SEN. LEILA M. DE LIMA VS. HON.

JUANITA GUERRERO ET. AL.

NPS No. XVI-INV-16K-00336,
OCTOBER 10, 2017
entitled "National Bureau of
d)
FACTS: Investigation (NBI) vs. Senator Leila

The facts are undisputed. M. De Lima, et al."4

The Senate and the House of

Representatives conducted several Pursuant to DOJ Department Order No.
inquiries on the proliferation of dangerous 790, the four cases were consolidated and
drugs syndicated at the New Bilibid Prison the DOJ Panel of Prosecutors (DOJ
(NBP), inviting inmates who executed Panel),5 headed by Senior Assistant State
affidavits in support of their Prosecutor Peter Ong, was directed to
3
testimonies. These legislative inquiries led conduct the requisite preliminary
to the filing of the following complaints with investigation.6
the Department of Justice:
The DOJ Panel conducted a preliminary
NPS No. XVI INV-16J-00313, entitled
hearing on December 2, 2016,7 wherein
"Volunteers against Crime and
the petitioner, through her counsel, filed
a) Corruption (VACC), represented by
an Omnibus Motion to Immediately
Dante Jimenez vs. Senator Leila M
Endorse the Cases to the Office of the
De Lima, et al.;"
Ombudsman and for the Inhibition of the
Panel of Prosecutors and the Secretary of
Justice ("Omnibus Motion").8 In the main,
the petitioner argued that the Office of the
NPS No. XVI-INV-16J-00315, entitled
Ombudsman has the exclusive authority
"Reynaldo Esmeralda and Ruel
b) and jurisdiction to hear the four complaints
Lasala vs. Senator Leila De Lima, et
against her. Further, alleging evident
al.;"
partiality on the part of the DOJ Panel, the
petitioner contended that the DOJ
prosecutors should inhibit themselves and
NPS No. XVI-INV-16K-00331, refer the complaints to the Office of the
entitled "Jaybee Nino Sebastian, Ombudsman.
c) represented by his wife Roxanne
Sebastian, vs. Senator Leila M. De A hearing on the Omnibus Motion was
Lima, et al.;" and conducted on December 9, 2016,9 wherein
the complainants, VACC, Reynaldo
Esmeralda (Esmeralda) and Ruel Lasala Joint Resolution dated February 14,
(Lasala), filed a Joint Comment/Opposition 2017,17 recommended the filing of
to the Omnibus Motion.10 Informations against petitioner De Lima.
Accordingly, on February 17, 2017,
On December 12, 2016, petitioner, in turn,
three Informations were filed against
interposed a Reply to the Joint
petitioner De Lima and several co-accused
Comment/Opposition filed by complainants
before the RTC of Muntinlupa City. One of
VACC, Esmeralda and Lasala. In addition,
the Informations was docketed as Criminal
petitioner submitted a Manifestation with
Case No. 17-16518 and raffled off to Branch
Motion to First Resolve Pending Incident
204, presided by respondent judge. This
and to Defer Further Proceedings.11
Information charging petitioner for violation
of Section 5 in relation to Section (jj),
During the hearing conducted on
Section 26(b), and Section 28 of Republic
December 21, 2016, petitioner manifested
Act No. (RA) 9165, contained the following
that she has decided not to submit her
averments:
counter-affidavit citing the pendency of her
two motions.12 The DOJ Panel, however,
ruled that it will not entertain belatedly filed That within the period from November 2012
counter-affidavits, and declared all pending to March 2013, in the City of Muntinlupa,
incidents and the cases as submitted for Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
resolution. Petitioner moved for but was this Honorable Court, accused Leila M. De
denied reconsideration by the DOJ Panel.13 Lima, being then the Secretary of the
Department of Justice, and accused Rafael
On January 13, 2017, petitioner filed before Marcos Z. Ragos, being then the Officer-in-
the Court of Appeals a Petition for Charge of the Bureau of Corrections, by
Prohibition and Certiorari14 assailing the taking advantage of their public office,
jurisdiction of the DOJ Panel over the conspiring and confederating with accused
complaints against her. The petitions, Ronnie P. Dayan, being then an employee
docketed as CA-G.R. No. 149097 and CA- of the Department of Justice detailed to De
G.R. No. SP No. 149385, are currently Lima, all of them having moral ascendancy
pending with the Special 6th Division of the or influence over inmates in the New Bilibid
15
appellate court. Prison, did then and there commit illegal
drug trading, in the following manner: De
Meanwhile, in the absence of a restraining Lima and Ragas, with the use of their
order issued by the Court of Appeals, the power, position, and authority, demand,
DOJ Panel proceeded with the conduct of solicit and extort money from the high
the preliminary investigation16 and, in its profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison to
support the senatorial bid of De Lima in the The Order stated, viz.:
May 2016 election; by reason of which, the
inmates, not being lawfully authorized by
After a careful evaluation of the herein
law and through the use of mobile phones
Information and all the evidence presented
and other electronic devices, did then and
during the preliminary investigation
there willfully and unlawfully trade and
conducted in this case by the Department
traffic dangerous drugs, and thereafter give
of Justice, Manila, the Court finds sufficient
and deliver to De Lima, through Ragas and
probable cause for the issuance of
Dayan, the proceeds of illegal drug trading
Warrants of Arrest against all the accused
amounting to Five Million (P5,000,000.00)
LEILA M. DE LIMA, RAFAEL MARCOS Z.
Pesos on 24 November 2012, Five Million
RAGOS and RONNIE PALISOC DAYAN.
(P5,000,000.00) Pesos on 15 December
2012, and One Hundred Thousand
WHEREFORE, let Warrants of Arrest be
(P100,000.00) Pesos weekly "tara" each
issued against the above mentioned
from the high profile inmates in the New
accused.
Bilibid Prison.19

On February 20, 2017, petitioner filed SO ORDERED.23

a Motion to Quash,20 mainly raising the
Accordingly, the questioned Warrant of
following: the RTC lacks jurisdiction over
Arrest dated February 23, 2017,24 which
the offense charged against petitioner; the
contained no recommendation for bail, was
DOJ Panel lacks authority to file the
issued against petitioner.
Information the Information charges more
than one offense; the allegations and the
On February 24, 2017, the PNP
recitals of facts do not allege the corpus
Investigation and Detection Group served
delicti of the charge; the Information is
the Warrant of Arrest on petitioner and the
based on testimonies of witnesses who are
respondent judge issued the assailed
not qualified to be discharged as state
February 24, 2017 Order,25 committing
witnesses; and the testimonies of these
petitioner to the custody of the PNP
witnesses are hearsay.21
Custodial Center.

On February 23, 2017, respondent judge

On February 27, 2017, petitioner repaired
issued the presently
to this court via the present petition, praying
assailed Order22 finding probable cause for
for the following reliefs:
the issuance of warrants of arrest against
De Lima and her co-accused.
 a. Granting a writ speedy, and adequate remedy. Further, the
of certiorari annulling and setting OSG posited that the petitioner did not
aside the Order dated 23 February observe the hierarchy of courts and
2017, the Warrant of Arrest dated violated the rule against forum shopping.
the same date, and the Order dated On substantive grounds, the OSG
24 February 2017 of the Regional asserted inter alia that the RTC has
Trial Court Branch 204, Muntinlupa jurisdiction over the offense charged
City, in Criminal Case No. 17-165 against the petitioner, that the respondent
entitled People of the Philippines judge observed the constitutional and
versus Leila M. De Lima, et al.; procedural rules, and so did not commit
grave abuse of discretion, in the issuance
b. Granting a writ of prohibition
of the assailed orders and warrant.28
enjoining and prohibiting
respondent judge from conducting
On petitioner's motion, the Court directed
further proceedings until and unless
the holding of oral arguments on the
the Motion to Quash is resolved
significant issues raised. The Court then
with finality;
heard the parties in oral arguments on
c. Issuing an order granting the March 14, 21, and 28, 2017.29
application for the issuance of
temporary restraining order (TRO) In the meantime, the OSG filed a
and a writ of preliminary injunction Manifestation dated March 13,
to the proceedings; and 2017,30 claiming that petitioner falsified

d. Issuing a Status Quo Ante Order the jurats appearing in the: (1) Verification

restoring the parties to the status and Certification against Forum Shopping

prior to the issuance of the Order page of her petition; and (2) Affidavit of

and Warrant of Arrest, both dated Merit in support of her prayer for injunctive

February 23, 2017, thereby relief. The OSG alleged that while the

recalling both processes and adverted jurats appeared to be notarized

restoring petitioner to her liberty by a certain Atty. Maria Cecille C.

and freedom.26 Tresvalles-Cabalo on February 24, 2017,

the guest logbook31 in the PNP Custodial
On March 9, 2017, the Office of the Solicitor
Center Unit in Camp Crame for February
General (OSG), on behalf of the
24, 2017 does not bear the name of Atty.
respondents, interposed its Comment to
Tresvalles-Cabalo. Thus, so the OSG
the petition.27 The OSG argued that the
maintained, petitioner De Lima did not
petition should be dismissed as De Lima
actually appear and swear before the
failed to show that she has no other plain,
notary public on such date in Quezon City,
contrary to the allegations in the jurats. For the violation of Republic Act No. 9165
the OSG, the petition should therefore be averred in the assailed Information.
dismissed outright for the falsity committed
B. Whether or not the respondent gravely
by petitioner De Lima.
abused her discretion in finding probable
cause to issue the Warrant of Arrest
In compliance with an Order of this Court,
against petitioner.
petitioner filed the Affidavit of Atty. Maria
Cecille C. Tresvalles-Cabalo dated March C. Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a
20, 201732 to shed light on the allegations Temporary Restraining Order and/or
of falsity in petitioner's jurats. Status Quo Ante Order in the interim until
the instant petition is resolved or until the
ISSUES:
trial court rules on the Motion to Quash.
Procedural Issues:
RULING:
A. Whether or not petitioner is excused
It is immediately clear that petitioner De
from compliance with the doctrine on
Lima did not sign the Verification and
hierarchy of courts considering that the
Certification against Forum Shopping and
petition should first be filed with the Court
Affidavit of
of Appeals.
Merit in front of the notary public. Such
B. Whether or not the pendency of the
clear breach of notarial protocol is highly
Motion to Quash the Information before the
censurable36 as Section 6, Rule II of the
trial court renders the instant petition
2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires
premature.
the affiant, petitioner De Lima in this case,
C. Whether or not petitioner, in filing the to sign the instrument or document in the
present petition, violated the rule against presence of the notary De Lima failed to
forum shopping given the pendency of the sign the Verification and Certification
Motion to Quash the Information before the against Forum Shopping in the presence of
Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City in the notary, she has likewise failed to
Criminal Case No. 17-165 and the Petition properly swear under oath the contents
for Certiorari filed before the Court of thereof, thereby rendering false and null
Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 149097, the jurat and invalidating the Verification
assailing the preliminary investigation and Certification against Forum Shopping.
conducted by the DOJ Panel. Without the presence of the notary upon
the signing of the Verification and
Substantive Issues:
Certification against Forum Shopping,
A. Whether the Regional Trial Court or the there is no assurance that the petitioner
Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over swore under oath that the allegations in the
petition have been made in good faith or or demanded by the broader interest of
are true and correct, and not merely justice;
speculative.
(9) when the order complained of was a
patent nullity; and

(10) when the appeal was considered as an

inappropriate remedy. Unfortunately, none
PETITIONER DISREGARDED THE
of these exceptions were sufficiently
HIERARCHY OF COURTS
established in the present petition so as to
the rule on hierarchy of courts is an convince this court to brush aside the rules
important component of the orderly on the hierarchy of courts. This Court
administration of justice and not imposed cannot thus allow a precedent allowing
merely for whimsical and arbitrary reasons. public officers assailing the finding of
well-defined exceptions to the doctrine on probable cause for the issuance of arrest
hierarchy of courts. Immediate resort to this warrants to be brought directly to this
Court may be allowed when any of the Court, bypassing the appellate court,
following grounds are present: (1) when without any compelling reason.
genuine issues of constitutionality are
THE PRESENT PETITION IS
raised that must be addressed
PREMATURE
immediately;
Granting a writ of prohibition enjoining and
(2) when the case involves transcendental
prohibiting respondent judge from
importance;
conducting further proceedings until and
(3) when the case is novel; unless the Motion to Quash is resolved with

(4) when the constitutional issues raised finality; Issuing a Status Quo Ante Order

are better decided by this Court; restoring the parties to the status prior to
the issuance of the Order and Warrant of
(5) when time is of the essence;
Arrest, both dated
(6) when the subject of review involves acts
February 23, 201 7, thereby recall inf both
of a constitutional organ;
processes and restoring petitioner to her
(7) when there is no other plain, speedy, liberty and freedom
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
In the palpable absence of a ruling on the
law;
Motion to Quash -- which puts the
(8) when the petition includes questions jurisdiction of the lower court in issue --
that may affect public welfare, public policy, there is no controversy for this Court to
resolve; there is simply no final judgment or
order of the lower court to review, revise,
reverse, modify, or affirm. As per the block
letter provision of the Constitution, this
Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction in a
vacuum nor issue a definitive ruling on
mere suppositions.