The DOJ’s Walking Dead Case: De Lima’s Freedom Haunted by Zombie Prosecutors

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — July 19, 2025

SEVEN years, three acquittals, and a DOJ that’s more relentless than a teleserye villain clawing back from the grave—Leila de Lima’s saga is a legal thriller dripping with suspense and constitutional carnage. The Department of Justice’s latest motion for reconsideration (MR), filed on July 14, 2025, without the Office of the Solicitor General’s (OSG) stamp of approval, smells like a political hit job (Rappler, July 15, 2025). This isn’t just an appeal; it’s a rogue prosecutorial stunt that’s got De Lima’s camp loading up for a misconduct lawsuit.

Grab your popcorn as we carve through this judicial mess with a constitutional scalpel, Kweba ni Barok style, exposing the DOJ’s desperation and De Lima’s defiance in a courtroom cage match for the ages.

I. Slicing Open the Battlefield: De Lima vs. DOJ’s Relentless Assault

De Lima’s War Cry: Constitutional Swords Drawn

De Lima’s team isn’t just fighting back—they’re ready to torch the DOJ’s playbook with legal napalm. Their arguments are forged in constitutional iron, backed by precedent that hits like a sledgehammer:

Triple Jeopardy: A Constitutional Slaughter
The 1987 Constitution’s Article III, Section 21 is a fortress: “No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense” (1987 Philippine Constitution). De Lima’s camp screams “third jeopardy,” and they’ve got a point. Acquitted in 2023, slapped with a Court of Appeals (CA) remand in April 2025, and now dodging another DOJ MR after a June 2025 acquittal? It’s not justice—it’s a legal horror show.

The Supreme Court’s People v. Ylagan (58 Phil. 851, 1934) drops the guillotine: “An acquittal is final. Full stop.” The DOJ’s refusal to quit is a brazen assault on this sacred rule.

Prosecutorial Misconduct: DOJ’s Dirty Playbook Exposed
Rule 5.06 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) forbids prosecutors from filing baseless motions to harass (CPRA, 2023). De Lima’s lawyer, Dino de Leon, brands this “persecution,” and it’s hard to argue when the DOJ keeps swinging at a case gutted by recantations.

Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice (G.R. No. 132601, 1999) lays it bare: prosecutors are “ministers of justice, not persecution.” Filing an MR without OSG backing? That’s not zeal—it’s a rogue op that stinks of bad faith.

Ragos’ Recantation: The DOJ’s Case Implodes
Rafael Ragos, the prosecution’s former golden boy, dropped a legal bombshell in 2022, swearing he was coerced by ex-Justice Secretary Vitaliano Aguirre to frame De Lima (Rappler, July 15, 2025). This recantation was the “first chip to fall,” crumbling all three cases.

Muntinlupa RTC Judge Abraham Joseph Alcantara leaned hard on it in his June 27, 2025, acquittal, citing “reasonable doubt” as bright as a Manila sunrise. The DOJ’s cry that Ragos’ flip shouldn’t count now is pathetic—like a boxer begging for a rematch after a knockout.

Courts have long upheld recantations when coercion is credible (People v. Echavez, G.R. No. 117162, 1997). The DOJ’s “but why believe him NOW?” whining is legal fan fiction at its worst.

DOJ’s House of Cards: A Facade That Crumbles

The DOJ wants you to think they’re just upholding justice, but their case is flimsier than a wet paper bag. Let’s give them a moment before we shred it:

“Procedural Purity” or Legal Smoke and Mirrors?
The DOJ leans on Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, arguing the RTC’s June acquittal didn’t properly dissect Ragos’ recantation against his original testimony (Rules of Court). The CA’s April 2025 remand for “insufficient analysis” gives them a sliver of ground.

But here’s the gut punch: Tano v. CA (G.R. No. 110249, 1994) warns that procedural games can’t crush substantive rights. Demanding an acquittal decision longer than a law school thesis to justify reasonable doubt is a sneaky appeal of an acquittal—a constitutional taboo.

The CA’s remand was a procedural Hail Mary; the DOJ’s MR is just piling on the absurdity.

“Reasonable Certainty” or Desperate Grasping?
The DOJ’s 2024 Circular No. 015 demands prima facie evidence for prosecution (DOJ Circulars). But Ragos’ recantation blows their case to smithereens, leaving them clinging to the ghost of his coerced testimony.

This isn’t justice; it’s a legal circus act for political spectators. Mendoza v. People (G.R. No. 197293, 2014) is blunt: courts only need reasonable doubt, not a novel. The DOJ’s obsession with “comparing statements” is a flimsy excuse to keep this zombie case shambling.

II. Inside the DOJ’s Twisted Mind: A Vendetta in Legal Drag

The DOJ’s MR is cloaked in legal jargon, but it’s as transparent as a Manila Bay sunset. Their claim that the RTC didn’t “compare” Ragos’ statements is procedural nitpicking so weak it could collapse under a stiff breeze.

Mendoza v. People already settled this: a court’s job is to find reasonable doubt, not to psychoanalyze witnesses for 50 pages. The real motive? Keeping De Lima in the crosshairs for daring to probe Duterte’s drug war.

The OSG’s absence in the MR is a neon-lit clue—since when do DOJ prosecutors go rogue on appeals? (Rappler, July 15, 2025). This smells like a political grudge dressed in legal robes.

The backstory screams vendetta. De Lima’s 2017 arrest followed her Duterte investigations like a scripted sequel. The DOJ’s relentless pursuit, sans OSG, suggests they’re answering to ghosts of the Duterte era, not justice.

As former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay put it, “A judgment of acquittal should not be subject to appeal” for lacking a long-winded explanation (Facebook Post). This isn’t prosecutorial duty—it’s a political hit job with a DOJ letterhead.

III. Dropping the Gavel: How to Slay This Legal Monster

For the Courts: End the Circus Now
The Supreme Court needs to channel Crespo v. Mogul (G.R. No. L-53373, 1987) and remind everyone that trial courts own their judgments. The CA’s remand was a stretch—former Justice Adolfo Azcuna called it a misapplication of “grave abuse of discretion” (Research Materials). The SC must shut this down before it becomes a blueprint for judicial coups.
For De Lima: Unleash Legal Hell
File a Rule 140 complaint against these prosecutors for abuse of process (Rules of Court, Rule 140), or go full scorched-earth with an Article 32 Civil Code suit for violating her constitutional rights (Civil Code of the Philippines). The DOJ’s harassment is a textbook case for damages—make them bleed.
For the Public: Spy on the OSG
Watch the OSG like hawks. If they don’t back an appeal of the MR’s inevitable denial, it’s proof this was always a political witch hunt. Demand accountability, because a rogue DOJ threatens everyone’s freedom.

IV. Wildcard Showdown: What If the Supreme Court Steps Into the Ring?

If the Supreme Court takes this case, it’s a legal cage match with seismic stakes. Former Justice Azcuna’s critique—that the CA botched “grave abuse of discretion” to meddle in an acquittal—could be the SC’s battle plan (Abogado.com).

They could uphold the RTC’s acquittal, reinforce Ylagan’s double jeopardy shield, and slap the CA for overreach. But if they buy the DOJ’s procedural sob story, they risk opening a Pandora’s box where every acquittal needs a 50-page manifesto to survive.

That’s not justice—it’s a bureaucratic nightmare. The SC’s ruling could either lock in De Lima’s freedom or hand prosecutors a playbook to torment defendants forever. Stay tuned—this thriller’s got one hell of a third act.

Final Zinger:

The DOJ’s gripping this case like a soap opera villain who refuses to die. But justice isn’t a teleserye cliffhanger—it’s a constitutional vow. Time for the courts to drop the curtain on De Lima’s persecution and remind the DOJ: theshow’s over.

Key Citations

1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 21: Double jeopardy protection. Available here.
Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA), Rule 5.06: Prohibits meritless motions. Available here.
Rules of Court, Rule 37: Governs motions for reconsideration. Available here.
Rules of Court, Rule 140: Disciplinary actions against judges and prosecutors. Available here.
Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 32: Liability for violating constitutional rights. Available here.
DOJ Circular No. 015, 2024: Requires prima facie evidence for prosecution. Available here.
People v. Ylagan, 58 Phil. 851 (1934): Acquittals are final. Available here.
Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. 132601 (1999): Prosecutors as ministers of justice. Available here.
Tan v. CA, G.R. No. 110249 (1994): Procedural changes can’t impair substantive rights. Available here.
Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 199075 (2014): Reasonable doubt suffices for acquittal. Available here.
Crespo v. Mogul, G.R. No. L-53373 (1987): Trial courts control their judgments. Available here.
People v. Echavez, G.R. No. 117162 (1997): Credibility of recantations. Available here.
Rappler, “De Lima camp considering suing prosecutors for misconduct,” July 15, 2025: Reports DOJ’s MR and OSG absence. Available here.

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.