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.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 229781)

Petitioner, Respondents and Reliefs Sought

Petitioner sought: (1) writs of certiorari and prohibition to annul the RTC Order (finding probable cause), the warrant of arrest, and the commitment order; (2) prohibition enjoining respondent judge from proceeding further until the Motion to Quash was finally resolved; (3) TRO/preliminary injunction and status quo ante to restore petitioner’s liberty.

Key Dates

  • DOJ preliminary investigations and multiple complaints: late 2016.
  • Petition for Certiorari/Prohibition filed in the Supreme Court: February 27, 2017 (petition alleges RTC Orders dated Feb. 23–24, 2017).
  • Decision of the Supreme Court: October 10, 2017 — 1987 Constitution governs the review.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Provisions

  • 1987 Constitution (Article III, Sec. 2 — judge’s personal determination of probable cause; Article VIII, Sec. 5 — Supreme Court powers and limits).
  • Rules of Court: Rule 65 (certiorari/prohibition), Rule 112 (warrant issuance; judge’s evaluation of prosecutor’s resolution), Rule 117 (motion to quash).
  • Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), including Secs. 3(jj), 5, 26(b), 27 and 28.
  • Statutes governing Sandiganbayan jurisdiction (PD 1606 and later amendments, including RA 10660) were central to the jurisdictional dispute.

Procedural History (DOJ → RTC → SC)

  • Multiple complaints were consolidated at the DOJ; a DOJ Panel conducted preliminary investigations; petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion to endorse the cases to the Ombudsman and for inhibition (December 2016) and later declined to submit counter‑affidavits.
  • DOJ Panel recommended filing Informations (Joint Resolution, Feb. 14, 2017); three Informations were filed on Feb. 17, 2017 and one (Criminal Case No. 17‑165) was raffled to RTC, Branch 204.
  • Petitioner filed Motion to Quash (Feb. 20, 2017) challenging jurisdiction, sufficiency of the Information, hearsay/state‑witness issues, and corpus delicti.
  • RTC issued Order finding probable cause and a Warrant of Arrest (Feb. 23, 2017) and committed petitioner to PNP custody (Feb. 24, 2017).
  • Petitioner brought a Rule 65 petition directly to the Supreme Court (Feb. 27, 2017).

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

Procedural: (a) Whether petitioner violated hierarchy of courts; (b) whether petition was premature while Motion to Quash pending; (c) whether petitioner engaged in forum shopping.
Substantive: (d) Whether the RTC or Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the alleged RA 9165 violations; (e) whether the RTC judge gravely abused discretion in finding probable cause and ordering arrest; (f) whether preliminary injunctive reliefs were warranted.

Supreme Court — Threshold Procedural Rulings

  • Verification and Certification: The Court confronted allegations of a defective jurat (petitioner’s verification/certification not sworn in presence of the notary). The notary subsequently filed an affidavit explaining the circumstances. The Court found the notarization irregular and censurable (a notary must witness signature), and held that the defective jurat invalidated the verification and the sworn certification against forum shopping — procedural defects that, standing alone, could justify dismissal. The Court emphasized strict compliance but recognized the notary’s affidavit did not salvage the jurat for Rule 65 formality.
  • Hierarchy of Courts and Forum Shopping: The Court underscored adherence to the hierarchy of courts and enumerated exceptions (transcendental importance, novelty, time‑sensitive, constitutional organs, patent nullity, etc.). It found petitioner had not established an exception to bypass the Court of Appeals (petitioner had earlier filed petitions there) and judged a direct resort to the Supreme Court inappropriate.
  • Prematurity: The petition sought recall of the warrant and commitment and requested prohibition & injunction “until and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved with finality,” which the Court treated as an admission that the RTC had not yet ruled on jurisdiction. Because there was no final decision of the lower court on jurisdiction, the petition was premature under Article VIII, Sec. 5(2)(c) and Rule 65’s requirement that alternative remedies be exhausted. The Court also noted petitioner had not sought reconsideration of the RTC’s orders.

Supreme Court — Forum Shopping Determination

  • The Court found forum shopping present: identity of parties, identity of rights asserted/reliefs sought (the Motion to Quash and the petition sought substantially the same relief — nullification of the Information and restoration of liberty), and the order of filings created potential for conflicting rulings. The Court stated that the presence of simultaneous actions (RTC motion to quash plus direct petition) warranted dismissal under the anti‑forum shopping doctrine.

Supreme Court — Substantive Ruling on Jurisdiction (RTC vs Sandiganbayan)

  • The Court analyzed RA 9165 and PD 1606 / later amendments (RA 8249, RA 10660). It concluded: (a) RA 9165 expressly designates RTCs as the trial courts to be specially designated by the Supreme Court to exclusively try RA 9165 offenses (Section 90) and contains numerous provisions recognizing the RTC in drug case procedures (e.g., Sec. 20 confiscation, Secs. 61–62 commitments and referrals to the Board). (b) Sandiganbayan’s statutory jurisdiction is primarily anti‑graft and is defined by PD 1606 and subsequent amendments; it has exclusive jurisdiction over specified offenses by high‑ranking officials and certain related offenses committed in relation to office (Sec. 4), but RA 9165 specifically vests exclusive trial jurisdiction for RA 9165 offenses in designated RTCs. (c) A special law (RA 9165) that designates exclusive RTC trial jurisdiction over drug cases prevails over a general law, and there was no clear repeal of Sec. 90 of RA 9165 by later amendments to Sandiganbayan jurisdiction (RA 10660).
  • The Court therefore held that the RTC had jurisdiction over the drug offenses charged in the Information and that the Sandiganbayan does not automatically supplant RTC jurisdiction over RA 9165 cases merely because an accused is (or was) a public official.

Supreme Court — Probable Cause and Issuance of Warrant

  • Judge’s Duty: The Court reiterated that the issuing judge must personally determine probable cause before issuing a warrant, but that this personal determination may be made by a review of the prosecutor’s resolution and the supporting affidavits and documents, or by requiring supporting affidavits and/or the appearance of witnesses where the judge deems it necessary. The extent of the judge’s personal examination is fact‑sensitive. (Soliven and Allado principles were applied.)
  • Application to This Case: The Court found that the respondent judge personally evaluated the Information and “all the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation” and thus made a valid personal determination of probable cause. The Court emphasized that at the preliminary/information stage the judge need not conduct a de novo hearing or apply the strict rules of evidence applicable at trial; hearsay and testimony of co‑accused or convicted felons may be admissible and weighed in establishing probable cause. Given the DOJ Panel’s investigation and the affidavits and allegations (e.g., testimony of BuCor personnel and inmates describing deliveries of money and statements linking the proceeds to illegal drug trading), the Court concluded there was no grave abuse of discretion in the judge’s finding of probable cause and issuance of the arrest warrant. The Court underscored that evidentiary weight and credibility are for trial.

Supreme Court — Remedies and Disposition

  • The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on procedural grounds (defective verification, violation of hierarchy of courts and forum shopping, prematurity) and because the petition faile

    ...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