Case Digest (G.R. No. 229781)
Facts:
Senator Leila M. De Lima v. Hon. Juanita Guerrero, G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017, Supreme Court En Banc, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Senator Leila M. De Lima (petitioner) sought relief under Rule 65, asking this Court to annul an RTC judge's probable-cause order, the arrest warrant issued thereon (both dated February 23, 2017), and the commitment order dated February 24, 2017, and to prohibit further proceedings in Criminal Case No. 17-165 (People v. De Lima, et al.).The background is not disputed. Following media and legislative hearings about drug syndicates inside New Bilibid Prison (NBP), several complaints were filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ): VACC (NPS No. XVI-INV-16J-00313), Reynaldo Esmeralda and Ruel Lasala (NPS No. XVI-INV-16J-00315), Jaybee Sebastian (NPS No. XVI-INV-16K-00331), and the NBI (NPS No. XVI-INV-16K-00336). The DOJ consolidated the matters and a DOJ Panel of Prosecutors conducted preliminary investigation and, in its Joint Resolution dated February 14, 2017, recommended filing informations.
On February 17, 2017 the DOJ Panel filed three informations, one of which (Criminal Case No. 17-165) charged petitioner, Rafael Ragos and Ronnie Dayan with violation of Section 5 (sale/trading) in relation to Section 3(jj), Section 26(b) and Section 28 of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal drug trading), alleging, inter alia, deliveries of large sums (P5,000,000, P5,000,000 and weekly P100,000 “tara”) from high‑profile inmates to petitioner through intermediaries. On February 20 petitioner moved to quash the information, contending lack of RTC jurisdiction, defects in the information and evidentiary insufficiencies.
On February 23 the RTC, Branch 204 (Hon. Juanita Guerrero), issued an order finding probable cause and directed issuance of arrest warrants; a warrant (no bail recommended) issued that day. The PNP served the warrant and on February 24 the judge ordered petitioner committed to the PNP Custodial Center. Petitioner filed the present Rule 65 petition on February 27, 2017 asking the Court to annul the RTC orders and prohibit further proceedings, and for injunctive interim relief.
Respondents (through the Office of the Solicitor General) opposed, arguing petitioner had other plain, speedy and adequate remedies and that the trial court had jurisdiction and did not commit grave abuse in finding probable cause. The Solicitor General also alleged petitioner falsified jurats attached ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether petitioner may bypass the hierarchy of courts and directly invoke the Supreme Court when the Court of Appeals and the trial court have not finally acted.
- Whether the pendency of petitioner’s Motion to Quash before the RTC renders the Rule 65 petition premature.
- Whether the filing of this petition while the motion to quash was pending constitutes willful and deliberate forum shopping.
- Whether the RTC as opposed to the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction to try the offense charged (violation of R.A. No. 9165, Sec. 5, in relation to Sec. 3(jj), Sec. 26(b) and Sec. 28).
- Whether respondent Judge gravely abused her discretion in finding probable cause and ordering petitioner’s arrest.
- Whether petitioner is entitled to a TRO, preliminary in...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)