Former Senator Leila De Lima’s acquittal from one of her two remaining drug trafficking charges in May has once again put the spotlight on the Duterte administration’s alleged abuse of power and targeting of political opposition through the use of made-up crimes and convicts as state witnesses. The Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 204 recently denied the prosecution’s bid to reverse De Lima’s acquittal, citing double jeopardy protection.

The decision, dated July 6, rejected the prosecution’s motion, stating it was “denied for lack of merit.” In February 2017, the justice department filed a case against De Lima and her former driver Ronnie Dayan, accusing them of conspiring to commit illegal drug trading. However, the Muntinlupa RTC Branch 204 dismissed the case in May.

The court’s decision to dismiss the charges against De Lima was based on the recantation of one of the witnesses, former Bureau of Corrections chief Rafael Ragos. The prosecution had sought to have the court review its judgment, citing a Supreme Court statement that a witness’s recantation does not automatically invalidate their original testimony if deemed credible.

However, the Muntinlupa court stood firm on the principle that a judgment of acquittal is immediately final and unappealable upon its promulgation in criminal cases. Granting the State’s motion for reconsideration would violate the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy, subjecting the accused to a second jeopardy despite their acquittal.

The court emphasized that the rule against double jeopardy is only subject to extremely rare exceptions, such as cases involving a deprivation of due process, finding of a mistrial, or grave abuse of discretion under exceptional circumstances.