PILONEO - 6 - G.R. No. 229781

G.R. No. 229781.
October 10, 2017

SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA
VS.
HON. JUANITA GUERRERO, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING
JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MUNTINLUPA CITY,
BRANCH 204, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, P/DIR. GEN.
RONALD M. DELA ROSA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF THE
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, PSUPT. PHILIP GIL M.
PHILIPPS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR, HEADQUARTERS
SUPPORT SERVICE, SUPT. ARNEL JAMANDRON APUD, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS CHIEF, PNP CUSTODIAL SERVICE UNIT, AND
ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR CONTROL,
SUPERVISION, INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION IN RELATION
TO THE ORDERS THAT MAY BE ISSUED BY THE COURT
VELASCO, JR., J.:
FACTS:
The Senate and the House of Representatives conducted several
inquiries on the proliferation of dangerous drugs syndicated at the New
Bilibid Prison (NBP), inviting inmates who executed affidavits in
support of their testimonies. The four cases were consolidated and the
DOJ Panel of Prosecutors (DOJ Panel), headed by Senior Assistant State
Prosecutor Peter Ong, was directed to conduct the requisite preliminary
investigation. The DOJ Panel conducted a preliminary hearing on
December 2, 2016, wherein the petitioner, through her counsel, filed an
Omnibus Motion... the petitioner argued that the Office of the
Ombudsman has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to hear the
four complaints against her. Further, alleging evident partiality on the
part of the DOJ Panel, the petitioner contended that the DOJ prosecutors
should inhibit themselves and refer the complaints to the Office of the
Ombudsman. Petitioner manifested that she has decided not to submit
her counter-affidavit citing the pendency of her two motions. The DOJ
Panel, however, ruled that it will not entertain belatedly filed counter-
affidavits, and declared all pending incidents and the cases as
submitted for resolution. Petitioner moved for but was denied
reconsideration by the DOJ Panel. Petitioner filed before the Court of
Appeals a Petition for Prohibition and Certiorari assailing the
jurisdiction of the DOJ Panel over the complaints against her. The DOJ
Panel proceeded with the conduct of the preliminary investigation and,
in its Joint Resolution dated February 14, 2017, recommended the filing
of Informations against petitioner De Lima. Petitioner filed a Motion to
Quash... petitioner repaired to this court via the present petition. OSG
argued that the petition should be dismissed as De Lima failed to show
that she has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Further, the
OSG posited that the petitioner did not observe the hierarchy of courts
and violated the rule against forum shopping... the OSG filed a
Manifestation dated March 13, 2017, claiming that petitioner falsified
the jurats appearing in the: (1) Verification and Certification against
Forum Shopping page of her petition;
The OSG alleged that while the adverted jurats appeared to be
notarized by a certain Atty. Maria Cecille C. Tresvalles-Cabalo on
February 24, 2017, the guest logbook in the PNP Custodial Center Unit
in Camp Crame for February 24, 2017 does not bear the name of Atty.
Tresvalles-Cabalo. Thus, so the OSG maintained, petitioner De Lima
did not actually appear and swear before the notary public on such date
in Quezon City, contrary to the allegations in the jurats. For the OSG,
the petition should therefore be dismissed outright for the falsity
committed by petitioner De Lima.
ISSUES:
Procedural Issues:
A. Whether or not petitioner is excused from compliance with the
doctrine on hierarchy of courts considering that the petition should
first be filed with the Court of Appeals.
B. Whether or not the pendency of the Motion to Quash the

Information before the trial court renders the instant petition
premature.
C. Whether or not petitioner, in filing the present petition, violated the

rule against forum shopping given the pendency of the Motion to
Quash the Information before the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa
City in Criminal Case No. 17-165 and the Petition for Certiorari filed
before the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. SP No. 149097, assailing the
preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ Panel.
Substantive Issues:
A. Whether the Regional Trial Court or the Sandiganbayan has the
jurisdiction over the violation of Republic Act No. 9165 averred in the
assailed Information.
B. Whether or not the respondent gravely abused her discretion in

finding probable cause to issue the Warrant of Arrest against
petitioner.
C. Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a Temporary Restraining

Order and/or Status Quo Ante Order in the interim until the instant
petition is resolved or until the trial court rules on the Motion to
Quash.
RULING:
Yes. Under the prayer, petitioner asks for a writ of certiorari
annulling the Order dated February 23, 2017 finding probable cause, the
warrant of arrest and the Order dated February 24, 2017 committing
petitioner to the custody of the PNP Custodial Center. Clearly petitioner
seeks the recall of said orders to effectuate her release from detention
and restore her liberty. She did not ask for the dismissal of the subject
criminal case. Nowhere in the prayer did petitioner explicitly ask for the
dismissal of Criminal Case No. 17165. What is clear is she merely asked
the respondent judge to rule on her Motion to Quash before issuing the
warrant of arrest. In view of the foregoing, there is no other course of
action to take than to dismiss the petition on the ground of prematurity
and allow respondent Judge to rule on the Motion to Quash according
to the desire of petitioner. 3) Yes. Forum shopping exists when the
following elements are present: (a) identity of parties, or at least such
parties representing the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of
rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the
same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars, such
that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which
party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under
consideration. All these requisites are present in this case. The presence
of the first requisite is at once apparent. The petitioner is an accused in
the criminal case below, while the respondents in this case, all
represented by the Solicitor General, have substantial identity with the
complainant in the criminal case still pending before the trial court. As
for the second requisite, the arguments and the reliefs prayed for are
essentially the same. In both, petitioner advances the RTC's supposed
lack of jurisdiction over the offense, the alleged multiplicity of offenses
included in the Information; the purported lack of the corpus delicti of
the charge, and, basically, the non-existence of probable cause to indict
her. And, removed of all non-essentials, she essentially prays for the
same thing in both the present petition and the Motion to Quash: the
nullification of the Information and her restoration to liberty and
freedom. To restate for emphasis, the RTC has yet to rule on the Motion
to Quash. Thus, the present petition and the motion to quash before the
R TC are simultaneous actions that do not exempt petitions for certiorari
from the rule against forum shopping. Substantive Procedure: 1) The
Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction. The prefatory statements and the
accusatory portions of the Information repeatedly provide that the
petitioner is charged with "Violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002, Section 5, in relation to Section 3(jj), Section 26(b),
and Section 28, Republic Act No. 9165." From the very designation of
the crime in the Information itself, it should be plain that the crime with
which the petitioner is charged is a violation of RA 9165. As this Court
clarified in Quimvel vs. People, the designation of the offense in the
Information is a critical element required under Section 6, Rule 110 of
the Rules of Court in apprising the accused of the offense being charged.
Read as a whole, and not picked apart with each word or phrase
construed separately, the Information against De Lima goes beyond an
indictment for Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the RPC. As Justice
Martires articulately explained, the averments on solicitation of money
in the Information, which may be taken as constitutive of bribery, form
"part of the description on how illegal drug trading took place at the
NBP." The averments on how petitioner asked for and received money
from the NBP inmates simply complete the links of conspiracy between
her, Ragos, Dayan and the NBP inmates in willfully and unlawfully
trading dangerous drugs through the use of mobile phones and other
electronic devices. As such, with the designation of the offense, the
recital of facts in the Information, there can be no other conclusion than
that petitioner is being charged not with Direct Bribery but with
violation of RA 9165.
In this case, RA 9165 specifies the RTC as the court with the
jurisdiction to "exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of
[RA 9165)." 2) No. In the present case, the respondent judge had no
positive duty to first resolve the Motion to Quash before issuing a
warrant of arrest. There is no rule of procedure, statute, or
jurisprudence to support the petitioner's claim. Rather, Sec.5(a), Rule
112 of the Rules of Court required the respondent judge to evaluate the
prosecutor's resolution and its supporting evidence within a limited
period of ten (10) days.
It must be emphasized that in determining the probable cause to
issue the warrant of arrest against the petitioner, respondent judge
evaluated the Information and all the evidence presented during the
preliminary investigation conducted in this case. It may perhaps even
be stated that the respondent judge performed her duty in a manner
that far exceed what is required of her by the rules when she reviewed
all the evidence, not just the supporting documents. The Court rules
that she certainly discharged a judge’s duty in finding probable cause
for the issuance of a warrant.
FRANCESS A. PILONEO
JD-1A

PILONEO - 6 - G.R. No. 229781

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PILONEO - 6 - G.R. No. 229781

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PILONEO - 6 - G.R. No. 229781

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G.R. No. 229781.

October 10, 2017

B. Whether or not the pendency of the Motion to Quash the

C. Whether or not petitioner, in filing the present petition, violated the

B. Whether or not the respondent gravely abused her discretion in

C. Whether or not petitioner is entitled to a Temporary Restraining

You might also like