SENATOR LEILA M.

DE LIMA, Petitioner
vs.
HON. JUANITA GUERRERO, in her capacity as Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204, et.al,
Respondents.

FACTS
The Senate and the House of Representatives conducted several inquiries on
the proliferation of dangerous drugs syndicated at the New Bilibid Person
(NBP), inviting inmates who executed affidavits in support of their
testimonies. These legislative inquiries led to the filing of several complaints
with the Department of Justice.
The DOJ Panel Conducted a preliminary hearing on December 2, 2016,
wherein the petitioner, through her counsel, filed an Omnibus Motion to
immediately Endorse the Cases to the Office of the Ombudsman and for the
Inhibition of the Panel Prosecutors and the Secretary of Justice.
Hearing was conducted on December 9, 2016.
On December 12, 2016, petitioner interposed a Reply to the Joint
Comment/Opposition filed by complainants. During the hearing conducted
on December 21, 2016, petitioner manifested that she decided not to submit
her counter-affidavits citing the pendency of two motions.
On January 13, 2017, 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. Meanwhile, in the absence of a restraining
order issued by the CA, the DOJ Panel proceeded with the conduct of
preliminary investigation and its Joint Resolution dated February 14, 2017,
recommended the filing of Informations against petitioner De Lima. On
February 17, 2017, three Informations were filed against petitioner and
several co-accused before the RTC Muntilupa City. One of which was
raffled off to Branch 204, presided by respondent judge. This information
charging petitioner for violation of Section5 in relation to Section (jj),
Section 26(b), and Section 28 of R.A. 9165.
On February 20, 2017, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash. On February 23
respondent judge issued the presently assailed Order finding probable cause
for the issuance of warrants of arrest against De Lima and her co-accused.
On February 24, 2017, the PNP Investigation and Detection Group served
the Warrant of Arrest on petitioner and the respondent judge issued the
assailed February 24, 2017 Order, committing petitioner to the custody of
the PNP Custodial Center.
On February 27, 2017, petitioner repaired to this court via the present
petition, to wit: (1) Granting certiorari annulling and setting aside the Order
and the Warrant of Arrest; (2) Granting a writ of prohibition enjoining and
prohibiting the respondent judge from conducting further proceedings until
and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved with finality; (3) Granting the
issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction
and (4) Issuing a Status Quo Ante Order restoring the parties to the status
prior to the issuance of the Order and Warrant of Arrest.
On March 9, 2017, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of
the respondents interposed its Comment to the petition and argues that the
petition should be dismissed as De Lima failed to show that she has no other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy. The OSG posited that petitioner failed to
observe the hierarchy of courts and violated the rule against forum shopping.
On petitioner’s motion, the Court directed the holding of oral arguments on
the significant issues raised. The Court then heard the parties in oral
arguments on March 14, 21, and 28, 2017.
The parties simultaneously filed their both respective Memoranda on April
17, 2017.
ISSUES
Procedural Issues:
A. Whether 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 the pendency of the Motion to Quash the information before
the trial court renders the instant petition premature.
C. Whether 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 Muntilupa City in
Criminal Case No. 17-165 and the Petition for Certiorari filed before
the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. S.P. 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 9165 averred in the
assailed information.
B. Whether the respondent gravely abuse her discretion in finding
probable cause to issue the Warrant of Arrest against petitioner.
C. Whether 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.
HELD
Procedural Issues:
A. No. Petitioner’s allegation that her case has sparked national interest
is obviously not covered by the exceptions to the rules on hierarchy of
courts. The notoriety of a case, without more, is not and will not be a
reason for this Court’s decisions. Neither will this court be swayed to
relax its rules on the bare facts that the petitioner belongs to the
minority party in the present administration. A primary hallmark of an
independent judiciary is its political neutrality. This Court is thus
loath to perceive and consider the issues before it through the warped
prisms of political partisanships. That the petitioner is a senator of the
republic does not also merit a special treatment of her case. The right
to equal treatment before the law accorded to every Filipino also
forbids the elevation of petitioner’s cause on account of her position
and status in the government.
As petitioner herself alleges with the President having declared the
fight against illegal drugs and corruption as central of his platform of
government, there will be a spike of cases brought before the courts
involving drugs and public officers. This Court cannot thus allow a
precedent allowing public officers assailing the finding of probable
cause for the issuance of warrants to be brought directly to this Court,
bypassing the appellate court, without any compelling reason.

B. The present petition is premature. Nowhere in the prayer did the

petitioner explicitly ask for dismissal of complaint filed against her.
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 petition.
The established rule is that courts of justice will take cognizance only
of controversies “wherein actual and not merely hypothetical issues
are involved.” Indeed, the prematurity of the present petition cannot
be over-emphasized considering that petitioner is actually asking the
Court to rule on some of the grounds subject of her Motion to Quash.

C. It is settled that forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails

himself of several judicial remedies in different courts simultaneously
or successively. The test to determine the existence of forum shopping
is whether the elements of litis pendentia, or whether a final judgment
in one case amounts to res judicata in the other. Forum shopping
therefore exists when the following elements are present: (a) identity
of the parties; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief 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 amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.
 All these requisites are present in this case. Thus, on the ground of
forum shopping alone, the petition merits immediate dismissal.
Substantive Issues:

A. Petitioner argues that based on the allegations of the Information, the

Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case against
her. She posits that the Information charges her not with the violation
of RA 9165 but with Direct Bribery, a felony within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan given her rank as former Secretary
of Justice with Salary Grade 31.
While it may be argued that some facts may be taken as constitutive
of some elements of Direct Bribery under the Revised Penal Code,
these facts taken together with the other allegations in the Information
portray a much bigger picture which is the Illegal Drug Trading. Read
as a whole, and not picked apart with each word or phrase construed
separately, the Information against De Lima goes beyond the
indictment for Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the RPC.
It is basic that jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal cases
is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by law. It is
determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of
the action. As the Information provides, De Lima’s helped and
cooperated in the consummation of a felony and liable as co-principal,
also, petitioner participation and cooperation was instrumental in the
trading of dangerous drugs by the NBP Inmates. Thus, jurisdiction
over offenses and felonies committed by public officers is not
determined solely by the pay scale or by the fact that they were
committed “in relation to their office.” In determining the forum
vested with jurisdiction to try and decide criminal actions, the laws
governing the subject matter of the criminal prosecution must likewise
be considered.

B. Respondent judge did not abuse her discretion in finding probable

cause to order the petitioner’s arrest. 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. There is no rule or
basic principle requiring a trial judge to first resolve the motion to
quash, whether grounded on lack of jurisdiction or not before issuing
a warrant of arrest. It must be emphasized, however, 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.

C. Even granting arguendo that the CA declares the Sandiganbayan has

jurisdiction over the information, still it will not automatically result
in the release from detention and restore the liberty and freedom of
petitioner. Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides that the trial court
has three (3) possible alternative actions when confronted with a
motion to Quash, to wit (1) Order the amendment of the Information;
(2) Sustain the Motion to Quash; or (3) Deny the Motion to Quash.
In these two options, the motion to quash is meritorious. Specifically,
as to the first option, this court had held that should the Information be
deficient or lacking in any material allegation, the trial court can order
the Information under Sextion4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.
As to the second option which is based on the ground that the facts
charged do not constitute an offense, the prosecution shall be given by
the court an opportunity to correct the defect by amendment. The
motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to make the
amendment, or the complaint or information still suffers from the
same defect despite the amendment.
The third option available to the trial court is the denial of the motion
to quash. Even granting, for the nonce, the petitioner’s position that
trial court’s issuance of the warrant for her arrest is an implied denial
of her Motion to Quas, the porper remedy against this court action is
to proceed to trial and not to file the present petition for certiorari.