Opposition Senator Leila M. de Lima has filed a motion asking the Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 205 to reconsider its earlier decision denying her bid to post bail and junk one of her trumped-up drug cases.
In a 70-page Motion for Reconsideration filed last Feb. 22, De Lima urged Judge Liezel Aquitan to bring justice to everyone involved by correcting what she called a “clearly lopsided and logically challenged ruling.”
“This Motion for Reconsideration, therefore, is being submitted in order to give the Honorable Court the opportunity, not just to revisit the Omnibus Order or the merits of the Motions filed by Accused De Lima (one of which was even erroneously referenced as a Petition for Bail’ and not referenced even once), but also the entire records of the case,” the document read.
Judge Aquiatan recently granted De Lima’s Demurrer to Evidence in Case Number 17-166, but dismissed her demurrer and bail bid in a Joint Omnibus motion, and ordered the trial to proceed in Case Number 17-165.
In her motion, De Lima accused Aquiatan of “cherry picking” because she devoted 20 pages of the 35-page Omnibus Order “summarizing the Prosecution’s narrative without ever addressing or citing the information elicited during the witness’ testimonies that contradicted such narrative.”
In contrast, De Lima said that Aquiatan reduced her 140-page Motion for Bail and 83-page Demurrer to Evidence to half a page of enumeration, or a measly 1.4% of the discussion of facts in the Omnibus Order, that made it appear that the objections were general or motherhood statements.
“Worse, not a single reference is made to a single paragraph of Accused De Lima’s Motion for Bail ad Cautelam, which was even referenced several times in the Accused’s later-filed Demurrer to Evidence,” she said.
“This conspicuous absence, in addition to the fact that its very title was wrongly cited as a ‘Petition for Bail’ in the third line of the Omnibus Order, gives rise to doubts that it was even seen before, much less considered at all, in the drafting of the Omnibus Order,” she added.
De Lima said the courts Omnibus Order created an “unfair impression” that all the witnesses presented by the Prosecution “testified to a seamless and wholly credible narration” of her supposed guilt when, in fact, the Prosecution’s own witnesses undermined the Prosecution’s own case.
“Needless to state, such a lopsided appreciation and presentation of the narrative weaved by the prosecution vis-à-vis the records- and rules-based counter-points raised by the defense, raises grave doubts as to the validity of Court’s ultimate resolution of Accused’s Motions,” she added.
“Truly, it does not do justice to this Honorable Court, who, during the course of the trial, displayed more insight and impartiality, as when the Honorable Court pointed out the implausibility of Ragos’s claims,” she added.
It may be recalled that then Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) officer-in-charge Rafael Ragos testified that he purportedly delivered money to De Lima but the latter fell short of proving that she accepted any delivery at all.
“Again, we firmly and categorically state that those alleged deliveries did not take place, a PURE CONCOCTION by both Ragos and Ablen,” De Lima said in her motion.
Ragos was earlier tagged as an accused in the case, but the Prosecutors dropped him as De Lima’s co-accused in order to use him as a witness against her.
In asking the court to reconsider its ruling, De Lima pointed out that
“the alleged deliveries never happened, and there is no credible evidence to prove otherwise, much less of such weight as to overcome the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence, or as to remove all reasonable doubt of such guilt.”
“Case No. 165, isn’t a drugs case. Rather, it’s actually bribery involving Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) officials who took money from convicts in exchange for certain favors and privileges,” De Lima stressed.
“In truth, no doubt has been cast on the regularity of Accused De Lima’s actuations that would justify the Honorable Court in conditioning her innocence on proof of regularity,” she said. (30)