To acquit former Senator Leila de Lima, there is a need for the defense to destroy the testimonies of Jovencio Ablen and Ragos, but it was not up to it. It should have introduced evidence that Ablen and Ragos were lying. There should be proof before the court that Ablen and Ragos have an axe to grind against De Lima hence they were testifying falsely to get back at De Lima. There is nothing in the record establishing those exculpatory evidence. They remained unrebutted.
The court in its decision acquitting De Lima reasoned out that the testimony of Ragos was necessary for any conviction. It added that since Ragos recanted his previous testimony done under oath and in open court, such recantation created a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
The justification of the court based alone on Ragos’ recantation is flawed on three points:
One, it is incorrect for the court to say that the previous testimony of Ragos is necessary to render a judgment of conviction. The court is forgetting that it was not only Ragos who testified that he delivered the P10 million on two occasions. Ablen also testified that he was with Ragos when the said amount was delivered to De Lima. His testimony jibes with Ragos’ in every detail of the circumstances surrounding the delivery of the drug money to De Lima. Even without the testimony of Ragos, Ablen’s testimony which was not rebutted nor demolished by the defense is sufficient to establish that De Lima received the P10 million coming from the drug lords, which receipt proved that she was part of the illegal drug trafficking inside the NBP, establishing therefore the conspiracy in committing the crime.
Two, the recantation of Ragos according to him was made by him because his original testimony in court was not voluntarily given he having been coerced or forced by the then Secretary of Justice Vitaliano Aguirre. There is however no evidence on record, whether documentary or testimonial, other than his own self-serving allegation that he was indeed forced or coerced into lying when he testified in court against De Lima. To justify the recantation of Ragos, the defense should have given proof of the coercion and/or intimidation done to make him testify falsely against De Lima, but it failed. The court cannot be giving weight to a serious allegation of coercion and intimidation without any evidence to back it up.
For the court to impair the previous testimony of Ragos without proof is to blatantly violate the rules on evidence and jurisprudence. To rule that the recantation of witness Ragos, without an accompanying evidence validating the claim of coercion and intimidation, is gross ignorance of the law.
Three, the coercion and intimidation of Ragos which led him to recant or reverse his previous testimony not only was not proven in court, but such coercive factor was rebutted in court by the Public Attorney’s Office lawyer, Demiteer Huerta, who assisted him in court in executing his sworn statement stating, among other things, the circumstances that led to his — and Ablen’s delivery of the P10 million. Huerta testified that he helped Ragos in drafting his affidavit, the truth of the contents of which was sworn to before him.
He also testified that Ragos went to the PAO office to make a supplemental sworn statement confirming the contents of the affidavit of Ablen and that Ragos sworn before him on the truth of the allegations contained in his supplemental affidavit.
Moreover, the Muntinlupa court should have taken judicial notice of the fact that Ragos after his testimony before the court and long after the then Justice Secretary Aguirre, the official whom Ragos claimed to have forced him to testify falsely against De Lima, was replaced as head of the justice department, repeated his court testimony before the investigating committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
If it is true that he was coerced by Aguirre and he was afraid of him as he had still the power and influence as his boss hence he could not expose the coercion for fear of reprisal, why then did he not come forward and told the truth after Aguirre’s departure from office?
Instead, in the interregnum between his court testimony and his recantation, he testified, again willingly and voluntarily, and repeated the same damaging testimony before the congressional bodies.
That very significant circumstance should have raised the red flag in the mind of the court but it incredibly ignored it. Collating the evidence extant on record, the quantum of proof required for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt is robustly present.
(To be continued)