The Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court (RTC) allowed former corrections chief Rafael Ragos to proceed with his testimony and recant his allegations against former justice secretary Leila de Lima over a drug-trafficking case.

In its 4-page decision dated Oct. 18, the court junked the prosecution’s urgent motion to deny Ragos to testify.

“After a careful scrutiny of the arguments raised in the Motion, this court denies the same for lack of merit,” it said.

Ragos, the star witness of the justice department, was prevented to testify his affidavit of recantation last Sept. 30 after prosecutors filed a motion of reconsideration and opposed him from taking the witness stand.

In May this year, Ragos retracted his previous accusations against the former senator, claiming that he was threatened to invent false stories by then-former justice secretary Vitaliano Aguirre.

Three witnesses also retracted their previous testimonies against de Lima including self-confessed drug lord Kerwin Espinosa, Ronnie Dayan, and Marcelo Ardecoro.

“This Court recaps that the interests of justice would be served if the supposed recantation of Mr. Ragos will be tested in a public trial with the sufficient opportunity given the prosecution to cross-examine the recanting witness,” it said.

But the Muntinlupa RTC underscored that recantations are viewed with “suspicion” and “reservation”, noting that mere retraction does not “vitiate” the original testimony.

“The Court should determine which testimony should be given credence through a comparison of the original testimony and the new testimony, applying the general rules of evidence. Thus, Mr. Ragos must be recalled and presented in court,” it said.

It pointed out that like any other testimony, it is still subject to the test of credibility “including the demeanor of the recanting witness on the stand.”

The Muntinlupa RTC noted that to disregard testimony given in court because a witness recants, “ignores the possibility that intimidation or monetary considerations may have caused the recantation.”

“Before allowing recantation, therefore, the Court must not be too willing to accept it, but must test its value in a public trial with the sufficient opportunity given to the adverse party to cross-examine the recanting witness both upon the substance of the recantation and the motivations for it,” it added.