MANILA (Philippine Daily Inquirer/Asia News Network): A trial must come to an end at some point, a lawyer for former Sen Leila de Lima (pic) said on Wednesday (April 19) after the Department of Justice (DOJ) panel of prosecutors filed a motion to reopen one of her two remaining illegal drug cases that both parties had agreed to submit for resolution.
In the motion of vehement opposition filed by lawyer Teddy Esteban Rigoroso before the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 204, he noted that the proposed new witness the DOJ panel wanted to present to the court did not guarantee “any substantial new information worth another lengthy cross-examination.”
“The panel already had their opportunity to debunk and address the testimony of witness [former Bureau of Corrections officer in charge Rafael Ragos].
"In fact, they had four full morning hearing dates to do so. The panel also failed to even explain the substance of the testimony of Atty. [Demeeter] Huerta and the additional matters that would be raised. This failure highlights the whimsical nature of the motion,” the motion added.
During a hearing on Monday, the court announced that the decision on De Lima’s Criminal Case No. 17-165 would be promulgated on May 12, as agreed upon by both the defence and prosecution.
However, the prosecutor filed an omnibus motion for reconsideration after the hearing, saying they wanted to present Huerta, the officer in charge of the Public Attorney’s Office administrative service.
According to Rigoroso, Huerta was not exactly new to the prosecution, as he had been in “close and even direct contact with the panel” during the time they subjected Ragos to cross-examination.
Ragos had earlier testified that he delivered P5 million in drug money to De Lima for her senatorial campaign in 2016, although he later recanted his testimony.
“He [Huerta] was already known to the panel at the time they agreed to have the instant case submitted for resolution. In fact, Atty. Huerta was present inside the courtroom when Ragos testified on his recantation as [a] witness for accused [Ronnie Palisoc Dayan],” De Lima’s coaccused, he said in the motion.
“The panel should have known, as of 17 April 2023, that his testimony will be material, if at all, for the panel of prosecutors and should have pleaded [with] the court to allow them to present him as a rebuttal witness — instead of manifesting their agreement to consider the case closed and submitting the entire case for decision,” he added.
Rigoroso said that the prosecution was in a “perfect situation” to determine Huerta’s value as a witness but they chose not to.
