Leila de Lima acquitted again of drug case after CA remand

(1st UPDATE) In May, a Court of Appeals division remanded De Lima’s case to the lower court and ordered the judge to write a new decision

MANILA, Philippines – The Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC) has acquitted former senator and incoming Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Representative Leila de Lima of her drug charge, months after the Court of Appeals (CA) remanded her case to the lower court.

“WHEREFORE, both accused Leila M. De Lima y Magistrado and Ronnie Palisoc Dayan are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt,” Muntinlupa RTC Branch 204 Presiding Judge Abraham Joseph Alcantara wrote in a decision dated Friday, June 27.

De Lima and Dayan are acquitted again in their case filed under former president Rodrigo Duterte’s term for alleged illegal drug trading under the comprehensive dangerous drugs act of 2002.

In May, the CA Eighth Division voided the decision that acquitted De Lima and Dayan in May 2023. The CA division also remanded the case to the RTC and ordered Alcantara to write a new decision.

This CA decision did not bring De Lima back to detention as her acquittal in all of her Duterte-time three drug cases were still in effect, according to her defense.

Two years after her freedom in 2023, De Lima ran and won as Mamamayang Liberal’s 1st nominee in 2025, and is set to make a comeback as a lawmaker in the coming 20th Congress.

She will be part of the House’s prosecution team for the upcoming impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte.

Reasonable doubt

When the CA ordered the remanding, it also told Judge Alcantara to rewrite the decision as the earlier one was said to have scant details as to why De Lima’s acquittal was justified. 

The CA also said that in acquitting De Lima, the judge relied “solely” on the recantation of star witness and former Bureau of Corrections Rafael Ragos, and did not expound how else the former senator was not guilty.

In the new ruling, De Lima and Dayan were acquitted by court due to reasonable doubt. The required threshold of evidence in convicting people for crimes is beyond reasonable doubt. 

The case stemmed from De Lima’s alleged involvement in the illegal drug trade inside the New Bilibid Prison (NBP). 

In the ruling, the court said the prosecution successfully proved the existence of illegal drug trading inside the national penitentiary. However, they failed to prove a conspiracy between De Lima and Dayan with direct participants of the illegal drug trade. 

The prosecution needed to prove this alleged conspiracy because they charged De Lima and Dayan as conspirators in the alleged crime. 

Again, the court took note of the recantation of Ragos, who took back his allegation against De Lima.

In the case, the prosecution presented two witnesses: Ragos and an intelligence agent. 

However, between the two, Ragos, was the only one with personal knowledge about the supposed source of money of the drug trade. But then again, Ragos recanted his testimony and the court said this affected the credibility of his statement — therefore, the prosecution can no longer rely on his statement to prove the alleged crime. 

The court explained that Ragos’ testimony was necessary to sustain any possible conviction. And without his testimony, the “crucial link” to establish conspiracy is marred with reasonable doubt, said the court.

In addition, Judge Alcantara said Rago’s recantation created reasonable doubt which caused acquittal for both De Lima and Dayan. 

“With due respect to the Honorable CA, the original decision of this Court was clear and unequivocal on this very basic essential point, i.e., the recantation already created reasonable doubt. The extended discussion under this revised Decision does not deviate nor change the elementary basis for the acquittal,” the decision read. 

“In fact, the basis remains completely the same from the original Decision. Thus, the undersigned Presiding Judge humbly submits that the original Decision already clearly and distinctly stated the facts and law upon which it was based,” it added. – Rappler.com