Retraction

The law must apply to all, otherwise, it must not apply to anyone. When she sat as Department of Justice secretary, I reminded Leila de Lima that she had the historic opportunity to rectify the weaknesses in our criminal justice system (i.e., expediting trials for non-bailable cases). But they fell on deaf ears because she had other priorities. For six years, she has been incarcerated at the Philippine National Police while facing three drug-related charges, two of which have already been dismissed by the courts. She is partly responsible for her detention because she failed to make any reform in the system.

Like former president Rodrigo Duterte (who has been unfairly accused by detractors as perpetrating the so-called ‘legal persecution’ of De Lima), I respect the decision of the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC). It acquitted the former senator on her second drug case on the grounds of reasonable doubt. Her acquittal was based on the recantation of the key witness, Rafael Ragos. Judge Joseph Abraham Alcantara cited that without Ragos’ testimony, “the crucial link to establish conspiracy is shrouded with reasonable doubt.”

Of course, the lower court decision is subject to a motion for consideration and an appeal. My interpretation of the RTC decision is this: there is a possibility that a crime was committed except there was reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to meet the quantum of evidence necessary to prove the defendant’s guilt. I know of cases that were dismissed for gross insufficiency of evidence and not just based on reasonable doubt.

While the right of the accused against double jeopardy is protected, the Courts have since relaxed the rule. There is now an established procedure by which the State can appeal acquittals if its right to due process has been denied. If the prosecution can establish this, then it can appeal the case.

After all, Ragos executed sworn declarations under the penalty of perjury before the City Prosecutor, the House of Representatives, the Philippine Senate and the RTC. He repeatedly affirmed the truthfulness and veracity of his testimony in the said institutions. He testified against De Lima in both houses of Congress, which the general public saw.

*      *      *

A year before being appointed presidential spokesperson, I sat as a party-list representative in the 17th Philippine Congress. I was also a House committee on justice member, which investigated the illegal drug trade at the New Bilibid Prison.

Sometime in 2016, I received a call from a former politician while I attended a baptismal party for a child of a fellow congressman. The politico asked me to go to Solaire Hotel to meet with him, a Chinese businessman and then National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) deputy director Ragos.

In that meeting, Ragos gamely disclosed the alleged participation of De Lima in the illegal trade. He said, in two instances, he delivered bribe money from drug lords to De Lima’s house in a Parañaque subdivision. I was initially shocked by Ragos’ exposé since he was a known appointee of De Lima at the NBI. He freely divulged and even laughed as he shared the damning information against his boss. I can vouch that Ragos was not under duress during our meeting. Immediately, I relayed the information to our committee chair, the late Reynaldo Umali, who subsequently authorized the congressional inquiry into the drug trade scandal.

It is obvious that the politician who brokered the Ragos meeting had an axe to grind against the former senator. He survived De Lima’s alleged witch hunt while the latter was still justice secretary. It is also proof that our former president was not behind the drug cases filed against the senator.

*      *      *

In 2022, Ragos recanted. He claimed being coerced by officials of the Duterte administration to testify against De Lima. I do not understand why the court gave utmost credence to a person who repeatedly lied under oath before the courts of law and legislative bodies. I hope the prosecution will not allow Ragos to go unpunished for this gross insult to our legal system.

In established jurisprudence, criminal courts frown upon the recantation of witnesses or victims. It subjects the “truth” to the caprice of witnesses because retractions can be caused by monetary considerations or intimidation.

In the People vs. Lao Wan Sing (1983), the Supreme Court cited the doctrine in People vs. Saliling (1976): “It would be a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimonies solemnly taken before courts of justice simply because the witnesses who had given them later on change their mind for one reason or another, for such a rule would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. Affidavits of retraction can be easily secured from poor and ignorant witnesses usually for a monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it may later be repudiated. So, courts are wary or reluctant to allow a new trial based on retracted testimony.”

Even assuming it to be inapplicable, actually, the ruling in said case was not the only basis of the Trial Court for rejecting the recanted testimonies. That Court made a careful comparison between the original and retracted testimonies, the circumstances under which they were given, as well as the motives behind the changes in testimony. Thereby, the Court a quo correctly applied the criteria laid down in People vs. Ubina et al., 97 Phil. 526, as follows:

The rule should be that a testimony solemnly given in court should not be lightly set aside and that before this can be done, both the previous testimony and the subsequent one be carefully compared, the circumstances under which each was given, the reasons or motives for the change carefully scrutinized – in other words, all the expedients devised by man to determine the credibility of witnesses should be utilized to determine which of the contradictory testimonies represents the truth.” [Chan Robles Virtual Law Library]