Supreme Court jumped the gun on De Lima case

One can’t help but notice how most nonlawyers, when commenting on something legal, almost always begin with: “I am not a lawyer, but … ” as if apologizing for treading on a field meant only for a select breed. But didn’t Shakespeare say, “Let’s kill all the lawyers”? That perchance we may also speak without trepidation.

And so it was a delight to learn that soon after Judge Romeo Buenaventura of the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 256 denied the petition for bail of former senator Leila de Lima and her coaccused who have been behind bars for more than six years, the justices of the Supreme Court issued a statement to the effect that denial of bail did not necessarily mean an imminent conviction. A comforting statement indeed from the “gods of Padre Faura” who rarely speak on cases they are not directly handling. Why did they do it? Was something so obvious they could not help themselves from speaking?

De Lima’s camp filed a petition for bail for this third and last case (she has been acquitted in two previous cases) based on the strength of their defense and not on humanitarian grounds (prolonged detention, health reasons, being taken hostage right inside her detention quarters, etc.) which she and her lawyers could have pursued also. And so petition denied. The judge said the prosecution’s evidence was strong, notwithstanding the fact that De Lima has been acquitted in two of the three drug-related cases against her and her coaccused. Watzupp?

Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla did not hide his condescension and belittled the efforts of De Lima’s camp, saying that they could have invoked humanitarian grounds instead: “If they cited humanitarian concerns and reasons instead of the merits of the case, then it’s possible that the government would not oppose her bail plea … But they chose to show off, or maybe to indirectly say that they think they can handle the case very well.” Show off?

So, better to plead on humanitarian grounds instead, and with weeping and gnashing of teeth to simply beg for mercy, to knock on hardened hearts, the merits of the case be damned? It was also the justice secretary who said that De Lima’s acquittal in the second case did not mean there was no guilt. As I said last time, an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty; now that the accused is proven innocent beyond reasonable doubt, she is presumed guilty. Did Remulla have to rub it in?

There are cases though where guilt is presumed strong but the accused, alas, are acquitted, and the investigators who handled the case and knew the ins and outs of it could only shake their heads. I remember a top sleuth looking me straight in the eye and saying: “I am morally certain they committed the crime.” He knew what he knew and was therefore heartbroken. But evidence is key, and if little remains of it because …

And now De Lima’s coaccused Ronnie Dayan and Joenel Sanchez (her former aides), and former Bureau of Corrections director Franklin Jesus Bucayu, are asking Judge Buenaventura to voluntarily inhibit himself from hearing the case. Buenaventura’s brother, Emmanuel, it turned out, was the lawyer who made Dayan execute an affidavit that pointed to De Lima as having received drug money. Dayan has since recanted. How this situation will be resolved or pan out is anybody’s guess. Something’s gotta give.

These three said that Emmanuel Buenaventura was a lawyer to the late Rep. Reynaldo Umali, the chair of the justice panel of the House of Representatives that conducted hearings on alleged drug transactions at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP). De Lima was justice secretary at that time and NBP was under her department.

Former president Rodrigo Duterte who launched a drug war that snuffed out thousands of innocent lives, some execution-style, was the target of De Lima’s investigation when she was a senator. And now, by the International Criminal Court. He might not have the last laugh.

—————-

Send feedback to cerespd@gmail.com