Title
Supreme Court
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)

Case Background and Proceedings

Senator De Lima was charged with violation of Section 5, in relation to Sections 3(jj), 26(b), and 28 of RA 9165, concerning illegal drug trading allegedly committed in conspiracy with co-accused Rafael Ragos and Ronnie Dayan involving extortion and receiving proceeds from drug trade inside New Bilibid Prison (NBP). The DOJ Panel of Prosecutors conducted a preliminary investigation and found probable cause leading to the filing of an information with the RTC of Muntinlupa City on February 17, 2017. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash on February 20, 2017, assailing the RTC’s jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the information. The RTC issued an order finding probable cause and a warrant of arrest on February 23, 2017, which was enforced the next day, leading to petitioner’s detention. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court assailing the RTC orders and asserting procedural violations.

Verification and Forum Shopping

Petitioner’s Verification and Certification against forum shopping accompanying the petition were executed before a notary public outside conventional protocol but found to have substantial compliance given corroboration by the notary. However, petitioner admitted in said certification the pendency of a Motion to Quash before the RTC and pending petitions for certiorari before the Court of Appeals, constituting forum shopping. The Supreme Court emphasized that simultaneous remedies involving the same parties, causes, and reliefs violate the rule against forum shopping and merit dismissal. Petitioner’s failure to exhaust remedies and resort directly to this Court violated the hierarchy of courts and principles of orderly judicial procedure.

Prematurity of the Petition

The petition was ruled premature for several reasons: the RTC had yet to resolve petitioner’s Motion to Quash, which raised the jurisdictional issues now brought to the Supreme Court; the issuance of the warrant of arrest was effectively a denial of said motion, leaving no final judgment or resolution for the Court to review; and established jurisprudence requires exhaustion of remedies at the trial court level or the Court of Appeals first, except under specific exceptions not present here. The rule on hierarchy of courts and judicial prudence caution against premature action that disrupts orderly trial proceedings.

Jurisdictional Analysis – RTC Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over Drug Cases

The Supreme Court recognized that under Section 90 of RA 9165, the Supreme Court shall designate special courts from among the RTCs to exclusively try violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The RTCs designated as special drug courts have exclusive jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 regardless of the accused’s position.
This designation, administrative in nature, does not confer authority to the Sandiganbayan over drug-related offenses committed by public officials even if they hold salary Grade 27 or higher, unless the offenses fall under the jurisdiction conferred specifically to Sandiganbayan by law.
RA 9165 together with B.P. Blg. 129 confers exclusive original jurisdiction over drug cases to the RTCs and excludes them from Sandiganbayan jurisdiction. Thus, the RTC has exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165, including those by public officials who are not otherwise within Sandiganbayan jurisdiction.

Jurisdictional Analysis – Sandiganbayan’s Jurisdiction Limited to Graft and Corrupt Practices

The Court reiterated the constitutional basis and legislative history conferring jurisdiction to the Sandiganbayan which is a special court targeting high-ranking public officials charged with graft, corruption, and related crimes:

  • Exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), R.A. 1379 (Forfeiture Law), and Revised Penal Code articles on bribery when committed by certain high-ranking officials (Grade 27 or higher) in relation to their office
  • Concurrent jurisdiction over other offenses committed by such officials in relation to office
  • Provides specific exceptions transferring minor cases to the RTCs.
    It was clarified that mere position in government and salary grade do not necessarily vest jurisdiction in the Sandiganbayan for drug offenses unless specific graft or corruption charges relating to official office are involved.

Nature and Sufficiency of the Information Filed Against Petitioner

The Information charges petitioner as having committed illegal drug trading under Section 5 of RA 9165 which punishes sale, trade, and similar acts involving dangerous drugs. Section 3(jj) defines “trading” as transactions involving illegal trafficking of drugs using electronic devices or acting as broker. Section 26 penalizes conspiracy or attempt to commit illegal drug trafficking.
The Supreme Court analyzed that:

  • The Information alleges petitioner demanded and received money from high-profile NBP inmates to support her senatorial bid, facilitating their illegal drug trading.
  • Elements of illegal drug trading require identification of the trader, buyer, the specific dangerous drugs, consideration, delivery, and use of electronic device, with the object (corpus delicti) being the specific dangerous drug(s).
  • The Information lacks specificity as to the dangerous drugs involved, identities of other parties, specific illegal transactions, or use of devices by petitioner.
  • Relying on “illegal drug trading” as a conclusion of law without factual allegations of acts committed is insufficient and violates the accused’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.
  • Therefore, the Information is defective and may be quashed as void for lack of sufficiency.

Personal Determination of Probable Cause and Issuance of Warrant of Arrest

Due process requires that the issuing judge personally determine the existence of probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest, pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and Section 5(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. This determination:

  • Necessarily must be independent of the prosecutor’s recommendation.
  • May rely on evidence presented during the preliminary investigation, but must involve a judge’s personal, judicial examination of the evidence.
  • Does not require a full trial but must fulfill constitutional mandates of fairness to the accused.
    The Supreme Court upheld that the respondent judge complied with this mandate by carefully evaluating the information and all the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation. There was no showing of grave abuse of discretion.

Procedural Observations and Remedies

  • The existence of remedies under law including the filing of counter-affidavits, motions for reconsideration, judicial determination of probable c

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms