ON MAY 12 this year the regional trial court of Muntinlupa acquitted former senator Leila de Lima of the second of three nonbailable drug charges filed against her by the Department of Justice led by then Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre.
The acquittal was spurred in part by the recantation of star witness Rafael Ragos who said he was unduly influenced by none other than the former Justice Secretary into inventing stories against de Lima.
A divided Supreme Court in 2017 allowed the case to reach trial despite the minority justices’ observation that the criminal charge was built on stories without hard evidence.
***
Current DOJ Secretary Crispin Remulla lauded the trial court decision as a manifestation that the justice system is working in this country.
What is puzzling is that shortly after that statement was given, government prosecutors filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the court’s judgment of acquittal.
The prosecutors argued that Ragos’ recantation was not enough to damage his original story because it was “voluntarily and solemnly given during numerous occasions in Congress, Senate, media and the court.”
***
The principle that no one should be placed twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense is a topic assigned for the mastery of first-year law students.
It is enshrined in Article 3, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution.
In practical terms, a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and executory. Unless he is being held for another offense the accused must be set free as soon as the decision is promulgated. The constitutional proscription against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution from appealing the decision.
***
Only the civil aspect of the case may be appealed by the private complainant.
According to court decisions, the reason behind the rule on double jeopardy is that a person has the right to have his trial completed by a single body or tribunal.
Called the “right of repose,” an individual is entitled to know the extent of his liability and may not be subjected to interminable suits that will cause a heavy personal strain. Government is thus limited to a single proceeding in performing its function of enforcing criminal laws.
Entertaining a motion for reconsideration or an appeal by the government would be tantamount to a second proceeding.
***
Reacting to the prosecution’s motion, de Lima’s lawyers said that the motion for reconsideration is “a mere scrap of paper because the proceedings have already been concluded with finality, with the judgment of acquittal.”
That proved correct. In a resolution publicized just last week, the Muntinlupa trial court rebuffed government prosecutors by junking their motion.
“Every acquittal becomes final immediately upon promulgation and cannot be recalled for correction or amendment,” said the court.
It added that “with the acquittal being immediately final, granting the State’s motion for reconsideration would violate the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy because it would effectively reopen the prosecution and subject the accused to a second jeopardy despite their acquittal.”
***
The DOJ did the extraordinary in this case. Filing motions or appeals to fight an acquittal is not a normal undertaking for a public prosecutor who is considered an expert in criminal law and procedure.
What makes de Lima’s case worthy of that special attention?/PN
