The acquittal of disgraced former justice secretary and ex-senator Leila de Lima by a Muntinlupa City court, the second of three illegal drug cases filed against her, drew congratulatory messages from opposition allies who could not resist pontificating that justice has been rendered by the acquittal.
One lady senator was quoted as saying in reference to the acquittal:
“Though the course is long, justice is finally prevailing… The false narrative and web of lies that led to her imprisonment is finally being undone. “She added that she’s confident that De Lima will get full vindication and eventual liberty, in reference to the latter’s 3rd drug case. Being an incorrigible oppositionist and not being a lawyer, one can understand the absence of factual basis and depth of her allegation that falsehood was the basis of the incarceration of her former colleague.
The accused underwent administrative and judicial processes in the determination of probable cause before she was clamped in jail.
Another senator belonging to the minority paid tribute to the court rendering the favorable judgment “for being true to its mandate to dispense justice without fear or favor by strictly following the evidence.”
This gentleman lawmaker, who is a lawyer, may not have read the decision in full, because if he did, the court’s gross failure to strictly observe the rules on evidence particularly in the evaluation of the recantation of a previous testimony made under oath and in court, would have not escaped his legal mind.
Another former opposition senator who was a former secretary of justice expressed hope that the accused would be granted bail in her third drug case since the principal witness had already recanted, adding that the charges being fabricated, the officials of the previous administration responsible for filing them should be held accountable. Either this lawyer is biased in favor of a fellow party member and former fellow senator or there is a need for him to go back to law school to brush up with his rules on evidence.
Another scoundrel of a lawmaker, rejected by the electorate for a return to his former position and who has a reputation for spreading lies against his political opponent expressed elation over the acquittal and tweeted on his Instagram that “redemption and vindication” for the accused is in the offing, putting an end to her incarceration.
Another former anti-Duterte administration opposition joined in the chorus saying that the acquittal was a welcome development even if it had taken years for the court to render the verdict. He chimed in: We have from Day 1 called for the dismissal of the charges but, as the saying goes, better late than never. “He obviously has forgotten his procedural law and opted to be a misguided partisan for the detained lawmaker.”
A member of Congress from Albay, echoing the same opposition line, stated: “It is long overdue, given there was no case in the first place as the witnesses were just forced to lie in court. “Apparently, he has not read the case as well, making allegations not supported by court records.”
Having been trained in law, this writer went over the decision of the court to examine the testimonies as narrated by the latter in its recitation of facts as well as the arguments propounded by it in support of the exoneration.
Let us put them under a microscope in a manner of speaking and see if the decision is in accord with the facts and the law.
(To be continued)