The Court of Appeals nullifies Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court decision to acquit former Senator Leila De Lima and Ronnie Dayan of the drug charges filed against them.

In a 12-page decision, the Appellate Court Eighth Division favors the Office of the Solicitor General petition for review and remanded the case back to Branch 204 of the Muntinlupa RTC.

Last May 12,2023, the Muntinlupa court said the retraction of former Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) chief Rafael Ragos cast reasonable doubt on De Lima and Dayan’s involvement in the illegal drug trade inside the New Bilibid Prison.

Likewise, the court on July 6, 2023 denied for lack of merit, the prosecution’s motion to reverse the acquittal in the case of De Lima and Dayan, her former bodyguard.

“Every acquittal becomes final immediately upon promulgation and cannot be recalled for correction or amendment,” the Muntinlupa court said.

“In the assailed Decision and Order, the public respondent acquitted the private respondents on the sole basis of the recantation of witness Ragos. The court said that the testimony of witness Ragos is necessary to sustain any possible conviction, and, without his testimony, the crucial link to establish conspiracy is shrouded with reasonable doubt,” the CA said.

“However, the public respondent failed to discuss the specific proven facts as well as the laws upon which his pronouncement of acquittal was based,” it added.

The CA said that the Muntinlupa RTC in its decision and order acquitting De Lima failed to:

state the particular statements which witness Ragos specifically retracted;

state in particular the effects of the retracted statements to the facts proven by the prosecution; and state which particular element of the crime charged was not proven.

“Indeed, elementary due process demands that the parties to a litigation be given information on how the case was decided, as well as an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court,” the CA said.

The case presented before us is not a simple situation of misappreciation of the facts and evidence, but, instead, a situation where the public respondent clearly disregarded the constitutional mandate that is incumbent upon his office,” it added.

“The failure to comply with the constitutional injunction is a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,” the CA said.