10.
De Lima v Guerrero
GR No 229781 | Oct 10 2017
Ponente: Velasco, J | Committing an Offense under the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 “in relation to office”
Petitioner: SENATOR LEILA DE LIMA
Respondent: ​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
Summary:
Upon several inquiries by the Congress on the proliferation of
dangerous drugs in the New Bilibid Prison, several inmates executed
affidavits which led to four consolidated complaints against Sen. Leila
De Lima. The DOJ then conducted hearings on her case which she
strongly opposed to, expressing alleged partiality on the former’s part.
After preliminary investigation, the DOJ recommended the filing of
Informations against her before the RTC of Muntinlupa. One of the said
Informations charged her for violation of Section 5 in relation to Section
(jj), Section 26 (b), and Section 28 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. Sen. De Lima filed a Motion to
Quash with one of the grounds being the lack of jurisdiction over the
RTC. In its Decision, this Court held that the RTC has jurisdiction over
the case since the ​exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA
9165 is not transferred to the Sandiganbayan whenever the accused
occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or higher, regardless of
whether the violation is alleged as committed in relation to office. It
reiterated that jurisdiction is vested upon the RTCs designated by the
Supreme Court as drugs court, regardless of whether the violation of RA
9165 was committed in relation to the public officials' office. It remanded
the case to the RTC for further proceedings.
Doctrine:
The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 is not
transferred to the Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies
a position classified as Grade 27 or higher, regardless of whether
the violation is alleged as committed in relation to office. ​The
power of the Sandiganbayan to sit in judgment of high-ranking
government officials is not omnipotent. The Sandiganbayan's
jurisdiction is circumscribed by law and its limits are currently defined
and prescribed by RA 10660, which amended Presidential Decree No.
(PD) 1606. As it now stands, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
currently defined and prescribed by RA 10660.
ISSUE: ​Whether or not the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over violations
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act by a public officer? ​-NO.
FACTS:
● The Senate and House of Representatives conducted several
inquiries on the proliferation of dangerous drugs syndicated at the
New Bilibid Prison, inviting inmates who executed affidavits in
support of their testimonies. These legislative inquiries led to the
filing of four consolidated complaints against Senator Leila De
Lima ("Sen. De Lima"), et al. with the Department of Justice
("DOJ").
● In the DOJ Panel’s preliminary hearing, Sen. De Lima filed an
Omnibus Motion to Immediately Endorse the Cases to the
Ombudsman and for the Inhibition of the DOJ Panel and the
Secretary of Justice. She argued that the Office of the
Ombudsman has exclusive authority and jurisdiction to hear the
four complaints.
● Sen. De Lima 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
● On January 13, 2017, Sen. De Lima filed a petition for certiorari
with the Court of Appeals assailing the jurisdiction of the DOJ
Panel over the complaints against her.
● In the absence of a restraining order issued by the Court of
Appeals, the DOJ Panel proceeded with the conduct of the
preliminary investigation. In its Joint Resolution dated February
14, 2017, the DOJ Panel recommended the filing of Informations
against Sen. De Lima. Accordingly, three Informations were filed
against Sen. De Lima and several co-accused before the RTC of
Muntinlupa City
● On February 20, 2017, Sen. De Lima filed a Motion to Quash
based on several grounds including:
○ The RTC lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged
○ The DOJ Panel lacks authority to file the Information
○ The Information charges more than one offense
○ The allegations and recitals of facts do not allege the
corpus delicti of the charge
○ The Information is based on testimonies of the witnesses
who are not qualified to be discharged as state witnesses
○ The testimonies of the witnesses are hearsay
● On February 23, 2017, Judge Guerrero issued an Order finding
probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against Sen.
De Lima and her co-accused. Thereafter, the PNP and CIDG
served the warrant of arrest on Sen. De Lima.
● On February 27, 2017, Sen. De Lima filed a the current petition
with the SC praying for the following reliefs:
○ Granting a writ of certiorari annulling and setting aside
Order for a Warrant of Arrest
○ Granting a writ of prohibition enjoining and prohibiting
respondent judge from conducting further proceedings
until and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved with
finality
○ Issuing an order granting the application for the issuance
of temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of
preliminary injunction to the proceedings
○ Issuing a Status Quo Ante Order restoring the parties to
the status prior to the issuance of the Order and Warrant
of Arrest, thereby recalling both processes and restoring
petitioner to her liberty and freedom
● In the OSG’s comment, it argued that the petition should be
dismissed as Sen. De Lima failed to show that the has no other
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. It further argued that she did
not observe the hierarchy of courts and violated the rule against
forum shopping. It asserted ​inter alia that the RTC has jurisdiction
over the offense charged against the petitioner, that the
respondent judge observed the constitutional and procedural
rules, and so did not commit grave abuse of discretion, in the
issuance of the warrant
RULING:
● The designation, 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.
● Further, a reading of the provisions of RA 9165 under which the
petitioner is prosecuted would convey that De Lima is being
charged as a conspirator in the crime of Illegal Drug Trading.
● While it may be argued that some facts may be taken as
constitutive of some elements of Direct Bribery under the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), these facts taken together with the other
allegations in the Information portray a much bigger picture, Illegal
Drug Trading. 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
wilfully and unlawfully trading dangerous drugs through the use of
mobile phones and other electronic devices under Section 5, in
relation to Section 3(jj), Section 26(b), and Section 28, of RA
9165.
● As the Information provides, De Lima's participation and
cooperation was instrumental in the trading of dangerous drugs by
the NBP inmates.
● A plain reading of RA 9165 will reveal that jurisdiction over
drug-related cases is exclusively vested with the Regional
Trial Court and no other. No other trial court was mentioned
in RA 9165 as having the authority to take cognizance of
drug-related cases.
● The change introduced by the new phraseology of Section 90, RA
9165 is not the deprivation of the RTCs' "exclusive original
jurisdiction" but the further restriction of this "exclusive original
jurisdiction" to select RTCs of each judicial region. This intent can
be clearly gleaned from the interpellation on House Bill No. 4433,
entitled "An Act Instituting the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
repealing Republic Act No. 6425.
● The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165
is not transferred to the Sandiganbayan whenever the
accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or higher,
regardless of whether the violation is alleged as committed in
relation to office. ​The power of the Sandiganbayan to sit in
judgment of high-ranking government officials is not omnipotent.
The Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is circumscribed by law and its
limits are currently defined and prescribed by RA 10660, which
amended Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1606.98 As it now stands,
the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction currently defined and
prescribed by RA 10660.
● To reiterate for emphasis, Section 4 (b) of PD 1606, as amended
by RA 10660, is the general law on jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan over crimes and offenses committed by
high-ranking public officers in relation to their office; ​Section 90,
RA 9165 is the special law excluding from the
Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction violations of RA 9165
committed by such public officers​. In the latter case,
jurisdiction is vested upon the RTCs designated by the
Supreme Court as drugs court, regardless of whether the
violation of RA 9165 was committed in relation to the public
officials' office.
DP: WHEREFORE, the instant petition for prohibition and certiorari is
DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa
City, Branch 204 is ordered to proceed with dispatch with Criminal
Case No. 17-165.
___________________________________________________________
J. CARPIO’S DISSENT:
● The allegations in the Information against petitioner do not
constitute an offense under any provision of R.A. No. 9165. The
investigation and eventual prosecution of her case fall under
 Section 4 (b) of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1606, specifically
as amended by R.A. No. 10660, bringing her case within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner has
yet to go into trial to prove she is guilty of R.A. 9165.
● In the Information in Criminal Case No. 17-165, as filed against
petitioner, clearly and egregiously does not specify any of the
essential elements necessary to prosecute the crime of illegal sale
of drugs under Section 5, or of illegal trade of drugs under Section
5 in relation to Section 3 (jj). ​Indisputably, the Information does
not identify the buyer, the seller, the object, or the
consideration of the illegal sale or trade. The Information also
does not make any allegation of delivery of the drugs illegally
sold or traded nor of their payment. The Information does not
state the kind and quantity of the drugs subject of the illegal
sale or trade.
● The present Information against petitioner alleges only the "use of
electronic devices" but does not allege any of the essential
elements of "illegal sale" under Section 5. This Court cannot allow
a prosecution for "illegal trade" of drugs where none, repeat
absolutely none, of the essential elements of "illegal sale" of drugs
is present.
● In insisting on the jurisdiction of the RTC, the ponencia sets aside
R.A. No. 10660 as if this law does not exist at all. R.A. No. 10660
was approved on 16 April 2015, a date later than the approval of
R.A. No. 9165.
● When R.A. No. 10660, the latest amendment to Section 4 of P.D.
No. 1606, mandated that the Sandiganbayan "shall exercise
exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases" involving the offenses
specified in the amended Section 4, it meant all cases without
exception unless specifically excepted in the same or subsequent
law. When the law says "all cases," it means there is no exception.
R.A. No. 10660 wiped out all previous exceptions in all laws prior
to R.A. No. 10660, and the only exceptions now are those found in
Section 4 as amended by R.A. No. 10660.
● The Information stated that:
○ The accused petitioner was the DOJ Secretary and the
Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Corrections at the time
of the alleged crime;
○ Petitioner demanded, solicited and extorted money from
the high profile inmates;
○ Petitioner took advantage of her public office and used her
power, position and authority to solicit money from the
high profile inmates;
○ Petitioner received more than P10,000,000 (ten million
pesos) from the high profile inmates;
○ By reason of which" — referring to the payment of
extortion money, the unnamed inmates were able to
unlawfully trade in drugs. Thus, based on the allegations
in the Information, the crime allegedly committed is direct
bribery and not illegal sale or illegal trade of drugs
● Clearly, based on the allegations in the Information,
jurisdiction lies with the Sandiganbayan and not with the RTC
since petitioner allegedly used the "power, position and
authority" of her office as then Secretary of Justice. Even if
the Information designated the offense charged against
petitioner as "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 (Illegal
Drug Trading)," such caption in the Information is not
controlling since it is the description of the crime charged
and the particular facts alleged in the body of the Information
that determine the character of the crime.
J. LEONEN’S DISSENT:
● Reading the law and the jurisprudence with care, it is the
Sandiganbayan, not the respondent Regional Trial Court, that has
 jurisdiction over the offense as charged in the Information. The by public officers in relation to their office even if these
Information alleged acts of petitioner when she was Secretary of happen to be drug-related offenses.
the Department of Justice. That the alleged acts were done during
her tenure, facilitated by her office, and would not have been
possible had it not been for her rank, is also clear in the
information. The alleged crime that she had committed was in
relation to her office

● Jurisdiction over crimes committed by a Secretary of Justice in

relation to his or her office is explicit, unambiguous and specifically
granted to the Sandiganbayan by law

● There is no express grant of jurisdiction over any case in Republic

Act No. 9165. Section 90 only authorizes the Supreme Court to
designate among Regional Trial Courts special courts for drug
offenses. Section 90 has not authorized the Supreme Court to
determine which Regional Trial Court will have jurisdiction
because Article VIII, Section 2 of the Constitution assigns that
power only to Congress.

● The general grant of jurisdiction for all crimes for Regional Trial
Courts is in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, Section 20, which
provides:

Section 20. Jurisdiction in criminal cases. — Regional Trial

Courts shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all
criminal cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any court,
tribunal or body, ​except those now falling under the
exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan which shall hereafter be exclusively taken
cognizance of by the latter.

● A responsible reading of this general grant of criminal jurisdiction

will readily reveal that the law qualifies and defers to the specific
jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. ​Clearly, Regional Trial Courts
have jurisdiction over drug-related offenses while the
Sandiganbayan shall have jurisdiction over crimes committed