues to this day.
***
The other day several lawmakers of the United States of America urged the Department of Justice to review the cases against de Lima and officially acknowledge the utter lack of evidence against her.
US Senator Patrick Leahy and others pointed out that “multiple witnesses have recanted their testimony, exposing the political nature of the case from the start.”
What is striking in their letter is the demand for an investigation to find the cause for the police and other witnesses making false testimonies.
This is no longer hinting at wrongdoing. This is an open accusation of prosecutorial misconduct.
***
Among those who have taken back their testimonies is former Bureau of Corrections chief Rafael Ragos who had claimed that he personally delivered ten million pesos to de Lima’s former bodyguard Ronnie Dayan.
In April this year Ragos executed an affidavit saying that his previous statements had been lies instigated by Duterte’s justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre. He admits to having perjured himself. The suborner was no less than the chief implementor of all penal laws in the country.
Half a year after its execution the Ragos affidavit has yet to be affirmed in open court. The affidavit is useless until Ragos testifies and confirms the truthfulness of its contents before the judge.
***
Guess who has been throwing hurdles at the Ragos recantation?
Ragos was scheduled to testify last September 30. It did not happen because DOJ prosecutors opposed the presentation of his affidavit.
Once presented Ragos will be subjected to cross examination by the DOJ, re-direct examination by the defense, and clarificatory questions from the judge himself.
Affidavits of recantation are usually given little weight because they are easy to fabricate. But it is possible that Ragos can provide enough details to make his testimony credible.
Who is afraid of what Ragos will divulge when he is finally allowed to testify?
***
It is true that once a case reaches the courts it is the judge who has control over its disposition.
However, it is also true that judges can only act on what the parties themselves present, manifest, or ask for in the proceedings.
De Lima’s case has no private aggrieved party. It is the State that is solely and doggedly prosecuting it, in keeping with what Justice Antonio Carpio called “one of the grossest injustices” in recent memory.
In the greater interest of justice, what is stopping the DOJ, now under a different leadership, from admitting it had been wrong the very beginning and that prolonging the trial cannot make nonexistent evidence existent?
As we are wont to say, kung gusto may paraan, kung ayaw maraming dahilan./PN
