In 2017, three illegal drug trading cases were filed against former senator Leila de Lima in three branches of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa. Charged with capital offenses, the former solon was detained without bail. In two of the cases, she was acquitted. The prosecutors challenged the second acquittal through a motion for reconsideration (MR) (which I discussed last June 5). In the third case, the RTC denied her motion for bail (which I discussed last June 12). To reverse this denial, De Lima filed her own MR. Meanwhile, in obedience to the directive of court administrator Raul B. Villanueva to finish the case in nine months, Judge Romeo S. Buenaventura, before his inhibition last Friday, rushed the schedule of the trials in the third case. Today, let us track four possible routes of her continuing quest for freedom.
FIRST, LET US LOOK AT HER MR in which she argued that Judge Buenaventura erred in (1) evaluating the prosecution’s evidence by using the wrong legal standards of “prima facie” (meaning “on its face”) and “probable cause,” instead of the correct legal standard of “strong evidence of guilt” as required by the Constitution; (2) relying “absolutely and completely” on the direct examination of the prosecution’s “convict-witnesses” without regard to their cross-examination”; (3) failing to discuss “the inherent unreliability and incredibility of the convict witnesses … (who had been) adjudged with finality of having committed crimes involving moral turpitude”; and (4) refusing to believe Benjamin Magalong, “the only credible witness of the Prosecution” who testified effectively that De Lima was merely performing her duties as secretary of justice in purging the National Bilibid Prison of drug trading.
SECOND, HER MR ALLEGED THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION in (1) ignoring “numerous legal sanctions against criminal convicts as witnesses and, despite all these, declare[d] them credible”; (2) admitting testimonies that were “clearly” hearsay “in violation of the accused right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses”; (3) belittling the humanitarian issues, including her being “hypertensive and diabetic on top of other conditions like cervical spondylosis characterized by chronic neck pain and severe headaches”; (4) dismissing the hostage happening for being “an isolated incident” without considering that she “has suffered long enough (imprisonment), with an incident that almost killed her to top it off”; and (5) in disbelieving that she is not a flight risk at all “by reason of her stature in society, her public record, her reputation for integrity … overall good moral character, advanced age, frail health, and most especially … the charges are due to political persecution.”
If the MR is denied, these claims of grave abuse can be the bases of a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court to secure her bail. Legally, an MR gives the lower court a chance to correct the alleged abuse and is a prerequisite before certiorari can prosper in an appellate tribunal.
HER THIRD ROUTE IS A PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS direct to the Supreme Court, provided her lawyers can demonstrate that the facts in her case are on all fours with those in Reyes v. Director (Jan. 17, 2023). Normally, persons detained by reason of a court order, like De Lima, cannot be freed via habeas corpus. However, as an exception, Gigi Reyes was freed because her lawyer, Estelito P. Mendoza, was able to show that her custody had become “vexatious, capricious, and oppressive amounting to an infringement of the constitutional right to speedy trial.”
On this exception, I wrote a column on Jan. 30 titled “Gigi freed, Leila next?” challenging De Lima’s lawyers to follow suit but they preferred to follow the conventional route of a petition for bail in the trial court, instead of the speedy and unconventional remedy of habeas corpus in the highest court.
HER FOURTH ROUTE IS A RELENTLESS PURSUIT OF THE TRIAL ON THE MERITS of her third case to secure her permanent freedom via an acquittal, not just temporary liberty via bail or habeas corpus. If De Lima’s counsels had been able to secure acquittals in her two illegal drugs cases, they should be able to do it again in the third, especially now that her case has caught the attention of the Supreme Court and the court administrator.
True, the prosecution had announced its intention to present 20 more witnesses; however, it is equally true that the trial judge has the prerogative, after due process, to limit their number. However, with the inhibition of Judge Buenaventura, the new presiding magistrate may need more than nine months to study, conduct trials on, and finish the case.
To conclude: Of these four routes, I believe the most important is the fourth because victory will entitle De Lima to permanent and complete freedom, whereas in the first three, victory will entitle her merely to temporary liberty pending her trial. The great challenge to her lawyers is to secure her acquittal because of her innocence, not merely because of reasonable doubt on her guilt.