Big blow on De Lima’s bid for freedom
The denial by Judge Romeo S. Buenaventura of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa (Branch 256) of the “Motion for Bail Ad Cautelam,” filed by former senator Leila de Lima (and several others), is a big, surprising blow on her bid for freedom from detention lasting over six years now.
THE FEISTY FORMER SENATOR — IN ALLEGED CONSPIRACY with several prison inmates, prison officials, and employees under her control — allegedly sold and traded illegal drugs inside the National Bilibid Prison from March 2013 to May 2015 while she was secretary of justice.
Because she was accused of a capital offense punishable by life imprisonment to death, she was denied her right to bail. Our Constitution guarantees bail to all except “those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua to death WHEN THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS STRONG …” (caps supplied) like illegal drug trading.
The former lady solon alleged “that the prosecution failed to show proof evident of conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading …; [that] aside from being incredible, irrelevant, and incompetent, the evidence presented does not prove … illegal drug trading …; the prosecution’s evidence actually supports De Lima’s innocence and the regularity of the performance of her duties as former Secretary of Justice …; that she is not a flight risk …;” and that the testimonies of the prison inmates were “incredible, hearsay, inconsistent, contradictory, defy logic, and go against human experience and behavior …” Further, she is entitled to due process, speedy trial, and humanitarian grounds, which are “a) she longs to be with her family … b) she is now a senior citizen who has several health issues, and c) she is being unnecessarily exposed to … life-threatening risks … as shown by her experience during the Oct. 9, 2022 hostage-taking incident.”IN HIS 35-PAGE “ORDER,” JUDGE BUENAVENTURA wrote that the “sole issue to be resolved” is whether the evidence of guilt submitted by the prosecution is strong. And “after a careful review of the totality of [the] prosecution’s evidence,” he ruled that the evidence of guilt was indeed strong; it showed the prima facie existence of the crime charged and the conspiracy among the accused to commit it.
The judge also said that though De Lima was a senior citizen, she nonetheless admitted she was not suffering from any serious health or life-threatening condition, and whenever she needed medical attention, the trial court always granted her “expeditious … medical furloughs.”
True, the judge stressed, “the Supreme Court … allowed (bail) for the … accused where their continued incarceration was shown to be injurious to their health or endanger their life. However, (he did) not find the circumstances in those cases as obtaining in the instant case.” Moreover, the hostage incident was merely an “isolated occurrence …”
The judge ended his decision with the caveat that his finding of “strong evidence” did not prejudge the eventual outcome of the case which would be decided only after trial on the merits. For now, there is enough prima facie evidence showing “great probability that the crime charged had been committed and that the accused are the agents thereof. After all, that the evidence of guilt is strong does not equate to a finding of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
In an unprecedented advisory last Thursday, the Supreme Court—to allay public apprehension—assured that verily “the denial of bail of De Lima is not the final adjudication of the case.”
I WAS FRANKLY SURPRISED AT THE DENIAL OF DE LIMA’S BID FOR TEMPORARY FREEDOM given that in a similar illegal drug trading case involving almost the same storyline, almost the same defendants and almost the same witnesses in Branch 204 of the same RTC, Judge Abraham Joseph Alcantara acquitted her based on witness Rafael Ragos’ recantation that created reasonable doubt on her supposed guilt. (For details, see this space last Monday.) However, after a recheck of the decision of Judge Buenaventura, I discovered that Ragos was not among the witnesses in the case decided by him. Thus, the recantation has no effect whatsoever in the said case.
Moreover, I agree with Judge Buenaventura that the credibility of witnesses is best determined — not by the appellate justices — but by the trial judges like him who had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor on the stand including their body language, the timbre of their voices, twitching of their faces, movement of their eyes, fidgeting of their fingers, etc.
Of course, De Lima has several remedies like a motion for reconsideration which her lawyer Boni Tacardon already announced. Failing that, she could appeal to the higher courts. But these remedies will entail further delay. And oppressive and detestable detention—in case she is found innocent. Which is why diligent court administrator Raul B. Villanueva issued a memorandum dated April 28 directing Judge Buenaventura to resolve the case within nine months. Truly, justice delayed is justice denied. Not just for the accused but also for the prosecution and for the rule of law.
