1. Senator De Lima filed a petition challenging the orders and warrant issued by a regional trial court judge in relation to drug charges filed against her.
2. The petition argues that the trial court lacks jurisdiction and that the Department of Justice panel investigating her case should have inhibited themselves due to evident partiality. It seeks to nullify the arrest orders and enjoin further proceedings.
3. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, arguing procedurally that De Lima failed to show no other remedy was available and violated rules on proper appeals. It also alleged she falsified documents supporting her petition. Substantively, the OSG asserts the trial court has jurisdiction and followed proper procedures.
1. Senator De Lima filed a petition challenging the orders and warrant issued by a regional trial court judge in relation to drug charges filed against her.
2. The petition argues that the trial court lacks jurisdiction and that the Department of Justice panel investigating her case should have inhibited themselves due to evident partiality. It seeks to nullify the arrest orders and enjoin further proceedings.
3. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, arguing procedurally that De Lima failed to show no other remedy was available and violated rules on proper appeals. It also alleged she falsified documents supporting her petition. Substantively, the OSG asserts the trial court has jurisdiction and followed proper procedures.
1. Senator De Lima filed a petition challenging the orders and warrant issued by a regional trial court judge in relation to drug charges filed against her.
2. The petition argues that the trial court lacks jurisdiction and that the Department of Justice panel investigating her case should have inhibited themselves due to evident partiality. It seeks to nullify the arrest orders and enjoin further proceedings.
3. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, arguing procedurally that De Lima failed to show no other remedy was available and violated rules on proper appeals. It also alleged she falsified documents supporting her petition. Substantively, the OSG asserts the trial court has jurisdiction and followed proper procedures.
1. Senator De Lima filed a petition challenging the orders and warrant issued by a regional trial court judge in relation to drug charges filed against her.
2. The petition argues that the trial court lacks jurisdiction and that the Department of Justice panel investigating her case should have inhibited themselves due to evident partiality. It seeks to nullify the arrest orders and enjoin further proceedings.
3. The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, arguing procedurally that De Lima failed to show no other remedy was available and violated rules on proper appeals. It also alleged she falsified documents supporting her petition. Substantively, the OSG asserts the trial court has jurisdiction and followed proper procedures.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 7
01) SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA vs. HON.
JUANITA Motion to Immediately Endorse the Cases to the
GUERRERO, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, P/DIR. GEN. Ombudsman and for the Inhibition of the Panel of RONALD M. DELA ROSA, PSUPT. PHILIP GIL M. Prosecutors and the Secretary of Justice. PHILIPPS, SUPT. ARNEL JAMANDRON APUD, and ALL o Petitioner argued that the Ombudsman has the PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR CONTROL, exclusive authority and jurisdiction to hear the 4 SUPERVISION, INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION IN complaints against her. RELATION TO THE ORDERS THAT MAY BE ISSUED BY o Further, alleging evident partiality on the part of THE COURT (Angela Aquino) the DOJ Panel, the petitioner contended that the G.R. No. 229781. October 10, 2017 DOJ prosecutors should inhibit themselves and refer the complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman. Nature of the Case: 4. A hearing on the Omnibus Motion was conducted on Mode of Appeal: Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with December 9, 2016, where the complainants, Esmeralda and Application for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, and Urgent Lasala filed a Joint Comment/Opposition to the Omnibus Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Status Quo Ante Motion. Order under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. 5. Petitioner interposed a Reply to the Joint Comment/Opposition and submitted a Manifestation with Petitioners: Senator De Lima Motion to First Resolve Pending Incident and to Defer Respondents: Judge Guerrero, et. Al. Further Proceedings. 6. During the hearing, petitioner manifested that she has Background Facts: Petitioner assails the following orders and decided not to submit her counter-affidavit citing the warrant issued by respondent judge Hon. Juanita Guerrero of the pendency of her two motions. The DOJ Panel ruled that it Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City: (1) the Order will not entertain belatedly filed counter-affidavits, and dated February 23, 2017 finding probable cause for the issuance of declared all pending incidents and the cases as submitted warrant of arrest against petitioner De Lima; (2) the Warrant of for resolution. Arrest against De Lima also dated February 23, 2017; (3) the 7. Petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for Order dated February 24, 2017 committing the petitioner to the Prohibition and Certiorari assailing the jurisdiction of the custody of the PNP Custodial Center; and (4) the supposed DOJ Panel over the complaints against her. The petitions omission of the respondent judge to act on petitioner's Motion to are currently pending with the Special 6th Division of the Quash, through which she questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC. appellate court. 8. DOJ Panel proceeded with the conduct of the preliminary Facts: investigation and, in its Joint Resolution recommended the 1. The Senate and the House of Representatives conducted filing of Informations against De Lima. several inquiries on the proliferation of dangerous drugs 9. On February 17, 2017, three Informations were filed syndicated at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), inviting against De Lima and several co-accused before the RTC of inmates who executed affidavits in support of their Muntinlupa City. One of the Informations was raffled off to testimonies. Branch 204, presided by respondent judge, charging 2. Legislative inquiries led to the filing of the 4 complaints to petitioner for violation of Section 5 in relation to Section (jj), the DOJ, which was later on consolidated. Section 26 (b), and Section 28 of Republic Act No. (RA) 3. The DOJ Panel conducted a preliminary hearing on 9165: December 2, 2016, where the petitioner filed an Omnibus o De Lima, being then the Secretary of the DOJ, and order committing petitioner to the custody of the PNP accused Rafael Marcos Z. Ragos, being then the Custodial Center. Officer-in-Charge of the BOC, by taking advantage 13. Petitioner filed this petition to the SC praying for the of their public officece, conspiring and confederating following reliefs: (pay attention to the emphasized portion) with accused Ronnie P. Dayan, being then an o Granting a writ of certiorari annulling and setting employee of the DOJ detailed to De Lima commit aside the Order dated 23 February 2017, the illegal drug trading, in the following manner: Warrant of Arrest dated the same date, and the De Lima and Ragos, demand, solicit and Order dated 24 February 2017 of the RTC extort money from the high profile inmates in o Granting a writ of prohibition enjoining and the New Bilibid Prison to support the prohibiting respondent judge from conducting senatorial bid of De Lima in the May 2016 further proceedings until and unless the Motion to election; by reason of which, the inmates, Quash is resolved with finality; through the use of mobile phones and other o Issuing an order granting the application for the electronic devices, unlawfully traded and issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO) and a trafficked dangerous drugs, and gave De writ of preliminary injunction to the proceedings; Lima, through Ragos and Dayan, the and proceeds of illegal drug trading amounting to o Issuing a Status Quo Ante Order restoring the P5,000,000.00 on 24 November 2012, parties to the status prior to the issuance of the P5,000,000.00 15 December 2012, and Order and Warrant of Arrest, recalling both P100,000.00 Pesos weekly "tara" each from processes and restoring petitioner to her liberty and the high profile inmates in the New Bilibid freedom. Prison. 14. OSG argued that 10. Petitioner filed a Motion to Quash raising the following: o (PROCEDURAL) the petition should be dismissed as o the RTC lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged De Lima failed to show that she has no other plain, against petitioner; speedy, and adequate remedy. The OSG posited that o the DOJ Panel lacks authority to file the the petitioner did not observe the hierarchy of courts Information; and violated the rule against forum shopping. o the Information charges more than one offense; (additional allegation) petitioner falsified the o the allegations and the recitals of facts do not allege jurats appearing in the: (1) Verification and the corpus delicti of the charge; Certification against Forum Shopping page of o the Information is based on testimonies of witnesses her petition; and (2) Affidavit of Merit in who are not qualified to be discharged as state support of her prayer for injunctive relief by witnesses; and not actually appearing and swearing before o the testimonies of these witnesses are hearsay. the notary public. 11. Respondent judge issued the presently assailed Order (see o (SUBSTANTIVE) the OSG asserted that the RTC Background facts) finding probable cause for the issuance has jurisdiction over the offense charged against the of warrants of arrest against De Lima and her coaccused. petitioner, that the respondent judge observed the 12. PNP Investigation and Detection Group served the Warrant constitutional and procedural rules. of Arrest on petitioner and the respondent judge issued an Issue/s: were SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before the notary 1. PROCEDURAL public. a. Issue 1 – WON petitioner is excused from compliance Such clear breach of notarial protocol is highly censurable with the doctrine on hierarchy of courts? NO. 36 as Section 6, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial b. Issue 2 – WON the pendency of the Motion to Quash Practice requires the affiant to sign the instrument or the Information before the trial court renders the document in the presence of the notary. instant petition premature? YES. Both Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 require that the petitions c. Issue 3 – WON petitioner, in filing the present for certiorari and prohibition must be verified and petition, violated the rule against forum shopping accompanied by a "sworn certificate of non-forum given the pendency of the Motion to Quash the shopping." Information before the Regional Trial Court? YES. o In this regard, Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil 2. SUBSTANTIVE Procedure states that a pleading is verified by an a. Issue 1 – WON the RTC or the Sandiganbayan has affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and the jurisdiction over the violation of Republic Act No. that the allegations therein are true and correct of 9165? ONLY RTC HAS JURISDICTION. his personal knowledge or based on authentic b. Issue 2 – WON the respondent gravely abused her records. A pleading required to be verified which discretion in finding probable cause to issue the lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an Warrant of Arrest against petitioner? NO. unsigned pleading. o Failure to comply with the requirements (see Sec. 5, Ratio: Rule 7) shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall Before ruling on the above mentioned issues, the SC deemed it be cause for the dismissal of the case without proper to discuss the allegation raised by the OSG on De Lima’s prejudice, unless otherwise provided. falsification of the jurats. Proper course of action is to dismiss outright the petition. Atty. Cabalo, the notary public, mentioned that she was However, the court deemed it proper to still discuss the provided the petition by De Lima’s staff. She examined the issues raised by the petitioner. signature and confirmed that it was signed by her. She has known the signature of the senator given their personal (PROCEDURAL) relationship. Issue 1 o She also stated that she tried to confirm with De 1. Petitioner disregarded the hierarchy of courts. The Court Lima that she has notarized the petition but was not has repeatedly emphasized that the rule on hierarchy of able to seek clearance to enter the detention facility. courts is an important component of the orderly The SC held that glance, it is curious that Atty. Tresvalles- administration of justice and not imposed merely for Cabalo who claims to have stamped and signed the petition whimsical and arbitrary reasons. inside Camp Crame, presumably in De Lima's presence, a. Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC: The strictness of still found it necessary to, confirm with De Lima that she the policy is designed to shield the Court from had already notarized the same. It is immediately clear that having to deal with causes that are also well within De Lima did not sign the Verification and Certification the competence of the lower courts, and thus leave against Forum Shopping and Affidavit of Merit in front of time for the Court to deal with the more the notary public contrary to the jurats that the documents fundamental and more essential tasks that the Constitution has assigned to it. The doctrine that Investigating Prosecutor, including other documents requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was and/or evidence appended to the Information. created by this court to ensure that every level of the b. This matter, therefore, should have first been judiciary performs its designated roles in an effective brought before the appellate court, which is in the and efficient manner. better position to review and determine factual b. Aala v Uy: (EXEMPTIONS TO THE RULE) matters. i. when genuine issues of constitutionality are 5. Petitioner argues that judicial efficiency will be promoted if raised that must be addressed immediately; the rule on the hierarchy of courts is abandoned in the ii. when the case involves transcendental present case. WITHOUT MERIT. importance; a. Despite the increase in cases involving drugs and iii. when the case is novel; public officers, the SC cannot allow a precedent iv. when the constitutional issues raised are allowing public officers assailing the finding of better decided by this Court; probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants to v. when time is of the essence; be brought directly to this Court, bypassing the vi. when the subject of review involves acts of a appellate court, without any compelling reason. constitutional organ; vii. when there is no other plain, speedy, Issue 2 adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 1. The petition is indeed premature. The second prayer for law; relief by petitioner, viii. when the petition includes questions that “Granting a writ of prohibition enjoining and may affect public welfare, public policy, or prohibiting respondent judge from conducting demanded by the broader interest of justice; further proceedings until and unless the Motion to ix. when the order complained of was a patent Quash is resolved with finality” nullity; and is a clear admission that the RTC has yet to rule on her x. when the appeal was considered as an Motion to Quash and thus established the existence of inappropriate remedy. RTC's authority to rule on the said motion. 2. None of the exemptions in Aala v Uy is present in this case. 2. The prematurity of the present petition cannot be over- 3. Petitioner's allegation that her case has sparked national emphasized considering that petitioner is actually asking and international interest is not covered by the exceptions the Court to rule on some of the grounds subject of her to the rules on hierarchy of courts. That the petitioner is a Motion to Quash. The Court, if it rules positively in favor of senator of the republic does not also merit a special petitioner regarding the grounds of the Motion to Quash, treatment of her case. will be pre-empting the respondent Judge from doing her 4. Petitioner argues that the respondent judge erred and duty to resolve the said motion and even prejudge the case. committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable This is clearly outside of the ambit of orderly and cause to issue her arrest. WITHOUT MERIT. expeditious rules of procedure. a. It is established that the issue of whether or not a. Section 5 (c) Article 8 of the PH Constitution probable cause exists for the issuance of warrants for requires the existence of "final judgments and the arrest of the accused is a question of fact, orders of lower courts" before the Court can determinable as it is from a review of the allegations exercise its power to "review, revise, reverse, in the Information, the Resolution of the modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari" in "all cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is i. RTC's supposed lack of jurisdiction over the in issue”. offense, 3. In the absence of a ruling on the Motion to Quash there is ii. the alleged multiplicity of offenses included in no controversy for this Court to resolve. the Information; the purported lack of the a. Courts of justice will take cognizance only of corpus delicti of the charge, controversies wherein actual and not merely iii. the non-existence of probable cause to indict hypothetical issues are involved to prevent the her. courts through avoidance of premature adjudication iv. she essentially prays for the nullification of from entangling themselves in abstract the Information and her restoration to liberty disagreements, and for the case to not present a and freedom in both the present petition and hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some the Motion to Quash. event that has not and may never transpire. 4. Furthermore, it is a basic requirement under Rule 65 that (SUBSTANTIVE) there be no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy found Issue 1 in law. Thus, the failure to exhaust all other remedies Arguments before a premature resort to this Court is fatal to the Petitioner Respondents petitioner's cause of action. Based on the allegations of the RTC has exclusive the Information the jurisdiction to try violations Issue 3 Sandiganbayan has the of RA 9165, including the 1. The test to determine the existence of forum shopping is jurisdiction to try and hear acts described in the whether the elements of litis pendentia, or whether a final the case against her. She Information against the judgment in one case amounts to res judicata in the other. posits that the Information petitioner. The 2. Forum shopping therefore exists when the following charges her not with Sandiganbayan, so the elements are present: violation of RA 9165 but respondents contend, was a. identity of parties, or at least such parties with Direct Bribery — a specifically created as an representing the same interests in both actions; felony within the exclusive anti-graft court. It was b. identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the jurisdiction of the never conferred with the relief being founded on the same facts; and Sandiganbayan given her power to try drug-related c. the identity of the two preceding particulars, such rank as the former cases even those committed that any judgment rendered in the other action will, Secretary of Justice with by public officials amount to res judicata in the action under Salary Grade 31 consideration. 3. All the elements are present in this case: 1. The SC first identified what crime is being charged. They a. Petitioner is an accused in the criminal case below, found that the crime of the petitioner, according to the while the respondents in this case, have substantial Information, is a Violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous identity with the complainant in the case pending Drugs Act of 2002, Section 5, in relation to Section 3(jj), before the trial court. Section 26 (b), and Section 28, Republic Act No. 9165 b. A cursory reading of the petition and the Motion to (Illegal Drug Trading). Quash will reveal that the arguments and the reliefs 2. While some facts may be taken as constitutive of some prayed for are essentially the same. elements of Direct Bribery under the RPC, these facts taken together with the other allegations in the Information controlled precursor and dangerous drugs and/or portray Illegal Drug Trading. essential chemical whether controlled precursors and a. Illegal Drug Trading (defined by UNODC) is a global for money or any other essential chemicals using illicit trade involving the cultivation, manufacture, consideration electronic devices such as, distribution and sale of substances necessarily but not limited to, text involves various component crimes, not the least of messages, e-mail, mobile or which is the bribery and corruption of government landlines, two-way radios, officials. internet, instant messengers 3. The averments on solicitation of money in the Information, and chat rooms or acting as which may be taken as constitutive of bribery, form "part of a broker in any of such the description on how illegal drug trading took place at the transactions whether for NBP." These simply complete the links of conspiracy money or any other between her, Ragos, Dayan and the NBP inmates in trading consideration dangerous drugs through the use of mobile phones and other electronic devices. 5. To answer the matter of jurisdiction, a plain reading of RA a. It has not been alleged that petitioner actually 9165 will reveal that jurisdiction over drug-related cases is participated in the actual trafficking of dangerous exclusively vested with the Regional Trial Court and drugs and had simply allowed the NBP inmates to no other. (Sections 20, 61, 62, and 90) do so. However, as the SC has elucidated, it is not a. Section 90. Jurisdiction. — The Supreme Court shall indispensable for a co-conspirator to take a direct designate special courts from among the existing part in every act of the crime. A conspirator need not Regional Trial Courts in each judicial region to even know of all the parts which the others have to exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of perform, as conspiracy is the common design to this Act commit a felony; it is not participation in all the 6. The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA details of the execution of the crime. As long as the 9165 is not transferred to the Sandiganbayan whenever the accused, in one way or another, helped and accused occupies a position classiffied as Grade 27 or cooperated in the consummation of a felony, she is higher, regardless of whether the violation is alleged as liable as a co-principal. committed in relation to office. b. De Lima's participation and cooperation was a. The Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is circumscribed instrumental in the trading of dangerous drugs by by law and its limits are currently defined and the NBP inmates. The minute details of this prescribed by RA 10660. participation and cooperation are matters of b. The Sandiganbayan primarily sits as a special anti- evidence that need not be specified in the graft court pursuant to a specific injunction in the Information but presented and threshed out during 1973 Constitution. Its characterization and trial. continuation as such was expressly given under 4. The Court also deemed it proper to discuss the definition of Section 4, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. illegal sale and illegal trading of drugs. 7. Section 4 (b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660, is the Illegal Sale Illegal Trading general law on jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over Any act of giving away any Transactions involving the crimes and offenses committed by high-ranking public dangerous drug and/or illegal trafficking of officers in relation to their office; Section 90, RA 9165 is the special law excluding from the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction the warrant of arrest since she based her findings on the violations of RA 9165 committed by such public officers. In evidence presented during the preliminary investigation the latter case, jurisdiction is vested upon the RTCs and not on the report and supporting documents. designated by the Supreme Court as drugs court, regardless a. Personal determination of the existence of probable of whether the violation of RA 9165 was committed in cause by the judge is required before a warrant of relation to the public officials' office. arrest may issue. The Constitution and the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure command the judge "to Issue 2 refrain from making a mindless acquiescence to the 1. Respondent Judge did not commit a grave abuse of prosecutor's findings and to conduct his own discretion in issuing the orders. examination of the facts and circumstances a. Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and presented by both parties.” whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to an b. As the prosecutor's report/resolution precisely finds evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to act at support from the evidence presented during the all in contemplation of the law. preliminary investigation, SC cannot consider the 2. Petitioner claims that judge should have first resolved the respondent judge to have refused to perform her pending Motion to Quash before ordering the petitioner's obligation to satisfy herself that substantial basis arrest; and there is no probable cause to justify the exists for the petitioner's arrest. "All the evidence petitioner's arrest presented during the preliminary investigation" a. In this case, respondent judge had no positive duty encompasses a broader category than the supporting to first resolve the Motion to Quash before issuing a evidence" required to be evaluated. warrant of arrest. There is no rule of procedure, 4. The findings of the prosecutor find support in the affidavits statute, or jurisprudence to support the petitioner's and testimonies of several persons. claim. 5. Petitioner alleged that the evidence was inadmissible i. Sec. 5 (a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court because they were provided by her co-accused who are required the respondent judge to evaluate the convicted felons and thus were hearsay evidence. prosecutor's resolution and its supporting a. Estrada v OMB: probable cause can be established evidence within a limited period of only ten with hearsay evidence, as long as there is (10) days. substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay b. Had the respondent judge waited longer and first evidence is admissible in determining probable cause attended to the petitioner's Motion to Quash, she in a preliminary investigation because such would have exposed herself to a possible investigation is merely preliminary. administrative liability for failure to observe Sec. 5 b. SC held that the admissibility of evidence, their (a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Her exercise of evidentiary weight, probative value, and the discretion was sound and in conformity with the credibility of the witness are matters that are best provisions of the Rules of Court considering that a left to be resolved in a fullblown trial. Motion to Quash may be filed and, thus resolved by a trial court judge, at any time before the accused Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the instant petition for petitioner enters her plea. prohibition and certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The 3. Petitioner maintains that respondent judge failed to Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204 is ordered to personally determine the probable cause for the issuance of proceed with dispatch with Criminal Case No. 17-165.