Title
De Lima vs. Guerrero
Case
G.R. No. 229781
Decision Date
Oct 10, 2017
Senator De Lima challenged DOJ and RTC actions in drug-related cases, alleging bias and procedural errors. Supreme Court denied her petition, upholding jurisdiction, probable cause, and procedural compliance.
de lima
guerrero
petition

Case Summary (G.R. No. 229781)

Factual Background

The salient facts are undisputed. Legislative inquiries into alleged syndicates at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) and sworn affidavits by inmates prompted consolidated complaints lodged with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ Panel of Prosecutors conducted a preliminary investigation. The Joint Resolution of the DOJ Panel recommended filing informations. The DOJ filed three informations; one, docketed Criminal Case No. 17-165, charged Leila M. De Lima, together with Rafael Marcos Z. Ragos and Ronnie Palisoc Dayan, with violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 3(jj), Section 26(b), and Section 28 of R.A. 9165, alleging that between November 2012 and March 2013 the accused conspired and, by virtue of their positions and influence, demanded and received money allegedly derived from illegal drug trading at the NBP. The Information recited specific money transfers said to have been delivered to petitioner.

Trial Court Proceedings

After the filing of the information, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash raising lack of jurisdiction and multiple defects in the information, including failure to allege corpus delicti and reliance on hearsay from inmate-witnesses. Within the ten-day period prescribed by Rule 112, Sec. 5(a), the RTC judge issued an Order dated February 23, 2017 finding probable cause and directed issuance of warrants of arrest; the warrants were served and petitioner was committed to PNP custody on February 24, 2017. Petitioner then filed this Rule 65 petition.

Issues Presented to the Court

The Court framed the procedural and substantive questions as: whether petitioner may directly resort to this Court without exhausting remedies in the lower courts; whether the pending Motion to Quash rendered the petition premature; whether the petition violated the rule against forum shopping; whether the RTC or the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the offense charged; whether respondent judge gravely abused her discretion in finding probable cause and issuing the warrant of arrest; and whether injunctive reliefs should issue pending resolution.

Petitioner’s Contentions

Petitioner argued that the DOJ lacked authority and should have endorsed the complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman; that the Information charged only conclusions and did not allege the corpus delicti of any specific dangerous drug or the elements of illegal trading; that her Motion to Quash raised the jurisdictional defect that the RTC could not resolve; that respondent judge should have resolved the motion to quash before issuing an arrest warrant; that the certiorari petition was properly verified and not forum shopping; and that the warrant and commitment orders were void for want of probable cause.

Respondents’ Contentions

Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, urged dismissal of the petition on procedural grounds, principally that petitioner had other plain, speedy and adequate remedies and that she violated the rule on hierarchy of courts and committed forum shopping by seeking relief here while the Motion to Quash and a petition before the Court of Appeals remained pending. On the merits respondents defended the RTC's jurisdiction over R.A. 9165 offences and maintained that the respondent judge personally evaluated the DOJ resolution and supporting evidence within the ten-day period and did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The OSG also urged that the evidentiary weight of the inmate-witnesses sufficed to establish probable cause at the preliminary-investigation stage.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

By a majority the Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court first confronted allegations that petitioner falsified jurats and held that the Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping were not properly notarized because petitioner did not sign in the notary's presence, rendering the jurat invalid under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; the Court emphasized that a defective verification may render a petition an unsigned pleading. On that procedural ground alone the petition was immediately dismissible. The Court, however, proceeded to rule on the substantive questions, and held alternatively that the petition would fail on multiple independent grounds. The Court therefore denied relief and directed the RTC to proceed with dispatch with Criminal Case No. 17-165.

Legal Basis and Reasoning — Procedural Rulings

The Court applied the Rules and its settled doctrine: a Rule 65 petition must be verified and accompanied by a sworn certification of non-forum shopping, see Rule 65, Rules of Court. Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice a jurat requires the affiant to sign in the presence of the notary; petitioner's notarizations did not comply and the Court emphasized William Go Que Construction v. Court of Appeals and related authority on the seriousness of defective verifications. The Court found no persuasive justification to relax strict compliance and concluded the petition could be dismissed. The Court also reiterated the importance of the doctrine on hierarchy of courts, quoted the recognized exceptions, and found that petitioner had not established any exception entitling direct resort to the Supreme Court. The petition was also premature in that petitioner sought relief that would restore her liberty and admitted in her prayer that the RTC had the authority to rule on her motion to quash "until and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved with finality," thereby binding her with an admission that the trial court was still vested to act. The Court further found petition was barred by forum shopping because the motion to quash before the RTC raised substantially the same issues and sought substantially the same reliefs as the petition before the Supreme Court.

Legal Basis and Reasoning — Substantive Rulings on Jurisdiction and Probable Cause

The majority addressed the substantive points in the alternative. It observed that the Information expressly designated the offense as a violation of R.A. No. 9165 and recited allegations treated as illegal drug trading and conspiracy. The Court reiterated that prosecutors enjoy wide prosecutorial discretion as to whether, what and whom to charge and that probable cause for filing an information during a preliminary investigation may be established by hearsay if there is substantial basis to credit it at that stage; hearsay is admissible at preliminary investigation because that stage is preliminary and not a full adjudication applying technical rules of evidence. The Court analyzed statutory jurisdiction and concluded that R.A. No. 9165 designates the RTC as the tribunal to exclusively try drug-related offenses and that Congress intended for the Supreme Court to designate special RTC branches as drug courts to handle these cases; hence the RTC of Muntinlupa had jurisdiction over the Information. The Court rejected petitioner's contention that the Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction simply because a public official is alleged to be involved, explaining that the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is defined by PD 1606, as amended, and by R.A. No. 10660, which contains limiting provisos; the Court held that the special law on dangerous drugs (R.A. No. 9165) must be read as an exception to the general law on Sandiganbayan jurisdiction and that, on the facts pleaded, the RTC was the appropriate forum. On probable cause, the Court applied the constitutional and jurisprudential test: a judge must personally determine whether facts and circumstances would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe an offense has been committed and the person to be arrested is probably guilty. The Court found no grave abuse in the RTC judge's exercise because the judge personally reviewed the Information and "all the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation," and that the evidentiary weight and credibility of inmate-witnesses are matters for trial. The Court relied on precedents that require judicial review of a prosecutor's resolution but not blind reliance upon it; the judge may request additional evidence, and here acted within the Rul

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms