Title
De Lima vs. Guerrero
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 229781 Oct 10, 2017
Senator Leila De Lima's petition challenging the orders and warrant issued by
the RTC judge in a criminal case against her is dismissed by the Supreme
Court, citing prematurity and violation of the rule against forum shopping,
while in a related case, the Supreme Court grants De Lima's petition to annul
the Order and Warrants of Arrest issued against her, ruling that the
Information !led against her did not allege the essential elements of the
o"ense and that the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the case.
Case Digest (G.R. No. 229781)
Concise Comprehensive
Facts:
Senator Leila M. De Lima, Rafael Marcos Z. Ragos, and Ronnie Palisoc Dayan
were charged with violating Section 5 in relation to Sections 3(jj), 26(b), and 28 of
Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
The charges alleged that from November 2012 to March 2013, De Lima, then
Secretary of the Department of Justice, and Ragos, then O#cer-in-Charge of the
Bureau of Corrections, conspired with Dayan.
They were accused of demanding, soliciting, and extorting money from high-
pro!le inmates in the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) to support De Lima's senatorial
bid.
The money was allegedly obtained through the inmates' illegal drug trading
activities, facilitated by the use of mobile phones and other electronic devices.
The case was !led before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City,
Branch 204, presided by Judge Juanita Guerrero.
De Lima !led a Motion to Quash the Information, questioning the RTC's
jurisdiction and the su#ciency of the Information.
Despite the pending Motion to Quash, the RTC issued a warrant of arrest against
De Lima.
De Lima then !led a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme
Court, challenging the RTC's actions and asserting that the Sandiganbayan, not
the RTC, had jurisdiction over the case.
Issue:
1. Does the RTC have jurisdiction over the o"ense charged against De Lima?
2. Did the RTC commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest
against De Lima despite the pending Motion to Quash?
3. Is the Information !led against De Lima su#cient to charge her with the crime of
Illegal Drug Trading?
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC does not have jurisdiction over the o"ense
charged against De Lima. The case falls within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan because the o"ense was allegedly committed in relation to her
o#ce as Secretary of Justice.
The Supreme Court found that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the warrant of arrest against De Lima without !rst resolving the Motion
to Quash. The RTC should have determined its jurisdiction before proceeding
with the issuance of the warrant.
The Supreme Court held that the Information !led against De Lima was
insu#cient to charge her with the crime of Illegal Drug Trading. The Information
failed to allege the essential elements of the o"ense, such as the identities of the
buyer and seller, the object and consideration of the sale, and the delivery and
payment of the drugs.
Ratio:
The Sandiganbayan has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving public
o#cials with Salary Grade 27 or higher when the o"ense is committed in relation
to their o#ce.
The Information against De Lima explicitly stated that she committed the o"ense
by taking advantage of her public o#ce, thereby establishing a close connection
between the o"ense and her o#cial functions.
This falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan as provided
under Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act No.
8249.
The RTC's issuance of the warrant of arrest without resolving the Motion to
Quash constituted grave abuse of discretion.
The RTC should have !rst determined whether it had jurisdiction over the case
before proceeding with the issuance of the warrant. The failure to do so rendered
the issuance of the warrant arbitrary and capricious.
The Information was defective as it did not allege the essential elements of the
crime of Illegal Drug Trading.
For an Information to be su#cient, it must clearly and accurately allege the
elements of the o"ense charged.
In this case, the Information failed to specify the identities of the buyer and seller,
the object and consideration of the sale, and the delivery and payment of the
drugs, which are necessary to establish the crime of Illegal Drug Trading.
