The botched prosecution vs de Lima
IN I TS decision acquit t i ng former senator Leila de Lima, the Muntinlupa court conceded that illegal drug trading exists from within the confines of the Bureau of Corrections.
What remained to be shown was that conspiracy exists between de Lima and the drug lords.
The Department of J ustice presented two crucial witnesses to prove that Sen. Leila de Lima profited directly from drug trading.
***
J ovencio “J un” Ablen, an intelligence agent of the National Bureau of Investigation, testified that in November 2012 Deputy Director Rafael Ragos picked him up from his house to deliver five million pesos to the house of de Lima in Parañaque. He said he saw Ragos hand a bag containing the money to Ronnie Dayan, de Lima’s assistant, who in turn tried to turn it over to de Lima.
Ablen further testified that in December 2022 he was again summoned by Ragos to accompany him to de Lima’s house to deliver money. He said that upon approaching the pedestrian gate he saw Ragos hand Dayan a transparent plastic bag containing five million pesos.
***
Ragos testified that he found a black bag in his bedroom. It contained bundles of money. His own staff could not identify the origins of the bag. He later received a call from Hans Tan, a high-profile drug i nmate, who told him to deliver the five million pesos to Dayan and de Lima.
He was able to make the delivery to de Lima’s gated residence because he was a frequent visitor, and the guards were familiar with him.
Ragos made a second delivery of five million pesos in December also upon instructions of the same Hans Tan.
***
That was all that the prosecution had to link de Lima to drug lords: testimonial or anecdotal evidence.
NBI agent Ablen could only testify that he saw Ragos give money to Day an. He had no knowledge of its source. He could not say whether it came from drugs or lottery winnings.
Only Ragos had personal knowledge of the illegal source of the money – that is if his original testimony is to be believed.
***
When the Duterte administration ended, Ragos submitted another affidavit, this time to belie his previous testimony.
He recalled that the only time that he was inside the house of de Lima was to help with Christmas decorations. He was never with Jovencio Ablen in that house.
Ragos said that in September 2016, as the House of Representatives was about to hold hearings on the illegal drug trade, he was ordered by Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre II to attend a meeting at a casino in Parañaque with Ablen and then NBI intelligence director Dante Gierran.
***
Ragos said that he was directed to execute an affidavit to corroborate the statement of Ablen. Present in that meeting to secure his statement were lawyers from the Public Attorneys Office.
He said he was pressured to cooperate with Aguirre because of threats of prosecution for the same offense of illegal drug trade.
***
The prosecutors presented a PAO lawyer to rebut the recantation of Ragos.
What it achieved, however, appears to be the opposite.
The lawyer confirmed Ragos’ recantation on material points: they were instructed to proceed to the casino to assist someone execute an affidavit; they were introduced by Aguirre to Ragos who said he would execute an affidavit to confirm the narration in the affidavit of Ablen; they interviewed Ragos who then signed and subscribed his affidavit after it was printed.
***
The judge had a choice: acquit de Lima or rely solely on the flipflopping testimony of Ragos and declare, beyond a reasonable doubt, that de Lima conspired with drug lords in the trading of illegal drugs.
That was an easy decision to make./