Press Release
May 13, 2022

Transcript: Interview with Atty. Rolly Francis Peoro, Sen. Leila de Lima's Legal Counsel
Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court
13 May 2022

Question: Atty. Rolly, so what happened today?

Atty. Rolly Peoro: Good morning. In today's hearing, it is the initial presentation of defense evidence.

Atty. Haidee Soriano presented Ronnie Dayan as their first witness. Ronnie Dayan is one of the accused in this case, Criminal Case 165. So inaffirm lang yung kanilang judicial affidavit. They adopted the judicial affidavit as a direct testimony of Ronnie Dayan. In capsule, there are three (3) critical clarifications dun sa judicial affidavit ni Ronnie Dayan.

First, he confirms that there was no delivery of ten million to him or to Senator Leila de Lima. That's the first.

Second, his testimony before the Congressional hearing in September 2016 was all forced and due to intimidation. So nirecant niya lahat yung sinasabi niya. The testimony was not voluntary.

And the third material clarification is that he has no connection or transaction with the Bilibid inmates. So yun yung mga naging tenor or clarifications sa kanyang twenty-plus pages na judicial affidavit.

Question: Atty., how consistent is his judicial affidavit with the recantation of Rafael Ragos?

Atty. Peoro: It is very consistent, very parallel.

Actually, it confirms yung sinasabi ko kanina na wala talagang delivery to Senator Leila De Lima.

In fact, nagbigay pa ng clarification si Ronnie Dayan sa kanyang judicial affidavit. Hindi talaga puwedeng mangyari yung delivery na sinasabi ni Rafael Ragos before the recantation kasi sobrang higpit ng security doon sa sinasabing delivery area doon sa subdivision ni Senator Leila de Lima. So they go hand in hand, they confirm that the testimony regarding the delivery was due to force and coercion by the government, against, coercion kay Ragos and kay Ronnie Dayan.

Question: By whom? Did he mention kung sino ang nag-coerce sa kanya?

Atty. Peoro: Kay RD [Ronnie Dayan], sa kanyang judicial affidavit, hindi niya sinabi kung sino yung nag-coerce. But ang sinabi niyang coercion and force was in his testimony in the September 2016 Congressional Hearing. It was stated there na si Congressman Rey Umali ang nagsabi sa kanya na umayon siya sa kuwento ni Kerwin Espinosa.

Question: Unfortunately, si Congressman Umali is now dead.

Atty. Peoro: Yes.

Question: So how do you intend to corroborate that particular testimony?

Atty. Peoro: Sa amin, wala kaming paraan para mag-corroborate because nga with the death of Rey Umali. But this is all consistent with the testimony of Kerwin Espinosa, Rafael Ragos and now Ronnie Dayan na different members of the government are doing their part to coerce the witnesses against Senator Leila de Lima.

Question: With the testimony of Dayan and the recantation of Ragos, are you confident that the Court will reverse the earlier denial of demurrer to evidence or would grant your new motion to dismiss the case?

Atty. Peoro: We are hoping in our arguments, we are very confident that these new developments will give us a favorable ruling regarding our Manifestation and Motion for another look for our Demurrer and Bail Motion.

Question: May setting na ba doon?

Atty. Peoro: Wala pa. Hindi siya na-tackle this morning. It was all for the testimony of Ronnie Dayan. Yun ang nangyari. But we already filed that last week, regarding the recantation. We are hoping that sooner, mabigyan na ng Resolution. Ang tinitingnan kasi namin, the decision of the Court denying our Demurrer and our Bail Motion, it was anchored on the testimony of Rafael Ragos�na sinasabi niya, nagkaroon ng delivery, so the Court, doon siya nag-anchor na may delivery, so we need to rebut that.

But the recantation, and the testimony of Ronnie Dayan ngayon, malakas yung aming palagay na dapat at the very least ma-grant 'yung aming Bail Motion.

Question: After po ng presentation nitong evidence ni Ronnie Dayan, when are you expected to present your own evidence?

Atty. Peoro: Based on our records, there is one more witness for Atty. Haidee (Soriano) for Ronnie Dayan. Siguro mga July na kami to present our first witness, and we are just still studying kung sino yung mga mauuna sa aming mga witnesses. Hopefully, matapos na talaga si Atty. Soriano and pending those cross examinations and presentation of evidence, ma-grant man lang yung aming Motion or hopefully, ma-dismiss na yung kaso.

Wala na kasi e. There is no reasonable, there is no more substantial evidence, much more strong evidence against Senator Leila de Lima.

Question: So, simultaenous po doon sa mga ongoing hearings, you're also waiting for any action doon po sa Motion to Dismiss the cases and makapag-bail?

Atty. Peoro: Yes. So, just to clarify, ongoing yung Presentation of Defense Evidence pero mayroong parallel, may pending incident regarding our Manifestation and Motion. The motion calls for, first, outright dismissal, or at the very least, provisional liberty of Senator Leila de Lima.

Question: Sir, doon sa isang case, bail hearings na ba ang nasa [Criminal Case No.] 167?

Atty. Peoro: Yes, a way of background, we have three criminal cases, the 166 is already dismissed. This current case 165 is ongoing the defense evidence, presentation of defense evidence. And there is still one case, 167, bail hearing pa rin tayo doon. It will resume on May 30, ipre-present nila ulit si Joel Capones.

If you can recall, the presentation of Joel Capones was reset dahil hindi siya mapresent nung last setting due to security concerns.

Question: Wala pang timeline dun, Sir?

Atty. Peoro: Wala pa. We're hoping that within this year, sana magkaroon ng Resolution sa aming bail motion. ###


[Transcript] Ambush Interview with Atty. Haidee Soriano, Ronnie Dayan's Legal Counsel Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court 13 May 2022

Atty. Soriano: I presented Ronnie Dayan as our 1st witness for our defense pero hindi siya natapos dahil may kailangan pang i-secure yung Prosecution na certified true copy, yung transcript from the Congressional inquiry, dahil yun yung bulk ng kanilang cross-examination, since photocopy lang yung hawak nila kaya kailangan ma-present yung original para makapag-stipulate kami kung may pwede ma-stipulate from that document.

Question: Essentially, ano pong laman ng affidavit ni Ronnie Dayan na inaffirm earlier today?

Atty. Soriano: Yung affidavit na tinutukoy kanina ng Prosecution is yung affidavit na inexecute niya allegedly doon sa Congressional inquiry, nung after siyang maaresto, dinala siya sa holding room and pinag-execute siya ng kaniyang affidavit na may mga naglalaman doon about doon sa drug activities.

Actually, maraming contents yung affidavit na yun. Although according to Mr. Dayan, yun ay product ng parang pagfo-force sa kanya ni Congressman Umali, na isama sa affidavit yung mga statements. May mga statement na parang upon the dictate of Congressman Umali, according to Ronnie Dayan.

Question: So nung pnresent po kanina si Ronnie Dayan, aling affidavit na inaffirm nya?

Atty. Soriano: Yung pnresent ko sya, yung inaffirm nya ay yung judicial affidavit nya na pnrepare ko as his counsel, for purposes of his testimony ngayon.

Pero may isang affidavit kasi na pinagmulan ng cross-examination questions ng Prosecution which affidavit is actually the affidavit that was executed by Ronnie Dayan way back 2016 yata noong nagkaroon ng Congressional inquiry tungkol sa drug trading activities sa Bilibid.

Question: Yung judicial affidavit in essence, anong sinasabi nito?

Atty. Soriano: Yung judicial affidavit, in essence, is dinedeny niya yung allegations ng mga witnesses na may nangyaring deliveries of money na ni-receive daw niya allegedly from the drug activities.

Basically, iyon. Kasi iyon lang naman yung essence nung Information that is filed against him sa kasong ito, yung may delivery of money na siya yung tumanggap for and in behalf of Senator De Lima.

Question: Atty., consistent po ba yung naging judicial affidavit niya sa recantation ni Rafael Ragos?

Atty. Soriano: Yes, yes.

Question: Papaano po, can you explain?

Atty. Soriano: Kasi si Ronnie Dayan, was very consistent in denying na nagkaroon nga ng delivery or tumanggap siya mula kay Ragos ng pera para kay Secretary De Lima.

Yung yung content ng kanyang judicial affidavit. At nag-cocoincide actually sya dun sa recantation dahil inamin nga naman ni Mr. Ragos na he was actually forced by some authorities para mag-execute ng ganung salaysay din.

Question: How do you think this will affect the case both yung recantation ni Ragos and itong testimony ni Ronnie Dayan?

Atty. Soriano: Well, yung recantation naman kasi, siyempre hindi namin witness pa, hindi namin witness si Mr. Ragos. But we will try to look at the possibility na ma-avail yung recantation ni Mr. Ragos at makatulong sa defense ni Mr. Dayan.

Question: Ano po nangyari dun sa isang motion o manifestation motion na finile ng De Lima camp na asking na ibasura yung kaso on the basis of the Ragos affidavit and for the court allowing to post bail?

Atty. Soriano: Actually that is still pending. As far as I know, pending pa rin.

Question: Are you filing your own affidavit, your own motion or manifestation using Ragos's affidavit or will you join the manifestation of De Lima?

Atty. Soriano: Pinag-aaralan ko pa po at saka pag-uusapan, i-e-explain ko pa po nang mabuti kay Mr. Dayan.

Question: And yung next setting ba, what can you expect?

Atty. Soriano: The next hearing date will be on June 17 and 24.

Question: Anong i-e-expect po namin doon sa hearing na iyon?

Atty. Soriano: Next hearing, maipre-present ng prosecution yung kailangang document na hihingin nila sa Congress, yung Certified True Copy nung transcript actually nung nangyaring inquiry nung 2016 yata 'yon. Kasi doon nanggagaling lahat ng cross-examination questions ng Prosecution.

Question: Specifically, what questions po ba yung kailangang makita from the transcript?

Atty. Soriano: Doon kasi sa transcript, may portion doon na ipinabasa kay Mr. Dayan, yung pinirmahan niyang affidavit na sinasabi naman ni Mr. Dayan na yun yung ginawang affidavit na sinabihan lang sya kung ano yung sasabihin nya sa affidavit na yun ni Congressman Umali.

Question: Wala na bang copy nung affidavit na yun, Ma'am?

Atty. Soriano: Meron, actually pero ang pine-present ng Prosecution is only a photocopy kaya, hindi po kami pumayag na photocopy lang ang gamitin. Kaya ni-require rin po ng Court na mag-secure ng Certified True Copy.

Question: Ma'am para ma-refresh po, ano po yung unang affidavit, ano basically 'yung nilalaman nun?

Atty. Soriano: Yung affidavit, na sinasabi ni Mr. Dayan na ginawa para sa kaniya nung sya ay nasa holding room before the Congressional inquiry, yung affidavit na nagsasabing nagkaroon ng mga drug related activities sa Bilibid na may mga money involved.

Pero yung mga declaration na yun, yun naman yung ni-re-refute nya dito sa kanyang judicial affidavit na pinirmahan niya, na inassist ko naman siya.

Kasi I would like to emphasize na nung pnrepare yung kaniyang affidavit before the Congress, nung nasa holding area siya, ang sabi niya sa amin is that he was not assisted by a counsel of his own choice, by a competent counsel, kaya siguro naging ganun ang result na sinasabi niya na upon the dictates lang nung mga taong nakapaligid sa kaniya yung product nung kaniyang affidavit.

Question: Ma'am do you have any other witness aside from Ronnie Dayan that you will present?

Atty. Soriano: Yes, we intend to present the son of Mr. Dayan. Yung ang next na witness namin and we are contemplating on other witnesses pero yun ay ipa-finalize pa namin.

Question: Yung son, tungkol saan yung testimony?

Atty. Soriano: Yung kaniyang presence sa Pangasinan during the times ng alleged delivery of money.

Question: How about the daughter?

Atty. Soriano: Hindi ko pa siya na-ko-consider as next witness, so far, yung son pa lang. ###

News Latest News Feed