DOJ says 'status quo' in De Lima acquittal after CA decision | ABS-CBN
ADVERTISEMENT

Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
DOJ says 'status quo' in De Lima acquittal after CA decision
DOJ says 'status quo' in De Lima acquittal after CA decision
Former senator Leila De Lima, June 27, 2024. ABS-CBN News/File
.jpg)
MANILA — The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday said "status quo" would prevail in Mamamayang Liberal party-list nominee Leila de Lima's acquittal in one of her drug cases, which was remanded by the Court of Appeals to a lower court.
MANILA — The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday said "status quo" would prevail in Mamamayang Liberal party-list nominee Leila de Lima's acquittal in one of her drug cases, which was remanded by the Court of Appeals to a lower court.
"Mukhang magse-stay ang acquittal. It is believed na status quo muna ang desisyon ng RTC habang nililitis pa ito sa Court of Appeals dahil may remedy pa si De Lima na motion for reconsideration," DOJ Spokesperson Mico Clavano told reporters.
"Mukhang magse-stay ang acquittal. It is believed na status quo muna ang desisyon ng RTC habang nililitis pa ito sa Court of Appeals dahil may remedy pa si De Lima na motion for reconsideration," DOJ Spokesperson Mico Clavano told reporters.
He added that the CA decision was "not a reversal per se" of De Lima's acquittal.
He added that the CA decision was "not a reversal per se" of De Lima's acquittal.
"It is more of a remanding of the decision to clarify the decision. So yun ang procedure," Clavano said.
"It is more of a remanding of the decision to clarify the decision. So yun ang procedure," Clavano said.
ADVERTISEMENT
He said the DOJ would have a “limited” role in the CA decision.
He said the DOJ would have a “limited” role in the CA decision.
“Ang DOJ, limited ang role dahil OSG ang magha-handle ng case,” said Clavano.
“Ang DOJ, limited ang role dahil OSG ang magha-handle ng case,” said Clavano.
He added that they would have to see how the OSG reacts on the motion for reconsideration from De Lima’s camp.
He added that they would have to see how the OSG reacts on the motion for reconsideration from De Lima’s camp.
“Ang magha-handle na niyan ay nasa Office of the Solicitor-General. Maganda ring i-point out na hindi si congresswoman-elect De Lima ang party sa case na yun dahil certiorari ang finile. Kung hindi ang magiging party diyan ay judge na sinabing lumabag sa kanyang jurisdiction,” he said.
“Ang magha-handle na niyan ay nasa Office of the Solicitor-General. Maganda ring i-point out na hindi si congresswoman-elect De Lima ang party sa case na yun dahil certiorari ang finile. Kung hindi ang magiging party diyan ay judge na sinabing lumabag sa kanyang jurisdiction,” he said.
“Ang basis ng certiorari ay grave abuse of discretion ng RTC so magandang ipaliwanag yun dahil ang ibig sabihin niyan hindi ang merits ng case ng RTC ang pinag-uusapan sa CA. Ang tanong lang dun ay whether or not may grave abuse of discretion ang judge sa pag-issue,” he said.
“Ang basis ng certiorari ay grave abuse of discretion ng RTC so magandang ipaliwanag yun dahil ang ibig sabihin niyan hindi ang merits ng case ng RTC ang pinag-uusapan sa CA. Ang tanong lang dun ay whether or not may grave abuse of discretion ang judge sa pag-issue,” he said.
Clavano also noted that under the concept of double jeopardy, "You cannot be charged anymore for the same crime especially if someone had already been adjudged and acquitted in a case."
Clavano also noted that under the concept of double jeopardy, "You cannot be charged anymore for the same crime especially if someone had already been adjudged and acquitted in a case."
Former Senate President Franklin Drilon earlier in the day said the Court of Appeals’ move was due to the lack of substantive explanation on the judge’s decision and did not mean that De Lima would face retrial.
Former Senate President Franklin Drilon earlier in the day said the Court of Appeals’ move was due to the lack of substantive explanation on the judge’s decision and did not mean that De Lima would face retrial.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT