I.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES actions of the Court of Appeals, this court promulgates these doctrinal devices in order that it truly
performs that role.

Same; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; Supreme Court; For exceptionally compelling reasons,
D. CONCEPT OF JUDICIAL POWER IN THE PHILIPPINES
the Supreme Court (SC) may exercise its discretion to act on special civil actions for certiorari filed
directly with it.—It was acknowledged that for exceptionally compelling reasons, the Court may exercise
G.R. No. 194767. October 14, 2015.* its discretion to act on special civil actions for certiorari filed directly with it. Examples of cases that
  present compelling reasons are: (1) those involving genuine issues of constitutionality that must be
EDGAR T. BARROSO, petitioner, vs. HON. JUDGE GEORGE E. OMELIO, Presiding addressed at the most immediate time; (2) those where the issues are of transcendental importance,
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Davao City and TRAVELLERS INSURANCE & and the threat to fundamental constitutional rights are so great as to outweigh the necessity for
SURETY CORPORATION, ANTONIO V. BATAO, Regional Manager, respondents. prudence; (3) cases of first impression, where no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the lower
courts on such issues; (4) where the constitutional issues raised are better decided after a thorough
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Courts; Hierarchy of Courts; It must first be emphasized that deliberation by a collegiate body and with the concurrence of the majority of those who participated in
trifling with the rule on hierarchy of courts is looked upon with disfavor by the Supreme Court (SC).—It its discussion; (5) where time is of the essence; (6) where the act being questioned was that of a
must first be emphasized that trifling with the rule on hierarchy of courts is looked upon with disfavor by constitutional body; (7) where there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
the Court. Said rule is an important component of the orderly administration of justice and not imposed course of law that could free petitioner from the injurious effects of respondents’ acts in violation of their
merely for whimsical and arbitrary reasons. This doctrine was exhaustively explained in The Diocese of constitutional rights; and (8) the issues involve public welfare, the advancement of public policy, the
Bacolod, represented by the Most Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra and the Bishop Himself in His broader interest of justice, or where the orders complained of are patent nullities, or where appeal can
Personal Capacity v. Commission on Elections and the Election be considered as clearly an inappropriate remedy.

Officer of Bacolod City, Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon, 747 SCRA 1 (2015), in this wise: x x x we
explained the necessity of the application of the hierarchy of courts: The Court must enjoin the
observance of the policy on the hierarchy of courts, and now affirms that the policy is not to be ignored PERALTA, J.:
without serious consequences. The strictness of the policy is designed to shield the Court from  
having to deal with causes that are also well within the competence of the lower courts, and This deals with the Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court praying
thus leave time for the Court to deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks that
that the Order dated July 29, 2009, and the Order dated September 15, 2010, both of the
the Constitution has assigned to it. The Court may act on petitions for the extraordinary writs
of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only when absolutely necessary or when serious and important Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 14 (RTC-Br. 14), be reversed and set aside.
reasons exist to justify an exception to the policy. x x x x The doctrine that requires respect for the
hierarchy of courts was created by this court to ensure that every level of the judiciary performs The antecedent facts are as follow.
its designated roles in an effective and efficient manner. Trial courts do not only determine the
facts from the evaluation of the evidence presented before them. They are likewise competent to Sometime in 2007, herein petitioner filed with the Regional Trial Court of Davao City,
determine issues of law which may include the validity of an ordinance, statute, or even an executive Branch 16 (RTC-Br. 16) a Complaint for sum of money, damages and attorney’s fees
issuance in relation to the Constitution. To effectively perform these functions, they are territorially
against Dennis Li. The complaint included a prayer for the issuance of a writ of attachment,
organized into regions and then into branches. Their writs generally reach within those territorial
and after Dennis Li filed his Answer, RTC-Br. 16 granted herein petitioner’s application for a
boundaries. Necessarily, they mostly perform the all-important task of inferring the facts from the
evidence as these are physically presented before them. In many instances, the facts occur within their Writ of Attachment and approved the corresponding attachment bond. On the other hand,
territorial jurisdiction, which properly present the “actual case” that makes ripe a determination of the Dennis Li filed a counter-attachment bond purportedly issued by herein respondent
constitutionality of such action. The consequences, of course, would be national in scope. There are, Travellers Insurance & Surety Corporation (Travellers).
however, some cases where resort to courts at their level would not be practical considering their
decisions could still be appealed before the higher courts, such as the Court of Appeals. The Court of On January 7, 2008, petitioner filed a Motion for Approval of Compromise Agreement.
Appeals is primarily designed as an appellate court that reviews the determination of facts and law Thereafter, RTC-Br. 16 issued a Judgment on Compromise Agreement dated January 22,
made by the trial courts. It is collegiate in nature. This nature ensures more standpoints in the review of
2008. However, Dennis Li failed to pay the sums of money as provided for under said
the actions of the trial court. But the Court of Appeals also has original jurisdiction over most special
Judgment on Compromise Agreement. Herein petitioner then filed a Motion for Execution
civil actions. Unlike the trial courts, its writs can have a nationwide scope. It is competent to determine
facts and, ideally, should act on constitutional issues that may not necessarily be novel unless there are and RTC-Br. 16 issued a Writ of Execution solely against Dennis Li. When said Writ of
factual questions to determine. This court, on the other hand, leads the judiciary by breaking new Execution against Dennis Li was returned by the Sheriff unsatisfied, petitioner then filed a
ground or further reiterating — in the light of new circumstances or in the light of some confusion of Motion for Execution of Judgment upon the Counterbond. Acting on said Motion, RTC-Br.
bench or bar — existing precedents. Rather than a court of first instance or as a repetition of the 16 issued an Order dated April 2, 2009, pertinent portions of which read as follows:
 Since the Writ was returned “UNSATISFIED,” plaintiff filed a Motion for Execution of not interfering with the Order or judgment of RTC-Br. 16 which is a coordinate Court. On
Judgment upon the Counter-Bond, a copy of which was sent to the Head Office of the contrary[,] this Court is merely exercising its complementary jurisdiction with that of
Travellers Insurance Surety Corporation. In accordance with the Rules, a summary the jurisdiction of RTC 16 — a coordinate court, the latter — to hypothetically state, was
hearing to determine the liability under the counterbond was set. Notice of said hearing hoodwinked into believing as to the regularity and due production of the subject counter-
was likewise sent to the Head Office of the surety corporation at the address appearing attachment bond now subject to be executed and enforced against herein petitioner.
on the face of the counterbond issued. For reasons unknown, the notice was simply While this Court is aware of this doctrine of noninterference by a Court against the
returned. Order or judgment of another coordinate court, this doctrine, however, is not without
The case law cited by movant x x x justifies the issuance of an Alias Writ of exception. The maxim is: For every rule, there is an exception; for in every room, there
Execution against the Defendant Dennis Li but this time including the Travellers is always a door. This case is an exception. x x x 
Insurance Surety Corporation based on its counterbond. x x x.  
  On July 30, 2009, the Writ of Preliminary Injunction was issued, commanding Sheriff
An Alias Writ of Execution dated April 28, 2009 was then issued against both Dennis Li Anggot to refrain from implementing the Writ of Execution dated April 28, 2009. Petitioner’s
and respondent Travellers based on the counterbond it issued in favor of the former, and motion for reconsideration of the aforequoted Order was denied in the Order dated
pursuant to said writ, Sheriff Anggot served a Demand Letter on Travellers. In a letter dated September 15, 2010.
July 1, 2009 addressed to Sheriff Anggot, Travellers asked for a period of seven (7) days
within which to validate the counterbond and, thereafter, for its representative to discuss the Hence, the instant petition was filed with this Court, alleging that respondent judge
matter with complainant, herein petitioner. committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction and gross
ignorance of the law by (1) acting on respondent Travellers’ petition despite the lack of
However, on July 10, 2009, instead of appearing before RTC-Br. 16, Travellers filed a jurisdiction of RTC-Br. 14; (2) issuing the writ of preliminary injunction without requiring
separate case for Declaration of Nullity, Prohibition, Injunction with Prayer for Writ of Travellers to put up an injunction bond; and (3) assuming jurisdiction over the action for
Preliminary Injunction & Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), and Damages, which was prohibition and injunction against the executive sheriff of a coequal court.
raffled to RTC-Br. 14. Said petition prayed for the following reliefs: (a) the issuance of a
TRO enjoining Sheriff Anggot and herein petitioner from implementing and enforcing the Herein petitioner, while acknowledging that the Court of Appeals (CA) had concurrent
Writ of Execution dated April 28, 2009, and after hearing, the issuance of a writ of jurisdiction over this petition, justified his immediate resort to this Court by pointing out that
preliminary injunction; (b) judgment be rendered declaring the counterbond and its respondent judge’s conduct shows his gross ignorance of the law, and any other remedy
supporting documents to be null and void; ordering Sheriff Anggot and herein petitioner to under the ordinary course of law would not be speedy and adequate.
desist from further implementing the Writ of Execution dated April 28, 2009; and (c) ordering
Sheriff Anggot and herein petitioner to pay Travellers actual and moral damages, attorney’s Private respondents, on the other hand, counter that its petition before RTC-Br. 14
fees and costs of suit. involved the issue of the validity of a contract, hence, the court presided by respondent
judge had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same. Private respondent then reiterated its
After hearing on the application for a writ of preliminary injunction, herein respondent arguments regarding the dubious authenticity and genuineness of the counterbond
judge issued the assailed Order dated July 29, 2009 directing the issuance of the writ of purportedly issued by Travellers and filed by Dennis Li before RTC-Br. 16.
preliminary injunction. RTC-Br. 14, in its Order dated July 29, 2009, ratiocinated, thus:
Be it noted that under letter (b) of paragraph six (6) of respondents’ [herein It must first be emphasized that trifling with the rule on hierarchy of courts is looked
petitioner among them] answer with counterclaim they alleged that: “x x x The evidence upon with disfavor by the Court. Said rule is an important component of the orderly
the counter-attachment bond is fake has yet to be proven by the petitioner [Travellers] in
administration of justice and not imposed merely for whimsical and arbitrary reasons. This
the proper forum. Till then, said judicial officers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their judicial duties...”
doctrine was exhaustively explained in The Diocese of Bacolod, represented by the Most
Precisely, herein petitioner [comes] before this Court, which is the “proper forum” Rev. Bishop Vicente M. Navarra and the Bishop Himself in His Personal Capacity v.
referred to by the respondents in their answer, to prove that the counter-attachment Commission on Elections and the Election Officer of Bacolod City, Atty. Mavil V. Majarucon
bond which herein respondents are about to implement, is fake. And the only remedy for in this wise:
the petitioner to hold in abeyance the enforcement of the subject writ of execution lest x x x we explained the necessity of the application of the hierarchy of courts:
the decision of this Court on the merit more so if favorable to the petitioner will become The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy on the hierarchy of courts, and
moot and academic or phyrric victory, is the writ of preliminary injunction. now affirms that the policy is not to be ignored without serious consequences. The
Anent the respondents’ defense that “this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with strictness of the policy is designed to shield the Court from having to deal with
the judgment of RTC, Branch 16 in Davao City” x x x, suffice it to state that this Court is causes that are also well within the competence of the lower courts, and thus
 leave time for the Court to deal with the more fundamental and more essential courts on such issues; (4) where the constitutional issues raised are better decided after a
tasks that the Constitution has assigned to it. The Court may act on petitions for the thorough deliberation by a collegiate body and with the concurrence of the majority of those
extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only when absolutely who participated in its discussion; (5) where time is of the essence; (6) where the act being
necessary or when serious and important reasons exist to justify an exception to the
questioned was that of a constitutional body; (7) where there is no other plain, speedy, and
policy.
x x x x
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that could free petitioner from the injurious
    The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was created effects of respondents’ acts in violation of their constitutional rights; and (8) the issues
by this court to ensure that every level of the judiciary performs its designated involve public welfare, the advancement of public policy, the broader interest of justice, or
roles in an effective and efficient manner. Trial courts do not only determine the facts where the orders complained of are patent nullities, or where appeal can be considered as
from the evaluation of the evidence presented before them. clearly an inappropriate remedy.

They are likewise competent to determine issues of law which may include the validity Verily, the issues in this case could have been competently resolved by the CA, thus,
of an ordinance, statute, or even an executive issuance in relation to the Constitution. To the Court was initially inclined to reject taking cognizance of this case. However, we cannot
effectively perform these functions, they are territorially organized into regions and then into close our eyes to the unbecoming conduct exhibited by respondent judge in obstinately
branches. Their writs generally reach within those territorial boundaries. issuing an injunction against the orders of a coequal court despite this Court’s consistent
reiteration of the time-honored principle that “no court has the power to interfere by
Necessarily, they mostly perform the all-important task of inferring the facts from the injunction with the judgments or decrees of a court of concurrent or coordinate
evidence as these are physically presented before them. In many instances, the facts occur jurisdiction. The various trial courts of a province or city, having the same or equal
within their territorial jurisdiction, which properly present the “actual case” that makes ripe a authority, should not, cannot, and are not permitted to interfere with their respective
determination of the constitutionality of such action. The consequences, of course, would be cases, much less with their orders or judgments.”9 The issue raised in this case,
national in scope. There are, however, some cases where resort to courts at their level therefore, falls under one of the exceptions to the rule on hierarchy of courts, i.e., where the
would not be practical considering their decisions could still be appealed before the higher order complained of is a patent nullity.
courts, such as the Court of Appeals.
Atty. Cabili v. Judge Balindong  is closely analogous to the present case. In Cabili, the
The Court of Appeals is primarily designed as an appellate court that reviews the RTC of Iligan City issued a writ of execution, but the judgment debtor, instead of complying
determination of facts and law made by the trial courts. It is collegiate in nature. This nature with said writ, filed a separate petition for prohibition and mandamus with application for
ensures more standpoints in the review of the actions of the trial court. But the Court of issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction with the RTC of
Appeals also has original jurisdiction over most special civil actions. Unlike the trial courts, Marawi City. After the hearing, the Presiding Judge of the RTC of Marawi City issued the
its writs can have a nationwide scope. It is competent to determine facts and, ideally, should TRO restraining the sheriff from enforcing the writ of execution issued by the RTC of Iligan
act on constitutional issues that may not necessarily be novel unless there are factual City.
questions to determine.
In the aforementioned case, the Court struck down such action of the RTC of Marawi
This court, on the other hand, leads the judiciary by breaking new ground or further City, ruling thus:
reiterating — in the light of new circumstances or in the light of some confusion of bench or The doctrine of judicial stability or noninterference in the regular orders or
bar — existing precedents. Rather than a court of first instance or as a repetition of the judgments of a coequal court is an elementary principle in the administration of justice:
actions of the Court of Appeals, this court promulgates these doctrinal devices in order that no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of
it truly performs that role. concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction.
The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires
jurisdiction over the case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its
However, in the same case, it was acknowledged that for exceptionally compelling judgment, to the exclusion of all other coordinate courts, for its execution and
reasons, the Court may exercise its discretion to act on special civil actions over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of
for certiorari filed directly with it. Examples of cases that present compelling reasons are: ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.
(1) those involving genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed at the most Thus, we have repeatedly held that a case where an execution order has been
immediate time; (2) those where the issues are of transcendental importance, and the threat issued is considered as still pending, so that all the proceedings on the execution are
to fundamental constitutional rights are so great as to outweigh the necessity for prudence; still proceedings in the suit. A court which issued a writ of execution has the inherent
(3) cases of first impression, where no jurisprudence yet exists that will guide the lower power, for the advancement of justice, to correct errors of its ministerial officers and to
 control its own processes. To hold otherwise would be to divide the jurisdiction of the
appropriate forum in the resolution of incidents arising in execution proceedings.
Splitting of jurisdiction is obnoxious to the orderly administration of justice.
x x x x
To be sure, the law and the rules are not unaware that an issuing court may violate
the law in issuing a writ of execution and have recognized that there should be a
remedy against this violation. The remedy, however, is not the resort to another coequal
body but to a higher court with authority to nullify the action of the issuing court. This is
precisely the judicial power that the 1987 Constitution, under Article VIII, Section 1,
paragraph 2, speaks of and which this Court has operationalized through a petition
for certiorari, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
x x x x
It is not a viable legal position to claim that a TRO against a writ of execution is
issued against an erring sheriff, not against the issuing Judge. A TRO enjoining the
enforceability of a writ addresses the writ itself, not merely the executing sheriff. x  x x As
already mentioned above, the appropriate action is to assail the implementation of the
writ before the issuing court in whose behalf the sheriff acts, and, upon failure, to seek
redress through a higher judicial body. x x x.
 
Applying the foregoing ruling, it is quite clear that, in this case, the issuance of the
subject writ of preliminary injunction was improper and, thus, correctible by certiorari. Herein
respondent judge does not have jurisdiction to hinder the enforcement of an order of a
coequal court. He must be aware that said coequal court had the exclusive jurisdiction or
authority to correct its own issuances if ever there was, indeed, a mistake. There is no
question, therefore, that subject writ of preliminary injunction is null and void.

Further, had Judge Omelio not been dismissed from the service in 2013 for gross
ignorance of the law and violation of judicial conduct, he could have been subjected to an
investigation again for gross ignorance due to his unprecedented acts in the case at bar.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED and the Orders dated July 29, 2009
and September 15, 2010, both issued by the Regional Trial Court of Davao City, Branch 14,
are hereby SET ASIDE and declared NULL and VOID.
SO ORDERED.

Note.—In view of the transcendental importance of the issues raised in the mandamus petition, the
Supreme Court waives procedural issue on hierarchy of courts in favor of a resolution on the merits.
(Funa vs. Manila Economic and Cultural Office, 715 SCRA 247 [2014])
 
 
——o0o——
 G.R. No. 226679. August 15, 2017.* Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Plea Bargaining; Speedy Trial Act of 1998; Section 2 of
  Republic Act (RA) No. 8493 (“Speedy Trial Act of 1998”) required that plea bargaining and other
SALVADOR ESTIPONA, JR. y ASUELA, petitioner, vs. HON. FRANK E. LOBRIGO, matters that will promote a fair and expeditious trial are to be considered during pretrial conference in
all criminal cases cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC),
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Legazpi City, Albay, and PEOPLE
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Regional Trial Court (RTC), and the Sandiganbayan.—When R.A. No.
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. 8493 (“Speedy Trial Act of 1998”) was enacted, Section 2, Rule 118 of the Rules was substantially
adopted. Section 2 of the law required that plea bargaining and other matters that will promote a fair
Courts; Supreme Court; Jurisdiction; It is within the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) power to make and expeditious trial are to be considered during pretrial conference in all criminal cases cognizable by
exceptions to the rules of court. Under proper conditions, it may permit the full and exhaustive the Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Regional Trial Court,
ventilation of the parties’ arguments and positions despite the supposed technical infirmities of a and the Sandiganbayan.
petition or its alleged procedural flaws.—On matters of technicality, some points raised by the OSG
maybe correct. Nonetheless, without much further ado, it must be underscored that it is within this Procedural Rules and Technicalities; The Supreme Court’s (SC’s) sole prerogative to issue,
Court’s power to make exceptions to the rules of court. Under proper conditions, We may permit the full amend, or repeal procedural rules is limited to the preservation of substantive rights, i.e., the former
and exhaustive ventilation of the parties’ arguments and positions despite the supposed technical should not diminish, increase or modify the latter.—The Supreme Court’s sole prerogative to issue,
infirmities of a petition or its alleged procedural flaws. In discharging its solemn duty as the final arbiter amend, or repeal procedural rules is limited to the preservation of substantive rights, i.e., the former
of constitutional issues, the Court shall not shirk from its obligation to determine novel issues, or issues should not diminish, increase or modify the latter. “Substantive law is that part of the law which creates,
of first impression, with far-reaching implications. defines and regulates rights, or which regulates the right and duties which give rise to a cause of
action; that part of the law which courts are established to administer; as opposed to adjective or
Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Matters of procedure and technicalities normally take remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtain redress for their invasions.”
a backseat when issues of substantial and transcendental importance are present.—Matters of
procedure and technicalities normally take a backseat when issues of substantial and transcendental Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Promulgation of Judgments;Failure to Appear at the
importance are present. We have acknowledged that the Philippines’ problem on illegal drugs has Promulgation; The Supreme Court (SC) said in Jaylo, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 746 SCRA 452
reached “epidemic,” “monstrous,” and “harrowing” proportions, and that its disastrously harmful social, (2015), that Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules, which provides that an accused who failed to appear at
economic, and spiritual effects have broken the lives, shattered the hopes, and destroyed the future of the promulgation of the judgment of conviction shall lose the remedies available against the judgment,
thousands especially our young citizens. At the same time, We have equally noted that “as urgent as does not take away substantive rights but merely provides the manner through which an existing right
the campaign against the drug problem must be, so must we as urgently, if not more so, be vigilant in may be implemented.—We said in Jaylo, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al., 746 SCRA 452 (2015), that
the protection of the rights of the accused as mandated by the Constitution x x x who, because of Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules, which provides that an accused who failed to appear at the
excessive zeal on the part of the law enforcers, may be unjustly accused and convicted.” Fully aware of promulgation of the judgment of conviction shall lose the remedies available against the judgment,
the gravity of the drug menace that has beset our country and its direct link to certain crimes, the Court, does not take away substantive rights but merely provides the manner through which an existing right
within its sphere, must do its part to assist in the all-out effort to lessen, if not totally eradicate, the may be implemented. Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court, does not take away per se the right of
continued presence of drug lords, pushers and users. the convicted accused to avail of the remedies under the Rules. It is the failure of the accused to
appear without justifiable cause on the scheduled date of promulgation of the judgment of conviction
Courts; Supreme Court; Jurisdiction; The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and that forfeits their right to avail themselves of the remedies against the judgment. It is not correct to say
procedure is now the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) exclusive domain and no longer shared with the that Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court diminishes or modifies the substantive rights of
Executive and Legislative departments.—The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and petitioners. It only works in pursuance of the power of the Supreme Court to “provide a simplified and
procedure is now Our exclusive domain and no longer shared with the Executive and Legislative inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases.” This provision protects the courts from
departments. In Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, 301 SCRA 96 (1999), then Associate Justice (later delay in the speedy disposition of criminal cases — delay arising from the simple expediency of
Chief Justice) Reynato S. Puna traced the history of the Court’s rulemaking power and highlighted its nonappearance of the accused on the scheduled promulgation of the judgment of conviction.
evolution and development.
Same; Same; Plea Bargaining; In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as “a
Political Law; Separation of Powers; The separation of powers among the three (3) coequal process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the
branches of our government has erected an impregnable wall that keeps the power to promulgate rules case subject to court approval.”—In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as “a process
of pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province of the Supreme Court (SC).—The whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case
separation of powers among the three coequal branches of our government has erected an subject to court approval.” There is give-and-take negotiation common in plea bargaining. The essence
impregnable wall that keeps the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure within of the agreement is that both the prosecution and the defense make concessions to avoid potential
the sole province of this Court. The other branches trespass upon this prerogative if they enact laws or losses. Properly administered, plea bargaining is to be encouraged because the chief virtues of the
issue orders that effectively repeal, alter or modify any of the procedural rules promulgated by the system — speed, economy, and finality — can benefit the accused, the offended party, the
Court. Viewed from this perspective, We have rejected previous attempts on the part of the Congress, prosecution, and the court. Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage, the rules on plea
in the exercise of its legislative power, to amend the Rules of Court (Rules). bargaining neither create a right nor take away a vested right. Instead, it operates as a means to
implement an existing right by regulating the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized against said motion, it behooves the trial court to assiduously study the prosecution’s evidence as well
by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them. as all the circumstances upon which the accused made his change of plea to the end that the interests
of justice and of the public will be served. The ruling on the motion must disclose the strength or
Same; Same; Same; Under the present Rules, the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty is not a weakness of the prosecution’s evidence. Absent any finding on the weight of the evidence on hand, the
demandable right but depends on the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, which is a judge’s acceptance of the defendant’s change of plea is improper and irregular.
condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense that is necessarily included in the
offense charged.—The decision to plead guilty is often heavily influenced by the defendant’s appraisal
of the prosecution’s case against him and by the apparent likelihood of securing leniency should a
guilty plea be offered and accepted. In any case, whether it be to the offense charged or to a lesser
PERALTA, J.:
crime, a guilty plea is a “serious and sobering occasion” inasmuch as it constitutes a waiver of the
fundamental rights to be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, to be heard by himself and
 
counsel, to meet the witnesses face to face, to bail (except those charged with offenses punishable Challenged in this petition for certiorari and prohibition is the constitutionality of Section
by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong), to be convicted by proof beyond reasonable 23 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,”
doubt, and not to be compelled to be a witness against himself. Yet a defendant has no constitutional which provides:
right to plea bargain. No basic rights are infringed by trying him rather than accepting a plea of guilty; SEC. 23. Plea Bargaining Provision.—Any person charged under any provision of
the prosecutor need not do so if he prefers to go to trial. Under the present Rules, the acceptance of an this Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision
offer to plead guilty is not a demandable right but depends on the consent of the offended party and the on plea bargaining.
prosecutor, which is a condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense that is necessarily  
included in the offense charged. The reason for this is that the prosecutor has full control of the The facts are not in dispute.
prosecution of criminal actions; his duty is to always prosecute the proper offense, not any lesser or
graver one, based on what the evidence on hand can sustain.
Petitioner Salvador A. Estipona, Jr. (Estipona) is the accused in Criminal Case No.
Same; Same; Same; Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea of guilty for a lighter 13586 for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Dangerous
offense than that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a matter of bargaining or Drugs). The Information alleged:
compromise for the convenience of the accused.—The plea is further addressed to the sound That on or about the 21st day of March, 2016, in the City of Legazpi, Philippines,
discretion of the trial court, which may allow the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, not being
necessarily included in the offense charged. The word may denotes an exercise of discretion upon the lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any regulated drug and without the
trial court on whether to allow the accused to make such plea. Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind corresponding license or prescription, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
that a plea of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a feloniously have, in his possession and under his control and custody, one (1) piece
matter of bargaining or compromise for the convenience of the accused. heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as VOP 03/21/16-1G containing 0.084
[gram] of white crystalline substance, which when examined were found to be positive
Same; Same; Same; Plea bargaining is allowed during the arraignment, the pretrial, or even up for Methamphetamine Hydrocloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug.
to the point when the prosecution already rested its case.—Plea bargaining is allowed during the CONTRARY TO LAW.
arraignment, the pretrial, or even up to the point when the prosecution already rested its case. As
regards plea bargaining during the pretrial stage, the trial court’s exercise of discretion should not On June 15, 2016, Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea
amount to a grave abuse thereof. “Grave abuse of discretion” is a capricious and whimsical exercise of Bargaining Agreement, praying to withdraw his not guilty plea and, instead, to enter a plea
judgment so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to of guilty for violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Equipment,
perform a duty enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner
Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) with a penalty of
because of passion or hostility; it arises when a court or tribunal violates the Constitution, the law or
rehabilitation in view of his being a first-time offender and the minimal quantity of the
existing jurisprudence.
dangerous drug seized in his possession. He argued that Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165
Same; Same; Same; If the accused moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense subsequent to a violates: (1) the intent of the law expressed in paragraph 3, Section 2 thereof; (2) the
bail hearing or after the prosecution rested its case, the rules allow such a plea only when the rulemaking authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987
prosecution does not have sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the crime charged.—If the Constitution; and (3) the principle of separation of powers among the three equal branches
accused moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense subsequent to a bail hearing or after the prosecution of the government.
rested its case, the rules allow such a plea only when the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence
to establish the guilt of the crime charged. The only basis on which the prosecutor and the court could
In its Comment or Opposition  dated June 27, 2016, the prosecution moved for the
rightfully act in allowing change in the former plea of not guilty could be nothing more and nothing less
denial of the motion for being contrary to Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165, which is said to be
than the evidence on record. As soon as the prosecutor has submitted a comment whether for or
justified by the Congress’ prerogative to choose which offense it would allow plea
bargaining. Later, in a Comment or Opposition dated June 29, 2016, it manifested that it “is II.
open to the Motion of the accused to enter into plea bargaining to give life to the intent of WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS
the law as provided in paragraph 3, Section 2 of [R.A. No.] 9165, however, with the express IT ENCROACHED UPON THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO
PROMULGATE RULES OF PROCEDURE.
mandate of Section 23 of [R.A. No.] 9165 prohibiting plea bargaining, [it] is left without any
III.
choice but to reject the proposal of the accused.” WHETHER THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, AS PRESIDED BY HON. FRANK E.
LOBRIGO, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK
On July 12, 2016, respondent Judge Frank E. Lobrigo of the Regional Trial Court OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT REFUSED TO DECLARE SECTION 23 OF
(RTC), Branch 3, Legazpi City, Albay, issued an Order denying Estipona’s motion. It was REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
opined:  
The accused posited in his motion that Sec. 23 of RA No. 9165, which prohibits We grant the petition.
plea bargaining, encroaches on the exclusive constitutional power of the Supreme Court
to promulgate rules of procedure because plea bargaining is a “rule of procedure.” Procedural Matters
Indeed, plea bargaining forms part of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, particularly
 
under Rule 118, the rule on pretrial conference. It is only the Rules of Court
The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its constitutional rulemaking power that
breathes life to plea bargaining. It cannot be found in any statute. contends that the petition should be dismissed outright for being procedurally defective on
Without saying so, the accused implies that Sec. 23 of Republic Act No. 9165 is the grounds that: (1) the Congress should have been impleaded as an indispensable party;
unconstitutional because it, in effect, suspends the operation of Rule 118 of the Rules of (2) the constitutionality of Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 cannot be attacked collaterally; and
Court insofar as it allows plea bargaining as part of the mandatory pretrial conference in (3) the proper recourse should have been a petition for declaratory relief before this Court or
criminal cases. a petition for certiorari before the RTC. Moreover, the OSG argues that the petition fails to
The Court sees merit in the argument of the accused that it is also the intendment satisfy the requisites of judicial review because: (1) Estipona lacks legal standing to sue for
of the law, R.A. No. 9165, to rehabilitate an accused of a drug offense. Rehabilitation is
failure to show direct injury; (2) there is no actual case or controversy; and (3) the
thus only possible in cases of use of illegal drugs because plea bargaining is disallowed.
However, by case law, the Supreme Court allowed rehabilitation for accused charged
constitutionality of Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 is not the lis motaof the case.
with possession of paraphernalia with traces of dangerous drugs, as held in People v.
Martinez, G.R. No. 191366, 13 December 2010. The ruling of the Supreme Court in this On matters of technicality, some points raised by the OSG maybe correct. Nonetheless,
case manifested the relaxation of an otherwise stringent application of Republic Act No. without much further ado, it must be underscored that it is within this Court’s power to make
9165 in order to serve an intent for the enactment of the law, that is, to rehabilitate the exceptions to the rules of court. Under proper conditions, We may permit the full and
offender. exhaustive ventilation of the parties’ arguments and positions despite the supposed
Within the spirit of the disquisition in People v. Martinez, there might be plausible technical infirmities of a petition or its alleged procedural flaws. In discharging its solemn
basis for the declaration of Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165, which bars plea bargaining as
duty as the final arbiter of constitutional issues, the Court shall not shirk from its obligation
unconstitutional because indeed the inclusion of the provision in the law encroaches on
the exclusive constitutional power of the Supreme Court. to determine novel issues, or issues of first impression, with far-reaching implications.
While basic is the precept that lower courts are not precluded from resolving,
whenever warranted, constitutional questions, the Court is not unaware of the Likewise, matters of procedure and technicalities normally take a backseat when issues
admonition of the Supreme Court that lower courts must observe a becoming modesty of substantial and transcendental importance are present.1 We have acknowledged that the
in examining constitutional questions. Upon which admonition, it is thus not for this Philippines’ problem on illegal drugs has reached “epidemic,” “monstrous,” and “harrowing”
lower court to declare Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165 unconstitutional given the potential proportions, and that its disastrously harmful social, economic, and spiritual effects have
ramifications that such declaration might have on the prosecution of illegal drug cases
broken the lives, shattered the hopes, and destroyed the future of thousands especially our
pending before this judicial station.
young citizens. At the same time, We have equally noted that “as urgent as the campaign
 
against the drug problem must be, so must we as urgently, if not more so, be vigilant in the
Estipona filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied in an Order9 dated July 26,
protection of the rights of the accused as mandated by the Constitution x x x who, because
2016; hence, this petition raising the issues as follows:
of excessive zeal on the part of the law enforcers, may be unjustly accused and convicted.”
I.
WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, WHICH PROHIBITS PLEA Fully aware of the gravity of the drug menace that has beset our country and its direct link to
BARGAINING IN ALL VIOLATIONS OF THE SAID LAW, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL certain crimes, the Court, within its sphere, must do its part to assist in the all-out effort to
FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EQUAL lessen, if not totally eradicate, the continued presence of drug lords, pushers and users.
PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
 Bearing in mind the very important and pivotal issues raised in this petition, technical power of Congress to repeal, alter or supplement. Thus, its Section 13, Article VIII
matters should not deter Us from having to make the final and definitive pronouncement provides:
that everyone else depends for enlightenment and guidance. When public interest requires, “Sec. 13. The Supreme Court shall have the power to promulgate rules
concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, and the admission to
the Court may brush aside procedural rules in order to resolve a constitutional issue.
the practice of law. Said rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade
x x x [T]he Court is invested with the power to suspend the application of the rules
and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. The existing laws
of procedure as a necessary complement of its power to promulgate the same. Barnes
on pleading, practice and procedure are hereby repealed as statutes, and are
v. Hon. Quijano Padilla discussed the rationale for this tenet, viz.:
declared Rules of Court, subject to the power of the Supreme Court to alter and
Let it be emphasized that the rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools
modify the same. The Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter or
designed to facilitate the attainment of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which
supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure, and the
would result in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather than promote substantial
admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.”
justice, must always be eschewed. Even the Rules of Court reflect this principle. The
The said power of Congress, however, is not as absolute as it may appear on its
power to suspend or even disregard rules can be so pervasive and compelling as to
surface. In In re: Cunanan, Congress in the exercise of its power to amend rules of the
alter even that which this Court itself has already declared to be final, x x x.
Supreme Court regarding admission to the practice of law, enacted the Bar Flunkers Act
The emerging trend in the rulings of this Court is to afford every party litigant the
of 1953 which considered as a passing grade, the average of 70% in the bar
amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the
examinations after July 4, 1946 up to August 1951 and 71% in the 1952 bar
constraints of technicalities. Time and again, this Court has consistently held that rules
examinations. This Court struck down the law as unconstitutional. In his ponencia, Mr.
must not be applied rigidly so as not to override substantial justice.
Justice Diokno held that “x x x the disputed law is not a legislation; it is a judgment — a
judgment promulgated by this Court during the aforecited years affecting the bar
Substantive Issues candidates concerned; and although this Court certainly can revoke these judgments
  even now, for justifiable reasons, it is no less certain that only this Court, and not the
Rulemaking power of the Supreme Court under the 1987 Constitution legislative nor executive department, that may do so. Any attempt on the part of these
  departments would be a clear usurpation of its function, as is the case with the law in
Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides: question.” The venerable jurist further ruled: “It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate
Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: power to grant license for the practice of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the
x x x x law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive character, or as other authorities
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license.” By its ruling, this Court
rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of qualified the absolutist tone of the power of Congress to repeal, alter or supplement the
law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure, and the admission to the practice of
provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, law in the Philippines.
shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or The ruling of this Court in In re: Cunanan, was not changed by the 1973
modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies Constitution. For the 1973 Constitution reiterated the power of this Court “to promulgate
shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, x x x which, however,
  may be repealed, altered or supplemented by the Batasang Pambansa x x x.” More
completely, Section 5(2)5 of its Article X provided:
The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now Our exclusive
x x x x
domain and no longer shared with the Executive and Legislative departments. “Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers.
In Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, then Associate Justice (later Chief Justice) x x x x
Reynato S. Puno traced the history of the Court’s rulemaking power and highlighted its (5) Promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all
evolution and development. courts, the admission to the practice of law, and the integration of the Bar,
x x x It should be stressed that the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice which, however, may be repealed, altered, or supplemented by the Batasang
and procedure was granted by our Constitutions to this Court to enhance its Pambansa. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for
independence, for in the words of Justice Isagani Cruz “without independence and the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same
integrity, courts will lose that popular trust so essential to the maintenance of their vigor grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights.”
as champions of justice.” Hence, our Constitutions continuously vested this power to Well worth noting is that the 1973 Constitution further strengthened the independence of
this Court for it enhances its independence. Under the 1935 Constitution, the power of the judiciary by giving to it the additional power to promulgate rules governing the
this Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure was integration of the Bar.
granted but it appeared to be coexistent with legislative power for it was subject to the
 The 1987 Constitution molded an even stronger and more independent judiciary. Aquino’s proposal to delete the phrase “the National Assembly may repeal, alter, or
Among others, it enhanced the rule making power of this Court. Its Section 5(5), Article supplement the said rules with the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court” and
VIII provides: (b) in turn, Commissioner Aquino agreed to withdraw his proposal to add “the phrase
x x x with the concurrence of the National Assembly.” The changes were approved,
“Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: thereby leading to the present lack of textual reference to any form of
x x x Congressional participation in Section 5(5), Article VIII, supra. The prevailing
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of consideration was that “both bodies, the Supreme Court and the Legislature, have
constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the their inherent powers.”
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the Thus, as it now stands, Congress has no authority to repeal, alter, or supplement
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure. x x x
for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same  
grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of The separation of powers among the three coequal branches of our government has
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective erected an impregnable wall that keeps the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice
unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.”
and procedure within the sole province of this Court. The other branches trespass upon this
The rule making power of this Court was expanded. This Court, for the first time, was
given the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders that effectively repeal, alter or modify any of
constitutional rights. The Court was also granted for the first time the power to the procedural rules promulgated by the Court. Viewed from this perspective, We have
disapprove rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. But most rejected previous attempts on the part of the Congress, in the exercise of its legislative
importantly, the 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or power, to amend the Rules of Court (Rules) to wit:
supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure. In fine, the power to 1. Fabian v. Desierto — Appeal from the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in
promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is no longer shared by this Court an administrative disciplinary case should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the
with Congress, more so with the Executive. x x x provisions of Rule 43 of the Rules instead of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 as
provided in Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770.
Just recently, Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division) further elucidated: 2. Cathay Metal Corporation v. Laguna West Multipurpose Cooperative, Inc. — The
While the power to define, prescribe, and apportion the jurisdiction of the various Cooperative Code provisions on notices cannot replace the rules on summons under
courts is, by constitutional design, vested unto Congress, the power to promulgate Rule 14 of the Rules.
rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, 3. RE: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the GSIS from Payment of Legal
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts belongs exclusively to this Court. Fees; Baguio Market Vendors Multipurpose Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO) v. Hon.
Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution reads: Judge Cabato-Cortes;  In Re: Exemption of the National Power Corporation from
x x x x Payment of Filing/Docket Fees;  and Rep. of the Phils. v. Hon. Mangotara, et al. —
In Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice (Echegaray), the Court traced the evolution of Despite statutory provisions, the GSIS, BAMARVEMPCO, and NPC are not exempt
its rule-making authority, which, under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, had been from the payment of legal fees imposed by Rule 141 of the Rules.
priorly subjected to a power-sharing scheme with Congress. As it now stands, the 1987 4. Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division) — The first paragraph of Section
Constitution textually altered the old provisions by deleting the concurrent power 14 of R.A. No. 6770, which prohibits courts except the Supreme Court from issuing
of Congress to amend the rules, thus solidifying in one body the Court’s rule- temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin an
making powers, in line with the Framers’ vision of institutionalizing a “[s]tronger and investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, is unconstitutional as it contravenes Rule
more independent judiciary.” 58 of the Rules.
The records of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission would show that
the Framers debated on whether or not the Court’s rule making powers should be Considering that the aforesaid laws effectively modified the Rules, this Court asserted
shared with Congress. There was an initial suggestion to insert the sentence “The its discretion to amend, repeal or even establish new rules of procedure, to the exclusion of
National Assembly may repeal, alter, or supplement the said rules with the advice and the legislative and executive branches of government. To reiterate, the Court’s authority to
concurrence of the Supreme Court,” right after the phrase “Promulgate rules concerning promulgate rules on pleading, practice, and procedure is exclusive and one of the
the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
safeguards of Our institutional independence.
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged[,]” in the enumeration of powers of the Supreme  
Court. Later, Commissioner Felicitas S. Aquino proposed to delete the former sentence Plea bargaining in criminal cases
and, instead, after the word “[under]privileged,” place a comma (,) to be followed by “the  
phrase with the concurrence of the National Assembly.” Eventually, a compromise Plea bargaining, as a rule and a practice, has been existing in our jurisdiction since July
formulation was reached wherein (a) the Committee members agreed to Commissioner 1, 1940, when the 1940 Rules took effect. Section 4, Rule 114 (Pleas) of which stated:
 SEC. 4. Plea of guilty of lesser offense.—The defendant, with the consent of the court SEC. 1. Pretrial; mandatory in criminal cases.—In all criminal cases cognizable by
and of the fiscal, may plead guilty of any lesser offense than that charged which is the Sandiganbayan, Regional Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court
necessarily included in the offense charged in the complaint or information. in Cities, Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the court shall, after
  arraignment and within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over
When the 1964 Rules became effective on January 1, 1964, the same provision was the person of the accused, unless a shorter period is provided for in special laws or
retained under Rule 118 (Pleas). Subsequently, with the effectivity of the 1985 Rules on circulars of the Supreme Court, order a pretrial conference to consider the following:
(a) plea bargaining;
January 1, 1985, the provision on plea of guilty to a lesser offense was amended. Section 2,
(b) stipulation of facts;
Rule 116 provided: (c) marking for identification of evidence of the parties;
SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense.—The accused with the consent of the (d) waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence;
offended party and the fiscal, may be allowed by the trial court to plead guilty to a lesser (e) modification of the order of trial if the accused admits the charge but
offense, regardless of whether or not it is necessarily included in the crime charged, or interposes a lawful defense; and
is cognizable by a court of lesser jurisdiction than the trial court. No amendment of the (f) such matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial of the criminal and
complaint or information is necessary. (4a, R-118) civil aspects of the case. (Secs. 2 & 3, Cir. 38-98)

As well, the term “plea bargaining” was first mentioned and expressly required during Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure
pretrial. Section 2, Rule 118 mandated:
SEC. 2. Pre-trial conference; subjects.—The pretrial conference shall consider the
The Supreme Court’s sole prerogative to issue, amend, or repeal procedural rules is
following:
(a) Plea bargaining;
limited to the preservation of substantive rights, i.e., the former should not diminish,
(b) Stipulation of facts; increase or modify the latter. “Substantive law is that part of the law which creates, defines
(c) Marking for identification of evidence of the parties; and regulates rights, or which regulates the right and duties which give rise to a cause of
(d) Waiver of objections to admissibility of evidence; and action; that part of the law which courts are established to administer; as opposed to
(e) Such other matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial. (n) adjective or remedial law, which prescribes the method of enforcing rights or obtain redress
  for their invasions.” Fabian v. Hon. Desierto laid down the test for determining whether a rule
The 1985 Rules was later amended. While the wordings of Section 2, Rule 118 was is substantive or procedural in nature.
retained, Section 2, Rule 116 was modified in 1987. A second paragraph was added, It will be noted that no definitive line can be drawn between those rules or statutes
stating that “[a] conviction under this plea shall be equivalent to a conviction of the offense which are procedural, hence within the scope of this Court’s rulemaking power, and
charged for purposes of double jeopardy.” those which are substantive. In fact, a particular rule may be procedural in one context
and substantive in another. It is admitted that what is procedural and what is substantive
is frequently a question of great difficulty. It is not, however, an insurmountable problem
When R.A. No. 8493 (“Speedy Trial Act of 1998”) was enacted, Section 2, Rule 118 of
if a rational and pragmatic approach is taken within the context of our own procedural
the Rules was substantially adopted. Section 2 of the law required that plea bargaining and and jurisdictional system.
other matters that will promote a fair and expeditious trial are to be considered during In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the practice and
pretrial conference in all criminal cases cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court, Municipal procedure of the lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substantive right, the
Circuit Trial Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, and the Sandiganbayan. test is whether the rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial process for
enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering
Currently, the pertinent rules on plea bargaining under the 2000 Rules are quoted remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them. If the rule takes away a vested
below:  right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be
classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a means of implementing an
RULE 116 (Arraignment and Plea):
existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure.
SEC. 2. Plea of guilty to a lesser offense.—At arraignment, the accused, with the
consent of the offended party and the prosecutor, may be allowed by the trial court to  
plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense charged. In several occasions, We dismissed the argument that a procedural rule violates
After arraignment but before trial, the accused may still be allowed to plead guilty to said substantive rights. For example, in People v. Lacson, Section 8, Rule 117 of the Rules on
lesser offense after withdrawing his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the complaint provisional dismissal was held as a special procedural limitation qualifying the right of the
or information is necessary. (Sec. 4, Cir. 38-98) State to prosecute, making the time bar an essence of the given right or as an inherent part
RULE 118 (Pretrial): thereof, so that its expiration operates to extinguish the right of the State to prosecute the
accused. Speaking through then Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., the Court opined:
 In the new rule in question, as now construed by the Court, it has fixed a time bar of Also, We said in Jaylo, et al. v. Sandiganbayan, et al.  that Section 6, Rule 120 of
one year or two years for the revival of criminal cases provisionally dismissed with the the Rules, which provides that an accused who failed to appear at the promulgation of the
express consent of the accused and with a priori notice to the offended party. The time judgment of conviction shall lose the remedies available against the judgment, does not
bar may appear, on first impression, unreasonable compared to the periods under
take away substantive rights but merely provides the manner through which an existing right
Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code. However, in fixing the time bar, the Court
balanced the societal interests and those of the accused for the orderly and speedy
may be implemented.
disposition of criminal cases with minimum prejudice to the State and the accused. It Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court, does not take away per se the right of
took into account the substantial rights of both the State and of the accused to due the convicted accused to avail of the remedies under the Rules. It is the failure of the
process. The Court believed that the time limit is a reasonable period for the State to accused to appear without justifiable cause on the scheduled date of promulgation of
revive provisionally dismissed cases with the consent of the accused and notice to the the judgment of conviction that forfeits their right to avail themselves of the remedies
offended parties. The time bar fixed by the Court must be respected unless it is shown against the judgment.
that the period is manifestly short or insufficient that the rule becomes a denial of justice. It is not correct to say that Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court diminishes or
The petitioners failed to show a manifest shortness or insufficiency of the time bar. modifies the substantive rights of petitioners. It only works in pursuance of the power of
The new rule was conceptualized by the Committee on the Revision of the Rules the Supreme Court to “provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy
and approved by the Court En Banc primarily to enhance the administration of the disposition of cases.” This provision protects the courts from delay in the speedy
criminal justice system and the rights to due process of the State and the accused by disposition of criminal cases — delay arising from the simple expediency of
eliminating the deleterious practice of trial courts of provisionally dismissing criminal nonappearance of the accused on the scheduled promulgation of the judgment of
cases on motion of either the prosecution or the accused or jointly, either with no time- conviction.
bar for the revival thereof or with a specific or definite period for such revival by the  
public prosecutor. There were times when such criminal cases were no longer revived By the same token, it is towards the provision of a simplified and inexpensive procedure
or refiled due to causes beyond the control of the public prosecutor or because of the for the speedy disposition of cases in all court that the rules on plea bargaining was
indolence, apathy or the lackadaisical attitude of public prosecutors to the prejudice of introduced. As a way of disposing criminal charges by agreement of the parties, plea
the State and the accused despite the mandate to public prosecutors and trial judges to bargaining is considered to be an “important,” “essential,” “highly desirable,” and “legitimate”
expedite criminal proceedings. component of the administration of justice. Some of its salutary effects include:
It is almost a universal experience that the accused welcomes delay as it usually
x x x For a defendant who sees slight possibility of acquittal, the advantages of pleading
operates in his favor, especially if he greatly fears the consequences of his trial and
guilty and limiting the probable penalty are obvious — his exposure is reduced, the
conviction. He is hesitant to disturb the hushed inaction by which dominant cases have
correctional processes can begin immediately, and the practical burdens of a trial are
been known to expire.
eliminated. For the State there are also advantages — the more promptly imposed
The inordinate delay in the revival or refiling of criminal cases may impair or reduce
punishment after an admission of guilt may more effectively attain the objectives of
the capacity of the State to prove its case with the disappearance or nonavailability of its
punishment; and with the avoidance of trial, scarce judicial and prosecutorial resources
witnesses. Physical evidence may have been lost. Memories of witnesses may have
are conserved for those cases in which there is a substantial issue of the defendant’s
grown dim or have faded. Passage of time makes proof of any fact more difficult. The
guilt or in which there is substantial doubt that the State can sustain its burden of proof.
accused may become a fugitive from justice or commit another crime. The longer the
(Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 752 [1970])
lapse of time from the dismissal of the case to the revival thereof, the more difficult it is
Disposition of charges after plea discussions x x x leads to prompt and largely final
to prove the crime.
disposition of most criminal cases; it avoids much of the corrosive impact of enforced
On the other side of the fulcrum, a mere provisional dismissal of a criminal case
idleness during pretrial confinement for those who are denied release pending trial; it
does not terminate a criminal case. The possibility that the case may be revived at any
protects the public from those accused persons who are prone to continue criminal
time may disrupt or reduce, if not derail, the chances of the accused for employment,
conduct even while on pretrial release; and, by shortening the time between charge and
curtail his association, subject him to public obloquy and create anxiety in him and his
disposition, it enhances whatever may be the rehabilitative prospects of the guilty when
family. He is unable to lead a normal life because of community suspicion and his own
they are ultimately imprisoned. (Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 261 [1971])
anxiety. He continues to suffer those penalties and disabilities incompatible with the
The defendant avoids extended pretrial incarceration and the anxieties and
presumption of innocence. He may also lose his witnesses or their memories may fade
uncertainties of a trial; he gains a speedy disposition of his case, the chance to
with the passage of time. In the long run, it may diminish his capacity to defend himself
acknowledge his guilt, and a prompt start in realizing whatever potential there may be
and thus eschew the fairness of the entire criminal justice system.
for rehabilitation. Judges and prosecutors conserve vital and scarce resources. The
The time bar under the new rule was fixed by the Court to excise the malaise that
public is protected from the risks posed by those charged with criminal offenses who are
plagued the administration of the criminal justice system for the benefit of the State and
at large on bail while awaiting completion of criminal proceedings. (Blackledge v.
the accused; not for the accused only.
Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71 [1977])
   
 In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as “a process whereby the allow the accused to make such plea.61 Trial courts are exhorted to keep in mind that a plea
accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject of guilty for a lighter offense than that actually charged is not supposed to be allowed as a
to court approval.” There is give-and-take negotiation common in plea bargaining. The matter of bargaining or compromise for the convenience of the accused.
essence of the agreement is that both the prosecution and the defense make concessions
to avoid potential losses. Properly administered, plea bargaining is to be encouraged Plea bargaining is allowed during the arraignment, the pretrial, or even up to the point
because the chief virtues of the system — speed, economy, and finality — can benefit the when the prosecution already rested its case. As regards plea bargaining during the pre-trial
accused, the offended party, the prosecution, and the court. stage, the trial court’s exercise of discretion should not amount to a grave abuse thereof.
“Grave abuse of discretion” is a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment so patent
Considering the presence of mutuality of advantage, the rules on plea bargaining neither and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty
create a right nor take away a vested right. Instead, it operates as a means to implement an enjoined by law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner
existing right by regulating the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by because of passion or hostility; it arises when a court or tribunal violates the Constitution,
substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction the law or existing jurisprudence.
of them.
If the accused moved to plead guilty to a lesser offense subsequent to a bail hearing or
The decision to plead guilty is often heavily influenced by the defendant’s appraisal of after the prosecution rested its case, the rules allow such a plea only when the prosecution
the prosecution’s case against him and by the apparent likelihood of securing leniency does not have sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the crime charged. The only basis
should a guilty plea be offered and accepted. In any case, whether it be to the offense on which the prosecutor and the court could rightfully act in allowing change in the former
charged or to a lesser crime, a guilty plea is a “serious and sobering occasion” inasmuch as plea of not guilty could be nothing more and nothing less than the evidence on record. As
it constitutes a waiver of the fundamental rights to be presumed innocent until the contrary soon as the prosecutor has submitted a comment whether for or against said motion, it
is proved, to be heard by himself and counsel, to meet the witnesses face to face, to bail behooves the trial court to assiduously study the prosecution’s evidence as well as all the
(except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of circumstances upon which the accused made his change of plea to the end that the
guilt is strong), to be convicted by proof beyond reasonable doubt, and not to be compelled interests of justice and of the public will be served. The ruling on the motion must disclose
to be a witness against himself. the strength or weakness of the prosecution’s evidence. Absent any finding on the weight of
the evidence on hand, the judge’s acceptance of the defendant’s change of plea is improper
Yet a defendant has no constitutional right to plea bargain. No basic rights are infringed and irregular.
by trying him rather than accepting a plea of guilty; the prosecutor need not do so if he
prefers to go to trial. Under the present Rules, the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty is On whether Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 violates the equal protection clause
not a demandable right but depends on the consent of the offended party and the  
prosecutor, which is a condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser offense that is At this point, We shall not resolve the issue of whether Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 is
necessarily included in the offense charged. The reason for this is that the prosecutor has contrary to the constitutional right to equal protection of the law in order not to preempt any
full control of the prosecution of criminal actions; his duty is to always prosecute the proper future discussion by the Court on the policy considerations behind Section 23 of R.A. No.
offense, not any lesser or graver one, based on what the evidence on hand can sustain. 9165. Pending deliberation on whether or not to adopt the statutory provision in toto or a
[Courts] normally must defer to prosecutorial decisions as to whom to prosecute. The qualified version thereof, We deem it proper to declare as invalid the prohibition against
reasons for judicial deference are well known. Prosecutorial charging decisions are plea bargaining on drug cases until and unless it is made part of the rules of procedure
rarely simple. In addition to assessing the strength and importance of a case, through an administrative circular duly issued for the purpose.
prosecutors also must consider other tangible and intangible factors, such as
government enforcement priorities. Finally, they also must decide how best to allocate
the scarce resources of a criminal justice system that simply cannot accommodate the
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. Section 23 of
litigation of every serious criminal charge. Because these decisions “are not readily Republic Act No. 9165 is declared unconstitutional for being contrary to the rulemaking
susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake,” we have authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.
been “properly hesitant to examine the decision whether to prosecute.” SO ORDERED.
 
The plea is further addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which may allow Notes.—Plea bargaining is a process, in criminal cases, whereby the accused and the prosecution
the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense which is necessarily included in the offense work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval. (Amante-Descallar vs.
charged. The word may denotes an exercise of discretion upon the trial court on whether to Ramas, 582 SCRA 22 [2009])
 While it would be a violation of the principle of separation of powers for the courts to interfere with
the wordings of a statute, there would be no violation of said principle for the court to merely affirm the
correction made by the same entity which committed the error. (The Learning Child, Inc. vs. Ayala
Alabang Village Association, 624 SCRA 258 [2010])
 
——o0o——
  CASES REPORTED Same; Civil Procedure; Verification; Certification Against Forum Shopping; Without the presence
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED  of the notary upon the signing of the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping, there is no
____________________ assurance that the petitioner swore under oath that the allegations in the petition have been made in
good faith; or are true and correct, and not merely speculative.—Without the presence of the notary
  
upon the signing of the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping, there is no assurance
G.R. No. 229781. October 10, 2017.* that the petitioner swore under oath that the allegations in the petition have been made in good faith; or
  are true and correct, and not merely speculative. It must be noted that verification is not an empty ritual
SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, HON. JUANITA GUERRERO, in her capacity as Presiding or a meaningless formality. Its import must never be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or
Judge, Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204, PEOPLE OF THE sheer caprice, as what apparently happened in the present case. Similarly, the absence of the notary
PHILIPPINES, P/DIR. GEN. RONALD M. DELA ROSA, in his capacity as Chief of the public when petitioner allegedly affixed her signature also negates a proper attestation that forum
Philippine National Police, PSUPT. PHILIP GIL M. PHILIPPS, in his capacity as Director, shopping has not been committed by the filing of the petition. Thus, the petition is, for all intents and
Headquarters Support Service, SUPT. ARNEL JAMANDRON APUD, in his capacity as purposes, an unsigned pleading that does not deserve the cognizance of this Court.
CHIEF, PNP CUSTODIAL SERVICE UNIT, and ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR
Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply
CONTROL, SUPERVISION, INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION IN RELATION TO THE disregarded, for these prescribed procedures ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.—
ORDERS THAT MAY BE ISSUED BY THE COURT petitioner, vs. HON. JUANITA Notably, petitioner has not proffered any reason to justify her failure to sign the Verification and
GUERRERO, in her capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Certification against Forum Shopping in the presence of the notary. There is, therefore, no justification
Branch 204, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, P/DIR. GEN. RONALD M. DELA ROSA, in to relax the rules and excuse the petitioner’s noncompliance therewith. This Court had reminded parties
his capacity as Chief of the Philippine National Police, PSUPT. PHILIP GIL M. PHILIPPS, in seeking the ultimate relief of certiorari to observe the rules, since nonobservance thereof cannot be
his capacity as Director, Headquarters Support Service, SUPT. ARNEL JAMANDRON brushed aside as a “mere technicality.” Procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply disregarded,
for these prescribed procedures ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Thus, as
APUD, in his capacity as CHIEF, PNP CUSTODIAL SERVICE UNIT, and ALL PERSONS
in William Go Que Construction, the proper course of action is to dismiss outright the present
ACTING UNDER THEIR CONTROL, SUPERVISION, INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION IN
petition.
RELATION TO THE ORDERS THAT MAY BE ISSUED BY THE COURT, respondents.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; The Supreme Court (SC) has repeatedly emphasized that the
Remedial Law; Special Civil Actions; Certiorari; Prohibition; Both Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 rule on hierarchy of courts is an important component of the orderly administration of justice and not
require that the petitions for certiorari and prohibition must be verified and accompanied by a “sworn imposed merely for whimsical and arbitrary reasons; Exceptions.—Trifling with the rule on hierarchy of
certificate of non-forum shopping.”—While there is jurisprudence to the effect that “an irregular courts is looked upon with disfavor by this Court. It will not entertain direct resort to it when relief can be
notarization merely reduces the evidentiary value of a document to that of a private document, which obtained in the lower courts. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the rule on hierarchy of courts
requires proof of its due execution and authenticity to be admissible as evidence,” the same cannot be is an important component of the orderly administration of justice and not imposed merely for whimsical
considered controlling in determining compliance with the requirements of Sections 1 and 2, Rule 65 of and arbitrary reasons. In The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, 747 SCRA 1 (2015), the
the Rules of Court. Both Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 require that the petitions for certiorari and Court explained the reason for the doctrine thusly: The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy
prohibition must be verified and accompanied by a “sworn certificate of non-forum shopping.” In this on the hierarchy of courts, and now affirms that the policy is not to be ignored without serious
regard, Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[a] pleading is verified by an consequences. The strictness of the policy is designed to shield the Court from having to deal
affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his with causes that are also well within the competence of the lower courts, and thus leave time for
personal knowledge or based on authentic records.” “A pleading required to be verified which x x x the Court to deal with the more fundamental and more essential tasks that the Constitution
lacks a proper verification, shall be treated as an unsigned pleading.” Meanwhile, Section 5, Rule has assigned to it. The Court may act on petitions for the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition
7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in and mandamus only when absolutely necessary or when serious and important reasons exist to justify
the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification annexed an exception to the policy. x x x Nonetheless, there are recognized exceptions to this rule and direct
thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore commenced any action or resort to this Court were allowed in some instances. These exceptions were summarized in a case of
filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best recent vintage, Aala v. Uy, 814 SCRA 41 (2017), as follows: In a fairly recent case, we summarized
of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending other well-defined exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts. Immediate resort to this Court may
action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn be allowed when any of the following grounds are present: (1) when genuine issues of constitutionality
that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five are raised that must be addressed immediately; (2) when the case involves transcendental importance;
(5) days therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.” (3) when the case is novel; (4) when the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this Court;
“Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of (5) when time is of the essence; (6) when the subject of review involves acts of a constitutional organ;
the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case (7) when there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; (8) when the
without prejudice, unless otherwise provided x x x.” petition includes questions that may affect public welfare, public policy, or demanded by the broader
interest of justice; (9) when the order complained of was a patent nullity; and (10) when the appeal was reveal her real motive in filing the instant petition — to restore to “petitioner her liberty and freedom.”
considered as an inappropriate remedy. Nowhere in the prayer did petitioner explicitly ask for the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 17-165. What
is clear is she merely asked the respondent judge to rule on her Motion to Quash before issuing the
Constitutional Law; Equal Protection of the Laws; That the petitioner is a senator of the republic warrant of arrest. In view of the foregoing, there is no other course of action to take than to dismiss the
does not also merit a special treatment of her case. The right to equal treatment before the law petition on the ground of prematurity and allow respondent Judge to rule on the Motion to Quash
accorded to every Filipino also forbids the elevation of petitioner’s cause on account of her position and according to the desire of petitioner.
status in the government.—Petitioner’s allegation that her case has sparked national and international
interest is obviously not covered by the exceptions to the rules on hierarchy of courts. The notoriety of a Constitutional Law; Judicial Review; Section 5(2)(C) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
case, without more, is not and will not be a reason for this Court’s decisions. Neither will this Court be explicitly requires the existence of “final judgments and orders of lower courts” before the Supreme
swayed to relax its rules on the bare fact that the petitioner belongs to the minority party in the present Court (SC) can exercise its power to “review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal
administration. A primary hallmark of an independent judiciary is its political neutrality. This Court is or certiorari” in “all cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.”—Indeed, the
thus loath to perceive and consider the issues before it through the warped prisms of political prematurity of the present petition cannot be overemphasized considering that petitioner is actually
partisanships. That the petitioner is a senator of the republic does not also merit a special treatment of asking the Court to rule on some of the grounds subject of her Motion to Quash. The Court, if it rules
her case. The right to equal treatment before the law accorded to every Filipino also forbids the positively in favor of petitioner regarding the grounds of the Motion to Quash, will be preempting the
elevation of petitioner’s cause on account of her position and status in the government. respondent Judge from doing her duty to resolve the said motion and even prejudge the case. This is
clearly outside of the ambit of orderly and expeditious rules of procedure. This, without a doubt, causes
Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Warrants of Arrest; It is established that the issue of an inevitable delay in the proceedings in the trial court, as the latter abstains from resolving the
whether or not probable cause exists for the issuance of warrants for the arrest of the accused is a incidents until this Court rules with finality on the instant petition. Without such order, the present
question of fact, determinable as it is from a review of the allegations in the Information, the Resolution petition cannot satisfy the requirements set before this Court can exercise its review powers. Section
of the Investigating Prosecutor, including other documents and/or evidence appended to the 5(2)(C) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly requires the existence of “final judgments and
Information.—Petitioner’s argument that the rule on the hierarchy of court should be disregarded as her orders of lower courts” before the Court can exercise its power to “review, revise, reverse, modify, or
case involves pure questions of law does not obtain. One of the grounds upon which petitioner anchors affirm on appeal or certiorari” in “all cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.”
her case is that the respondent judge erred and committed grave abuse of discretion in finding
probable cause to issue her arrest. By itself, this ground removes the case from the ambit of cases Courts; Actual Case or Controversy; The established rule is that courts of justice will take
involving pure questions of law. It is established that the issue of whether or not probable cause exists cognizance only of controversies “wherein actual and not merely hypothetical issues are involved.”—
for the issuance of warrants for the arrest of the accused is a question of fact, determinable as it is from The established rule is that courts of justice will take cognizance only of controversies “wherein actual
a review of the allegations in the Information, the Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor, including and not merely hypothetical issues are involved.” The reason underlying the rule is “to prevent the
other documents and/or evidence appended to the Information. This matter, therefore, should have first courts through avoidance of premature adjudication from entangling themselves in abstract
been brought before the appellate court, which is in the better position to review and determine factual disagreements, and for us to be satisfied that the case does not present a hypothetical injury or a claim
matters. contingent upon some event that has not and indeed may never transpire.” Even
granting arguendo that what is invoked is the original jurisdiction of this Court under Section 5(1) of
Actions; Dismissal of Actions; Prematurity; Petitioner under paragraphs (c) and (d) prayed for a Article VIII, the petition nonetheless falls short of the Constitutional requirements and of Rule 65 of the
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and writ of preliminary injunction and a status quo ante order Rules of Court. In the absence of a final judgment, order, or ruling on the Motion to Quash challenging
which easily reveal her real motive in filing the instant petition — to restore to petitioner her liberty and the jurisdiction of the lower court, there is no occasion for this Court to issue the extraordinary writ
freedom; There is no other course of action to take than to dismiss the petition on the ground of of certiorari. Without a judgment or ruling, there is nothing for this Court to declare as having been
prematurity and allow respondent Judge to rule on the Motion to Quash according to the desire of issued without jurisdiction or in grave abuse of discretion.
petitioner.—Under paragraph (a), 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 Criminal Law; Conspiracy; It is not indispensable for a coconspirator to take a direct part in every
committing petitioner to the custody of the PNP Custodial Center. Clearly petitioner seeks the recall of act of the crime. A conspirator need not even know of all the parts which the others have to perform, as
said orders to effectuate her release from detention and restore her liberty. She did not ask for the conspiracy is the common design to commit a felony; it is not participation in all the details of the
dismissal of the subject criminal case. More importantly, her request for the issuance of a writ of execution of the crime.—On this score, that it has not been alleged that petitioner actually participated
prohibition under paragraph (b) of the prayer “until and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved with in the actual trafficking of dangerous drugs and had simply allowed the NBP inmates to do so is non
finality,” is an unmistakable admission that the RTC has yet to rule on her Motion to Quash and sequitur given that the allegation of conspiracy makes her liable for the acts of her coconspirators. As
the existence of the RTC’s authority to rule on the said motion. This admission against interest this Court elucidated, it is not indispensable for a coconspirator to take a direct part in every act of the
binds the petitioner; an admission against interest being the best evidence that affords the greatest crime. A conspirator need not even know of all the parts which the others have to perform, as
certainty of the facts in dispute. It is based on the presumption that “no man would declare anything conspiracy is the common design to commit a felony; it is not participation in all the details of the
against himself unless such declaration is true.” It can be presumed then that the declaration execution of the crime. As long as the accused, in one way or another, helped and cooperated in the
corresponds with the truth, and it is her fault if it does not. Moreover, petitioner under paragraphs (c) consummation of a felony, she is liable as a coprincipal. As the Information provides, De Lima’s
and (d) prayed for a TRO and writ of preliminary injunction and a status quo ante order which easily participation and cooperation was instrumental in the trading of dangerous drugs by the NBP inmates.
The minute details of this participation and cooperation are matters of evidence that need not be or dispensation of such drug or substance in the course of his/her professional practice including
specified in the Information but presented and threshed out during trial. research, teaching and chemical analysis of dangerous drugs or such substances that are not intended
for sale or for any other purpose. x x x x (kk) Use.—Any act of injecting, intravenously or
Same; Dangerous Drugs Act; Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs; Illegal Trading of Dangerous intramuscularly, of consuming, either by chewing, smoking, sniffing, eating, swallowing, drinking or
Drugs; The elements of “Illegal Sale” will necessary differ from the elements of Illegal Trading under otherwise introducing into the physiological system of the body, any of the dangerous drugs.
Section 5, in relation to Section 3(jj), of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165.—It should be noted that the  
subject of these cases was “Illegal Sale” of dangerous drugs — a crime separate and distinct from Same; Same; Same; With the complexity of the operations involved in Illegal Trading of drugs,
“Illegal Trading” averred in the Information against De Lima. The elements of “Illegal Sale” will as recognized and defined in Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, it will be quite myopic and restrictive to
necessary differ from the elements of Illegal Trading under Section 5, in relation to Section 3(jj), of RA require the elements of Illegal Sale — a mere component act — in the prosecution for Illegal Trading.—
9165. The definitions of these two separate acts are reproduced below for easy reference: SECTION With the complexity of the operations involved in Illegal Trading of drugs, as recognized and defined in
3. Definitions.—As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean: x x x x (ii) Sell.—Any act of giving RA 9165, it will be quite myopic and restrictive to require the elements of Illegal Sale — a mere
away any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical whether for money or any component act — in the prosecution for Illegal Trading. More so, that which qualifies the crime of Illegal
other consideration. (jj) Trading.—Transactions involving the illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs Trafficking to Illegal Trading may make it impossible to provide the details of the elements of Illegal
and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals using electronic devices such as, but not limited Sale. By “using electronic devices such as, but not limited to, text messages, e-mail, mobile or
to, text messages, e-mail, mobile or landlines, two-way radios, Internet, instant messengers and chat landlines, two-way radios, Internet, instant messengers and chat rooms,” the Illegal Trading can be
rooms or acting as a broker in any of such transactions whether for money or any other consideration in remotely perpetrated away from where the drugs are actually being sold; away from the subject of the
violation of this Act. It is obvious from the foregoing that the crime of illegal trading has been written in illegal sale. With the proliferation of digital technology coupled with ride sharing and delivery services,
strokes much broader than that for illegal sale. In fact, an illegal sale of drugs may be considered as Illegal Trading under RA 9165 can be committed without getting one’s hand on the substances or
only one of the possible component acts of illegal trading which may be committed through two modes: knowing and meeting the seller or buyer. To require the elements of Illegal Sale (the identities of the
(1) illegal trafficking using electronic devices; or (2) acting as a broker in any transactions involved in buyer, seller, the object and consideration, in Illegal Trade) would be impractical.
the illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs.
Same; Same; Same; For the prosecution of Illegal Trading of drugs to prosper, proof that the
Same; Same; Illegal Trading of Dangerous Drugs; The crime of “illegal trafficking” embraces accused “act[ed] as a broker” or brought together the buyer and seller of illegal drugs “using electronic
various other offenses punishable by Republic Act (RA) No. 9165.—The crime of “illegal trafficking” devices such as, but not limited to, text messages, e-mail, mobile or landlines, two (2)-way radios,
embraces various other offenses punishable by RA 9165. Section 3(r) of RA 9165 provides: (r) Illegal internet, instant messengers and chat rooms” is sufficient.—In some cases, this Court even
Trafficking.—The illegal cultivation, culture, delivery, administration, dispensation, manufacture, sale, acknowledged persons as brokers even “where they actually took no part in the negotiations, never
trading, transportation, distribution, importation, exportation and possession of any dangerous drug saw the customer.” For the Court, the primary occupation of a broker is simply bringing “the buyer and
and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical. In turn, the crimes included in the definition of the seller together, even if no sale is eventually made.” Hence, in indictments for Illegal Trading, it
Illegal Trafficking of drugs are defined as follows: (a) Administer.—Any act of introducing any is illogical to require the elements of Illegal Sale of drugs, such as the identities of the buyer
dangerous drug into the body of any person, with or without his/her knowledge, by injection, inhalation, and the seller, the object and consideration. For the prosecution of Illegal Trading of drugs to
ingestion or other means, or of committing any act of indispensable assistance to a person in prosper, proof that the accused “act[ed] as a broker” or brought together the buyer and seller of illegal
administering a dangerous drug to himself/herself unless administered by a duly licensed practitioner drugs “using electronic devices such as, but not limited to, text messages, e-mail, mobile or landlines,
for purposes of medication. x x x x (d) Chemical Diversion.—The sale, distribution, supply or transport two-way radios, Internet, instant messengers and chat rooms” is sufficient. The DOJ’s designation of
of legitimately imported, in-transit, manufactured or procured controlled precursors and essential the charge as one for Illegal Drug Trading thus holds sway. After all, the prosecution is vested with a
chemicals, in diluted, mixtures or in concentrated form, to any person or entity engaged in the wide range of discretion — including the discretion of whether, what, and whom to charge. The
manufacture of any dangerous drug, and shall include packaging, repackaging, labeling, relabeling or exercise of this discretion depends on a smorgasbord of factors, which are best appreciated by the
concealment of such transaction through fraud, destruction of documents, fraudulent use of permits, prosecutors.
misdeclaration, use of front companies or mail fraud. x x x x (i) Cultivate or Culture.—Any act of
knowingly planting, growing, raising, or permitting the planting, growing or raising of any plant which is Remedial Law; Criminal Procedure; Information; Amendment of Information; The prosecution
the source of a dangerous drug. x x x x (k) Deliver.—Any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to has the authority to amend the information at any time before arraignment.—Granting without
another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration. x x x x conceding that the information contains averments which constitute the elements of Direct Bribery or
(m) Dispense.—Any act of giving away, selling or distributing medicine or any dangerous drug with or that more than one offence is charged or as in this case, possibly bribery and violation of RA 9165, still
without the use of prescription. x x x x (u) Manufacture.—The production, preparation, compounding or the prosecution has the authority to amend the information at any time before arraignment. Since
processing of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, either directly or petitioner has not yet been arraigned, then the information subject of Criminal Case No. 17-165 can still
indirectly or by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical be amended pursuant to Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court which reads: SECTION
synthesis or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and shall include any packaging or 14. Amendment or Substitution.—A complaint or information may be amended, in form or in substance,
repackaging of such substances, design or configuration of its form, or labeling or relabeling of its without leave of court, at any time before the accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the
container; except that such terms do not include the preparation, compounding, packaging or labeling trial, a formal amendment may only be made with leave of court and when it can be done without
of a drug or other substances by a duly authorized practitioner as an incident to his/her administration causing prejudice to the rights of the accused.
 Same; Same; Regional Trial Courts; Jurisdiction; Drug-related Cases; A plain reading Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of Republic
of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, as of RA No. 6425, will reveal that jurisdiction over drug-related cases Act (RA) No. 9165 is not transferred to the Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies a position
is exclusively vested with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and no other.—Now the question that classified as Grade 27 or higher, regardless of whether the violation is alleged as committed in relation
irresistibly demands an answer is whether it is the Sandiganbayan or the RTC that has jurisdiction over to office.—The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 is not transferred to
the subject matter of Criminal Case No. 17-165, i.e., violation of RA 9165. It is basic that jurisdiction the Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or higher,
over the subject matter in a criminal case is given only by law in the manner and form prescribed by regardless of whether the violation is alleged as committed in relation to office. The power of
law. It is determined by the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action. Indeed, the Sandiganbayan to sit in judgment of high-ranking government officials is not omnipotent.
Congress has the plenary power to define, prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts. It The Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is circumscribed by law and its limits are currently defined and
follows then that Congress may also, by law, provide that a certain class of cases should be exclusively prescribed by RA 10660, which amended Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1606. As it now stands,
heard and determined by one court. Such would be a special law that is construed as an exception to the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the following: SEC. 4. Jurisdiction.—The Sandiganbayan shall
the general law on jurisdiction of courts. The pertinent special law governing drug-related cases is RA exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases involving: a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as
9165, which updated the rules provided in RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and
1972. A plain reading of RA 9165, as of RA 6425, will reveal that jurisdiction over drug-related cases is Chapter II, Section 2, Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused
exclusively vested with the Regional Trial Court and no other. are officials occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or
interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense: (1) Officials of the executive branch
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; No other trial court was mentioned in Republic Act (RA) No. occupying the positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade ‘27’ and higher,
9165 as having the authority to take cognizance of drug-related cases. Thus, in Morales v. Court of of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically
Appeals, 274 SCRA 282 (1997), the Supreme Court (SC) categorically named the Regional Trial Court including: x x x x (2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade ‘27’ and higher
(RTC) as the court with jurisdiction over drug-related cases.—Notably, no other trial court was under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989; (3) Members of the judiciary without
mentioned in RA 9165 as having the authority to take cognizance of drug-related cases. Thus, prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; (4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional
in Morales v. Court of Appeals, 274 SCRA 282 (1997), this Court categorically named the RTC as the Commissions, without prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and (5) All other national and local
court with jurisdiction over drug-related cases, as follows: Applying by analogy the ruling in People v. officials classified as Grade ‘27’ and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of
Simon, People v. De Lara, People v. Santos, and Ordoñez v. Vinarao, the imposable penalty in this 1989. b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the
case which involves 0.4587 grams of shabu should not exceed prisión correccional. We say by analogy public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this section in relation to their office. c.
because these cases involved marijuana, not methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). In Section 20 Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-
of RA No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, the maximum quantities of marijuana and A, issued in 1986. Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction
methamphetamine hydrochloride for purposes of imposing the maximum penalties are not the same. where the information: (a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges
For the latter, if the quantity involved is 200 grams or more, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts in an
and a fine ranging from P500,000 to P10 million shall be imposed. Accordingly, if the quantity involved amount not exceeding One Million pesos (P1,000,000.00). The foregoing immediately betrays that
is below 200 grams, the imposable penalties should be as follows: x x x x Clearly, the penalty which the Sandiganbayan primarily sits as a special anti-graft court pursuant to a specific injunction in the
may be imposed for the offense charged in Criminal Case No. 96-8443 would at most be only prisión 1973 Constitution. Its characterization and continuation as such was expressly given a constitutional
correccional duration is from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Does it follow then that, fiat under Section 4, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which states: SECTION 4. The present anti-
as the petitioner insists, the RTC has no jurisdiction thereon in view of the amendment of graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now
Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129 by R.A. No. 7691, which vested upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, or hereafter may be provided by law.
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts exclusive original jurisdiction over all  
offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years irrespective of the amount Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The Sandiganbayan is without jurisdiction to hear drug-
of fine and regardless of other imposable accessory or other penalties? This Section 32 as thus related cases. Even Section 4(b) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1606, as amended by Republic Act
amended now reads: x x x x The exception in the opening sentence is of special significance which we (RA) No. 10660, touted by the petitioner and the dissents as a catch-all provision, does not operate to
cannot disregard. x x x The aforementioned exception refers not only to Section 20 of B.P. Blg. 129 strip the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) of its exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA No.
providing for the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts in criminal cases, but also to other laws which 9165.—It should occasion no surprise, therefore, that the Sandiganbayan is without jurisdiction to hear
specifically lodge in Regional Trial Courts exclusive jurisdiction over specific criminal drug-related cases. Even Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660, touted by the petitioner
cases, e.g., (a) Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A Nos. 1289 and 4363 on and the dissents as a catch-all provision, does not operate to strip the RTCs of its exclusive original
written defamation or libel; (b) Decree on Intellectual Property (P.D. No. 49, as amended), which vests jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165. As pointed out by Justices Tijam and Martires, a perusal of the
upon Courts of First Instance exclusive jurisdiction over the cases therein mentioned regardless of the drugs law will reveal that public officials were never considered excluded from its scope. Hence,
imposable penalty and (c) more appropriately for the case at bar, Section 39 of R.A. No. 6425, as Section 27 of RA 9165 punishes government officials found to have benefited from the trafficking of
amended by P.D. No. 44, which vests on Courts of First Instance, Circuit Criminal Courts, and the dangerous drugs, while Section 28 of the law imposes the maximum penalty on such government
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts concurrent exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases officials and employees.
involving violations of said Act.
 Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 specifies the Regional Trial the Sandiganbayan to the influx of drug-related cases, RA 10660 which was intended to unclog the
Court (RTC) as the court with the jurisdiction to “exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of dockets of the Sandiganbayan would all be for naught. Hence, sustaining the RTC’s jurisdiction over
[RA No. 9165].” This is an exception, couched in the special law on dangerous drugs, to the general drug-related cases despite the accused’s high-ranking position, as in this case, is all the more proper.
rule under Section 4(b) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1606, as amended by RA No. 10660.—In this
case, RA 9165 specifies the RTC as the court with the jurisdiction to “exclusively try and hear Same; Same; Motion to Quash; Even granting arguendo that the Supreme Court (SC) declares
cases involving violations of [RA 9165].” This is an exception, couched in the special law on the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the information subject of Criminal Case No. 17-165, still it will
dangerous drugs, to the general rule under Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660. It not automatically result in the release from detention and restore the liberty and freedom of petitioner.
is a canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails over a general law and the latter is to be The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has several options if it dismisses the criminal case based on the
considered as an exception to the general. Parenthetically, it has been advanced that RA 10660 has grounds raised by petitioner in her Motion to Quash.—Even granting arguendo that the Court declares
repealed Section 90 of RA 9165. However, a closer look at the repealing clause of RA 10660 will show the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the information subject of Criminal Case No. 17-165, still it will
that there is no express repeal of Section 90 of RA 9165 and well-entrenched is the rule that an implied not automatically result in the release from detention and restore the liberty and freedom of petitioner.
repeal is disfavored. It is only accepted upon the clearest proof of inconsistency so repugnant that the The RTC has several options if it dismisses the criminal case based on the grounds raised by petitioner
two laws cannot be enforced. The presumption against implied repeal is stronger when of two laws in her Motion to Quash. Under Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the trial court has three (3) possible
involved one is special and the other general. The mentioned rule in statutory construction that a alternative actions when confronted with a Motion to Quash: 1. Order the amendment of the
special law prevails over a general law applies regardless of the laws’ respective dates of passage. Information; 2. Sustain the Motion to Quash; or 3. Deny the Motion to Quash. The first two options are
available to the trial court where the motion to quash is meritorious. Specifically, as to the first option,
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Section 4(b) of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1606, as this court had held that should the Information be deficient or lacking in any material allegation, the trial
amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 10660, is the general law on jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan court can order the amendment of the Information under Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court.
over crimes and offenses committed by high-ranking public officers in relation to their office; Section
90, RA No. 9165 is the special law excluding from the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction violations of RA Same; Same; Information; The failure of the trial court to order the correction of a defect in the
No. 9165 committed by such public officers.—Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660, is Information curable by an amendment amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power.—The failure of the
the general law on jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over crimes and offenses committed by high- trial court to order the correction of a defect in the Information curable by an amendment amounts to an
ranking public officers in relation to their office; Section 90, RA 9165 is the special law excluding from arbitrary exercise of power. So, this Court held in Dio v. People, 792 SCRA 646 (2016): This Court has
the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction violations of RA 9165 committed by such public officers. In the latter held that failure to provide the prosecution with the opportunity to amend is an arbitrary exercise
case, jurisdiction is vested upon the RTCs designated by the Supreme Court as drugs court, regardless of power. In People v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division): When a motion to quash is filed challenging
of whether the violation of RA 9165 was committed in relation to the public officials’ office. The the validity and sufficiency of an Information, and the defect may be cured by amendment, courts must
exceptional rule provided under Section 90, RA 9165 relegating original exclusive jurisdiction to RTCs deny the motion to quash and order the prosecution to file an amended Information. Generally, a defect
specially designated by the Supreme Court logically follows given the technical aspect of drug-related pertaining to the failure of an Information to charge facts constituting an offense is one that may be
cases. With the proliferation of cases involving violation of RA 9165, it is easy to dismiss them as corrected by an amendment. In such instances, courts are mandated not to automatically quash the
common and untechnical. However, narcotic substances possess unique characteristics that render Information; rather, it should grant the prosecution the opportunity to cure the defect through an
them not readily identifiable. In fact, they must first be subjected to scientific analysis by forensic amendment. This rule allows a case to proceed without undue delay. By allowing the defect to be cured
chemists to determine their composition and nature. Thus, judges presiding over designated drugs by simple amendment, unnecessary appeals based on technical grounds, which only result to
courts are specially trained by the Philippine Judicial Academy (PhilJa) and given scientific instructions prolonging the proceedings, are avoided. More than this practical consideration, however, is the due
to equip them with the proper tools to appreciate pharmacological evidence and give analytical insight process underpinnings of this rule. As explained by this Court in People v. Andrade, the State, just like
upon this esoteric subject. After all, the primary consideration of RA 9165 is the fact that the any other litigant, is entitled to its day in court. Thus, a court’s refusal to grant the prosecution the
substances involved are, in fact, dangerous drugs, their plant sources, or their controlled precursors opportunity to amend an Information, where such right is expressly granted under the Rules of Court
and essential chemicals. Without a doubt, not one of the Sandiganbayan justices were provided and affirmed time and again in a string of Supreme Court decisions, effectively curtails the State’s right
with knowledge and technical expertise on matters relating to prohibited substances. to due process.

Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The clear import of the new paragraph introduced by Same; Same; Motion to Quash; An order sustaining the motion to quash the information would
Republic Act (RA) No. 10660 is to streamline the cases handled by the Sandiganbayan by delegating neither bar another prosecution or require the release of the accused from custody. Instead, under
to the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) some cases involving high-ranking public officials.—Likewise of Section 5, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the trial court can simply order that another complaint or
special significance is the proviso introduced by RA 10660 which, to reiterate for emphasis, information be filed without discharging the accused from custody.—Should the trial court sustain the
states: Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where the motion by actually ordering the quashal of the Information, the prosecution is not precluded from filing
information: (a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b) alleges damage another information. An order sustaining the motion to quash the information would neither bar another
to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount prosecution or require the release of the accused from custody. Instead, under Section 5, Rule 117 of
not exceeding One million pesos (P1,000,000.00). The clear import of the new paragraph introduced by the Rules of Court, the trial court can simply order that another complaint or information be
RA 10660 is to streamline the cases handled by the Sandiganbayan by delegating to the RTCs some filed without discharging the accused from custody. Section 5, Rule 117 states, thus: Section
cases involving high-ranking public officials. With the dissents’ proposition, opening 5. Effect of sustaining the motion to quash.—If the motion to quash is sustained, the court may
order that another complaint or information be filed except as provided in Section 6 of this assailed February 23, 2017 Order even before resolving petitioner’s Motion to Quash. There is certainly
rule. If the order is made, the accused, if in custody, shall not be discharged unless admitted to no indication that respondent judge deviated from the usual procedure in finding probable cause to
bail. If no order is made or if having been made, no new information is filed within the time specified in issue the petitioner’s arrest.
the order or within such further time as the court may allow for good cause, the accused, if in custody,
shall be discharged unless he is also in custody for another charge. Same; Same; Warrants of Arrest; Probable Cause; Personal determination of the existence of
probable cause by the judge is required before a warrant of arrest may issue. The Constitution and the
Same; Same; Same; Even granting, for the nonce, the petitioner’s position that the trial court’s Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure command the judge “to refrain from making a mindless
issuance of the warrant for her arrest is an implied denial of her Motion to Quash, the proper remedy acquiescence to the prosecutor’s findings and to conduct his own examination of the facts and
against this court action is to proceed to trial, not to file the present petition for certiorari.—Even circumstances presented by both parties.”—Petitioner further contends that the language of the
granting, for the nonce, the petitioner’s position that the trial court’s issuance of the warrant for her February 23, 2017 Order violated her constitutional rights and is contrary to the doctrine in Soliven v.
arrest is an implied denial of her Motion to Quash, the proper remedy against this court action is to Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393 (1988). Petitioner maintains that respondent judge failed to personally
proceed to trial, not to file the present petition for certiorari. This Court in Galzote v. Briones, 657 determine the probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest since, as stated in the assailed
SCRA 535 (2011), reiterated this established doctrine: A preliminary consideration in this case relates Order, respondent judge based her findings on the evidence presented during the preliminary
to the propriety of the chosen legal remedies availed of by the petitioner in the lower courts to question investigation and not on the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor. This hardly
the denial of his motion to quash. In the usual course of procedure, a denial of a motion to quash deserves serious consideration. Personal determination of the existence of probable cause by the
filed by the accused results in the continuation of the trial and the determination of the guilt or judge is required before a warrant of arrest may issue. The Constitution and the Revised Rules of
innocence of the accused. If a judgment of conviction is rendered and the lower court’s decision of Criminal Procedure command the judge “to refrain from making a mindless acquiescence to the
conviction is appealed, the accused can then raise the denial of his motion to quash not only as an prosecutor’s findings and to conduct his own examination of the facts and circumstances presented by
error committed by the trial court but as an added ground to overturn the latter’s ruling. In this case, the both parties.”
petitioner did not proceed to trial but opted to immediately question the denial of his motion to
quash via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. As a rule, the denial Same; Same; Same; Same; As the prosecutor’s report/resolution precisely finds support from
of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not appealable; an appeal from an the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation, the Supreme Court (SC) cannot consider
interlocutory order is not allowed under Section 1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can the respondent judge to have evaded her duty or refused to perform her obligation to satisfy herself
it be a proper subject of a petition for certiorari which can be used only in the absence of an that substantial basis exists for the petitioner’s arrest.—As the prosecutor’s report/resolution
appeal or any other adequate, plain and speedy remedy. The plain and speedy remedy upon precisely finds support from the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation, this
denial of an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial as discussed above. Court cannot consider the respondent judge to have evaded her duty or refused to perform her
obligation to satisfy herself that substantial basis exists for the petitioner’s arrest. “All the evidence
Same; Same; Same; The respondent judge had no positive duty to first resolve the Motion to presented during the preliminary investigation” encompasses a broader category than the “supporting
Quash before issuing a warrant of arrest.—Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical evidence” required to be evaluated in Soliven. It may perhaps even be stated that respondent judge
exercise of judgment equivalent to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to act at all in performed her duty in a manner that far exceeds what is required of her by the rules when she
contemplation of the law. In the present case, the respondent judge had no positive duty to first resolve reviewed all the evidence, not just the supporting documents. At the very least, she certainly
the Motion to Quash before issuing a warrant of arrest. There is no rule of procedure, statute, or discharged a judge’s duty in finding probable cause for the issuance of a warrant.
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 Same; Same; Same; Same; For purposes of determining the propriety of the issuance of a
within a limited period of only ten (10) days, viz.: SEC. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue.—(a) By warrant of arrest, the judge is tasked to merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of the guilt
the Regional Trial Court.—Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the of the accused.—Notably, for purposes of determining the propriety of the issuance of a warrant of
judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He arrest, the judge is tasked to merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of the guilt of the
may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If accused. She is given wide latitude of discretion in the determination of probable cause for the
he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order when the complaint issuance of warrants of arrest. A finding of probable cause to order the accused’s arrest does not
or information was filed pursuant to Section 6 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is
probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.
from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the
complaint or information. Same; Same; Preliminary Investigation; Hearsay Evidence Rule; The Supreme Court (SC)
explicitly ruled in Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman, 748 SCRA 1 (2015), that hearsay evidence is
Same; Same; Same; There is no rule or basic principle requiring a trial judge to first resolve a admissible during preliminary investigation.—Nowhere in Ramos v. Sandiganbayan, 191 SCRA 671
motion to quash, whether grounded on lack of jurisdiction or not, before issuing a warrant of arrest.— (1990) — the case relied upon by petitioner — did this Court rule that testimonies given by a co-
Undoubtedly, contrary to petitioner’s postulation, there is no rule or basic principle requiring a trial judge accused are of no value. The Court simply held that said testimonies should be received with great
to first resolve a motion to quash, whether grounded on lack of jurisdiction or not, before issuing a caution, but not that they would not be considered. The testimony of Ramos’ co-accused was, in fact,
warrant of arrest. As such, respondent judge committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the admitted in the cited case. Furthermore, this Court explicitly ruled in Estrada v. Office of the
Ombudsman, 748 SCRA 1 (2015), that hearsay evidence is admissible during preliminary investigation. d) NPS No. XVI-INV-16K-00336, entitled “National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) vs.
The Court held thusly: Thus, probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as Senator Leila M. De Lima, et al.”
there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining  
probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary, Pursuant to DOJ Department Order No. 790, the four cases were consolidated and the
and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties. DOJ Panel of Prosecutors (DOJ Panel), headed by Senior Assistant State Prosecutor Peter
Ong, was directed to conduct the requisite preliminary investigation.
Same; Same; Trial; The admissibility of evidence, their evidentiary weight, probative value, and
the credibility of the witness are matters that are best left to be resolved in a full-blown trial, not during a
preliminary investigation where the technical rules of evidence are not applied nor at the stage of the The DOJ Panel conducted a preliminary hearing on December 2, 2016, wherein the
determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.—Verily, the admissibility of petitioner, through her counsel, filed an Omnibus Motion to Immediately Endorse the Cases
evidence, their evidentiary weight, probative value, and the credibility of the witness are matters that to the Office of the Ombudsman and for the Inhibition of the Panel of Prosecutors and the
are best left to be resolved in a full-blown trial, not during a preliminary investigation where the technical Secretary of Justice (“Omnibus Motion”). In the main, the petitioner argued that the Office of
rules of evidence are not applied nor at the stage of the determination of probable cause for the the Ombudsman has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to hear the four complaints
issuance of a warrant of arrest. Thus, the better alternative is to proceed to the conduct of trial on the against her. Further, alleging evident partiality on the part of the DOJ Panel, the petitioner
merits for the petitioner and the prosecution to present their respective evidence in support of their
contended that the DOJ prosecutors should inhibit themselves and refer the complaints to
allegations.
the Office of the Ombudsman.

A hearing on the Omnibus Motion was conducted on December 9, 2016, wherein the

complainants, VACC, Reynaldo Esmeralda (Esmeralda) and Ruel Lasala (Lasala), filed
VELASCO, JR., J.:
a Joint Comment/Opposition to the Omnibus Motion.
 
For consideration is the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Application for a Writ
On December 12, 2016, petitioner, in turn, interposed a Reply to the Joint
of Preliminary Injunction, and Urgent Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and Status
Comment/Opposition filed by complainants VACC, Esmeralda and Lasala. In addition,
Quo Ante Order1under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Senator Leila De
petitioner submitted a Manifestation with Motion to First Resolve Pending Incident and to
Lima. In it, petitioner assails the following orders and warrant issued by respondent judge
Defer Further Proceedings.
Hon. Juanita Guerrero of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204, in
Criminal Case No. 17-165, entitled “People vs. Leila De Lima, et al.:” (1) the Order dated
During the hearing conducted on December 21, 2016, petitioner manifested that she
February 23, 2017 finding probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest against
has decided not to submit her counter-affidavit citing the pendency of her two motions. The
petitioner De Lima; (2) the Warrant of Arrest against De Lima also dated February 23, 2017;
DOJ Panel, however, ruled that it will not entertain belatedly filed counter-affidavits, and
(3) the Order dated February 24, 2017 committing the petitioner to the custody of the PNP
declared all pending incidents and the cases as submitted for resolution. Petitioner moved
Custodial Center; and finally, (4) the supposed omission of the respondent judge to act on
for but was denied reconsideration by the DOJ Panel.
petitioner’s Motion to Quash, through which she questioned the jurisdiction of the RTC.

On January 13, 2017, petitioner filed before the Court of Appeals a Petition for
Antecedents
Prohibition and Certiorari  assailing the jurisdiction of the DOJ Panel over the complaints
 
against her. The petitions, docketed as C.A.-G.R. No. 149097 and C.A.-G.R. No. S.P. No.
The facts are undisputed. The Senate and the House of
149385, are currently pending with the Special 6th Division of the appellate court.
Representatives conducted several inquiries on the proliferation of dangerous drugs
 
syndicated at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), inviting inmates who executed affidavits in
Meanwhile, in the absence of a restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals, the
support of their testimonies. These legislative inquiries led to the filing of the following
DOJ Panel proceeded with the conduct of the preliminary investigation and, in its Joint
complaints with the Department of Justice:
a) NPS No. XVI INV-16J-00313, entitled “Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption Resolution dated February 14, 2017, recommended the filing of Informations against
(VACC), represented by Dante Jimenez vs. Senator Leila M. De Lima, et al.”; petitioner De Lima. Accordingly, on February 17, 2017, three Informations were filed against
b) NPS No. XVI-INV-16J-00315, entitled “Reynaldo Esmeralda and Ruel Lasala vs. petitioner De Lima and several co-accused before the RTC of Muntinlupa City. One of the
Senator Leila De Lima, et al.”; Informations was docketed as Criminal Case No. 17-16518 and raffled off to Branch 204,
c) NPS No. XVI-INV-16K-00331, entitled “Jaybee Niño Sebastian, represented by his presided by respondent judge. This Information charging petitioner for violation of Section 5
wife Roxanne Sebastian, vs. Senator Leila M. De Lima, et al.”; and
in relation to Section (jj), Section 26(b), and Section 28 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, On February 27, 2017, petitioner repaired to this court via the present petition, praying
contained the following averments: for the following reliefs:
That within the period from November 2012 to March 2013, in the City of a. Granting a writ of certiorari annulling and setting aside the Order dated 23 February
Muntinlupa, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused 2017, the Warrant of Arrest dated the same date, and the Order dated 24 February
Leila M. De Lima, being then the Secretary of the Department of Justice, and accused 2017 of the Regional Trial Court — Branch 204, Muntinlupa City, in Criminal Case
Rafael Marcos Z. Ragos, being then the Officer-in-Charge of the Bureau of Corrections, No. 17-165 entitled People of the Philippines versus Leila M. De Lima, et al.;
by taking advantage of their public office, conspiring and confederating with accused b. Granting a writ of prohibition enjoining and prohibiting respondent judge from
Ronnie P. Dayan, being then an employee of the Department of Justice detailed to De conducting further proceedings until and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved
Lima, all of them having moral ascendancy or influence over inmates in the New Bilibid with finality;
Prison, did then and there commit illegal drug trading, in the following manner: De Lima c. Issuing an order granting the application for the issuance of temporary restraining
and Ragas, with the use of their power, position, and authority, demand, solicit and order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction to the proceedings; and
extort money from the high-profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison to support the d. Issuing a Status Quo Ante Order restoring the parties to the status prior to the
senatorial bid of De Lima in the May 2016 election; by reason of which, the inmates, not issuance of the Order and Warrant of Arrest, both dated February 23, 2017,
being lawfully authorized by law and through the use of mobile phones and other thereby recalling both processes and restoring petitioner to her liberty and
electronic devices, did then and there willfully and unlawfully trade and traffic dangerous freedom.
drugs, and thereafter give and deliver to De Lima, through Ragas and Dayan, the  
proceeds of illegal drug trading amounting to Five Million (P5,000,000.00) Pesos on 24 On March 9, 2017, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of the
November 2012, Five Million (P5,000,000.00) Pesos on 15 December 2012, and One respondents, interposed its Comment to the petition. The OSG argued that the petition
Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos weekly “tara” each from the high-profile
should be dismissed as De Lima failed to show that she has no other plain, speedy, and
inmates in the New Bilibid Prison.
adequate remedy. Further, the OSG posited that the petitioner did not observe the hierarchy
 
of courts and violated the rule against forum shopping. On substantive grounds, the OSG
On February 20, 2017, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash, mainly raising the following:
asserted inter alia that the RTC has jurisdiction over the offense charged against the
the RTC lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged against petitioner; the DOJ Panel lacks
petitioner, that the respondent judge observed the constitutional and procedural rules, and
authority to file the Information; the Information charges more than one offense; the
so did not commit grave abuse of discretion, in the issuance of the assailed orders and
allegations and the recitals of facts do not allege the corpus delicti of the charge; the
warrant.
Information is based on testimonies of witnesses who are not qualified to be discharged as
 
state witnesses; and the testimonies of these witnesses are hearsay.
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,
On February 23, 2017, respondent judge issued the presently assailed Order finding
21, and 28, 2017.
probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against De Lima and her co-accused.
The Order stated, viz.:
After a careful evaluation of the herein Information and all the evidence presented
In the meantime, the OSG filed a Manifestation dated March 13, 2017, claiming that
during the preliminary investigation conducted in this case by the Department of Justice, petitioner falsified the jurats appearing in the: (1) Verification and Certification against
Manila, the Court finds sufficient probable cause for the issuance of Warrants of Arrest Forum Shopping page of her petition; and (2) Affidavit of Merit in support of her prayer for
against all the accused LEILA M. DE LIMA, RAFAEL MARCOS Z. RAGOS and injunctive relief. The OSG alleged that while the adverted juratsappeared to be notarized by
RONNIE PALISOC DAYAN. a certain Atty. Maria Cecille C. Tresvalles-Cabalo on February 24, 2017, the guest
WHEREFORE, let Warrants of Arrest be issued against the above mentioned logbook31 in the PNP Custodial Center Unit in Camp Crame for February 24, 2017 does not
accused. bear the name of Atty. Tresvalles-Cabalo. Thus, so the OSG maintained, petitioner De Lima
SO ORDERED.
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
Accordingly, the questioned Warrant of Arrest dated February 23, 2017, which
dismissed outright for the falsity committed by petitioner De Lima.
contained no recommendation for bail, was issued against petitioner.
In compliance with an Order of this Court, petitioner filed the Affidavit of Atty. Maria
On February 24, 2017, the PNP Investigation and Detection Group served the Warrant
Cecille C. Tresvalles-Cabalo dated March 20, 2017 to shed light on the allegations of falsity
of Arrest on petitioner and the respondent judge issued the assailed February 24, 2017
in petitioner’s jurats.
Order, committing petitioner to the custody of the PNP Custodial Center.
 The parties simultaneously filed their respective Memoranda on April 17, 2017. in fact signed by her. Afterwards, I attached the photocopy of her Passport to the
  Petition which I appended to my Notarial Report/Record.
The Issues 7. Since I already know that Sen. De Lima caused the preparation of the Petition
and that it was her who signed the same, I stamped and signed the same.
 
8. To confirm with Senator De Lima that I have already notarized the Petition, I
From the pleadings and as delineated in this Court’s Advisory dated March 10, 2017 sought entry to the detention facility at or around three in the afternoon (3:00PM). x x x
and discussed by the parties during the oral arguments, the issues for resolution by this x x x x
Court are: 11.  Since I was never cleared after hours of waiting, I was not able to talk again
Procedural Issues: to Senator De Lima to confirm the notarization of the Petition. I then decided to leave
A. Whether or not petitioner is excused from compliance with the doctrine on hierarchy Camp Crame.
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 At first glance, it is curious that Atty. Tresvalles-Cabalo who claims to have “stamped
court renders the instant petition premature.
and signed the [Verification and Certification and Affidavit of Merit]” inside Camp Crame,
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
presumably in De Lima’s presence, still found it necessary to, hours later, “confirm with
Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City in Criminal Case No. 17-165 and the Petition Senator De Lima that [she had] already notarized the Petition.” Nonetheless, assuming the
for Certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 149097, veracity of the allegations narrated in the Affidavit, it is immediately clear that petitioner De
assailing the preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ Panel. Lima did not sign the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping and Affidavit of
Substantive Issues: Merit in front of the notary public. This is contrary to the jurats (i.e., the certifications of the
A. Whether the Regional Trial Court or the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over the notary public at the end of the instruments) signed by Atty. Tresvalles-Cabalo that the
violation of Republic Act No. 9165 averred in the assailed Information. documents were “SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me.”
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
Such clear breach of notarial protocol is highly censurable as Section 6, Rule II of the
Quo Ante Order in the interim until the instant petition is resolved or until the trial 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice requires the affiant, petitioner De Lima in this case, to sign
court rules on the Motion to Quash. the instrument or document in the presence of the notary, viz.:
  SECTION 6. Jurat.—“Jurat” refers to an act in which an individual on a single
Our Ruling occasion:
 (a) appears in person before the notary public and presents an instrument or
 
document;
Before proceeding to a discussion on the outlined issues, We shall first confront the  (b) is personally known to the notary public or identified by the notary public
issue of the alleged falsification committed by petitioner in the jurats of her Verification and through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules;
Certification against Forum Shopping and Affidavit of Merit in support of her prayer for  (c) signs the instrument or document in the presence of the notary; and
injunctive relief.  (d) takes an oath or affirmation before the notary public as to such instrument or
document. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In her Affidavit, Atty. Tresvalles-Cabalo disproves the OSG’s allegation that she did not  
notarize the petitioner’s Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping and Affidavit While there is jurisprudence to the effect that “an irregular notarization merely reduces
of Merit in this wise: the evidentiary value of a document to that of a private document, which requires proof of its
4. On February 24, 2017 at or around nine in the morning (9:00AM), I went to due execution and authenticity to be admissible as evidence,” the same cannot be
PNP, CIDG, Camp Crame, Quezon City to notarize the Petition as discussed the considered controlling in determining compliance with the requirements of Sections 1 and 2,
previous night. Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Both Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 65 require that the petitions for
5. I met Senator De Lima when she was brought to the CIDG at Camp Crame certiorari and prohibition must be verified and accompanied by a “sworn certificate of non-
and I was informed that the Petition was already signed and ready for notarization.
forum shopping.”
6. I was then provided the Petition by her staff. I examined the signature of
Senator De Lima and confirmed that it was signed by her. I have known the signature
of the senator given our personal relationship. Nonetheless, I still requested from her In this regard, Section 4, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure states that “[a] pleading
staff a photocopy of any of her government-issued valid Identification Cards (ID) bearing is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations
her signature. A photocopy of her passport was presented to me. I compared the therein are true and correct of his personal knowledge or based on authentic records.” “A
signatures on the Petition and the Passport and I was able to verify that the Petition was pleading required to be verified which x x x lacks a proper verification, shall be
treated as an unsigned pleading.” Meanwhile, Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a
Procedure provides that “[t]he plaintiff or principal party shall certify under oath in the need to relax the Rule on the ground of ‘substantial compliance’ or presence of ‘special
complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn certification circumstances or compelling reasons.’” Here, the CA did not mention — nor does there
exist — any perceivable special circumstance or compelling reason which justifies the
annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he has not theretofore
rules’ relaxation. At all events, it is uncertain if any of the private respondents
commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or certified under oath that no similar action has been filed or is pending in another
quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his knowledge, no such other action or claim is forum.
pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of x x x x
the present status thereof; and (c) if he should thereafter learn that the same or similar Case law states that “[v]erification is required to secure an assurance that the
action or claim has been filed or is pending, he shall report that fact within five (5) days allegations in the petition have been made in good faith; or are true and correct,
therefrom to the court wherein his aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.” and not merely speculative.” On the other hand, “[t]he certification against forum
“Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere shopping is required based on the principle that a party-litigant should not be
allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in different fora.” The important
amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the
purposes behind these requirements cannot be simply brushed aside absent any
dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided x x x.” sustainable explanation justifying their relaxation. In this case, proper justification is
especially called for in light of the serious allegations of forgery as to the signatures of
In this case, when petitioner De Lima failed to sign the Verification and Certification the remaining private respondents, i.e., Lominiqui and Andales. Thus, by simply treating
Against Forum Shopping in the presence of the notary, she has likewise failed to the insufficient submissions before it as compliance with its Resolution dated August 13,
properly swear under oath the contents thereof, thereby rendering false and null 2009 requiring anew the submission of a proper verification/certification against forum
the jurat and invalidating the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping. The shopping, the CA patently and grossly ignored settled procedural rules and, hence,
gravely abused its discretion. All things considered, the proper course of action was
significance of a proper jurat and the effect of its invalidity was elucidated in William Go
for it to dismiss the petition. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Que Construction v. Court of Appeals, where this Court held that:
 
In this case, it is undisputed that the Verification/Certification against Forum
Shopping attached to the petition for certiorari in C.A.-G.R. S.P. No. 109427 was Without the presence of the notary upon the signing of the Verification and Certification
not accompanied with a valid affidavit/properly certified under oath. This was Against Forum Shopping, there is no assurance that the petitioner swore under oath that
because the jurat thereof was defective in that it did not indicate the pertinent details the allegations in the petition have been made in good faith; or are true and correct, and not
regarding the affiants’ (i.e., private respondents) competent evidence of identities. merely speculative. It must be noted that verification is not an empty ritual or a meaningless
Under Section 6, Rule II of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC dated July 6, 2004, entitled the formality. Its import must never be sacrificed in the name of mere expedience or sheer
“2004 Rules on Notarial Practice” (2004 Rules on Notarial Practice), a jurat refers to an caprice, as what apparently happened in the present case. Similarly, the absence of the
act in which an individual on a single occasion:
notary public when petitioner allegedly affixed her signature also negates a proper
x x x x
attestation that forum shopping has not been committed by the filing of the petition. Thus,
In Fernandez v. Villegas (Fernandez), the Court pronounced that noncompliance
with the verification requirement or a defect therein “does not necessarily render the the petition is, for all intents and purposes, an unsigned pleading that does not deserve the
pleading fatally defective. The court may order its submission or correction or act on the cognizance of this Court. In Salumbides, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman, the Court held
pleading if the attending circumstances are such that strict compliance with the Rule thus:
may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice may be served thereby.” The Court has distinguished the effects of noncompliance with the requirement of
“Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge verification and that of certification against forum shopping. A defective
to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, verification shall be treated as an unsigned pleading and thus produces no legal
and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith; or are true and effect, subject to the discretion of the court to allow the deficiency to be remedied, while
correct.” Here, there was no substantial compliance with the verification the failure to certify against forum shopping shall be cause for dismissal without
requirement as it cannot be ascertained that any of the private respondents prejudice, unless otherwise provided, and is not curable by amendment of the
actually swore to the truth of the allegations in the petition for certiorari in C.A.- initiatory pleading. (Emphasis and italicization from the original)
G.R. S.P. No. 109427 given the lack of competent evidence of any of their  
identities. Because of this, the fact that even one of the private respondents swore Notably, petitioner has not proffered any reason to justify her failure to sign the
that the allegations in the pleading are true and correct of his knowledge and Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping in the presence of the notary. There
belief is shrouded in doubt.
is, therefore, no justification to relax the rules and excuse the petitioner’s noncompliance
For the same reason, neither was there substantial compliance with the certification
therewith. This Court had reminded parties seeking the ultimate relief of certiorari to
against forum shopping requirement. In Fernandez, the Court explained that
“noncompliance therewith or a defect therein, unlike in verification, is generally observe the rules, since nonobservance thereof cannot be brushed aside as a “mere
technicality.” Procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply disregarded, for these This court, on the other hand, leads the judiciary by breaking new ground or further
prescribed procedures ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Thus, as reiterating — in the light of new circumstances or in the light of some confusion of bench
in William Go Que Construction, the proper course of action is to dismiss outright the or bar — existing precedents. Rather than a court of first instance or as a repetition of
the actions of the Court of Appeals, this court promulgates these doctrinal devices in
present petition.
order that it truly performs that role. (Emphasis supplied)
 
Even if We set aside this procedural infirmity, the petition just the same merits denial on
Nonetheless, there are recognized exceptions to this rule and direct resort to this Court
several other grounds.
were allowed in some instances. These exceptions were summarized in a case of recent
 
vintage, Aala v. Uy, as follows:
Petitioner Disregarded the Hierarchy of Courts  In a fairly recent case, we summarized other well-defined exceptions to the doctrine
Trifling with the rule on hierarchy of courts is looked upon with disfavor by this Court. It on hierarchy of courts. Immediate resort to this Court may be allowed when any of the
will not entertain direct resort to it when relief can be obtained in the lower courts. The Court following grounds are present: (1) when genuine issues of constitutionality are raised
has repeatedly emphasized that the rule on hierarchy of courts is an important component that must be addressed immediately; (2) when the case involves transcendental
of the orderly administration of justice and not imposed merely for whimsical and arbitrary importance; (3) when the case is novel; (4) when the constitutional issues raised are
reasons. In The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections, the Court explained the better decided by this Court; (5) when time is of the essence; (6) when the subject of
reason for the doctrine thusly: review involves acts of a constitutional organ; (7) when there is no other plain, speedy,
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; (8) when the petition includes questions
The Court must enjoin the observance of the policy on the hierarchy of courts, and
that may affect public welfare, public policy, or demanded by the broader interest of
now affirms that the policy is not to be ignored without serious consequences. The
justice; (9) when the order complained of was a patent nullity; and (10) when the appeal
strictness of the policy is designed to shield the Court from having to deal with
was considered as an inappropriate remedy.
causes that are also well within the competence of the lower courts, and thus
leave time for the Court to deal with the more fundamental and more essential  
tasks that the Constitution has assigned to it. The Court may act on petitions for the Unfortunately, none of these exceptions were sufficiently established in the present
extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only when absolutely petition so as to convince this court to brush aside the rules on the hierarchy of courts.
necessary or when serious and important reasons exist to justify an exception to the
policy. Petitioner’s allegation that her case has sparked national and international interest is
x x x x obviously not covered by the exceptions to the rules on hierarchy of courts. The notoriety of
The doctrine that requires respect for the hierarchy of courts was created by
a case, without more, is not and will not be a reason for this Court’s decisions. Neither will
this court to ensure that every level of the judiciary performs its designated roles
in an effective and efficient manner. Trial courts do not only determine the facts from
this Court be swayed to relax its rules on the bare fact that the petitioner belongs to the
the evaluation of the evidence presented before them. They are likewise competent to minority party in the present administration. A primary hallmark of an independent judiciary
determine issues of law which may include the validity of an ordinance, statute, or even is its political neutrality. This Court is thus loath to perceive and consider the issues before it
an executive issuance in relation to the Constitution. To effectively perform these through the warped prisms of political partisanships.
functions, they are territorially organized into regions and then into branches. Their writs
generally reach within those territorial boundaries. Necessarily, they mostly perform the That the petitioner is a senator of the republic does not also merit a special treatment of
all-important task of inferring the facts from the evidence as these are physically her case. The right to equal treatment before the law accorded to every Filipino also forbids
presented before them. In many instances, the facts occur within their territorial
the elevation of petitioner’s cause on account of her position and status in the government.
jurisdiction, which properly present the “actual case” that makes ripe a determination of
the constitutionality of such action. The consequences, of course, would be national in
scope. There are, however, some cases where resort to courts at their level would not Further, contrary to her position, the matter presented before the Court is not of first
be practical considering their decisions could still be appealed before the higher courts, impression. Petitioner is not the first public official accused of violating RA 9165 nor is she
such as the Court of Appeals. the first defendant to question the finding of probable cause for her arrest. In fact, stripped
The Court of Appeals is primarily designed as an appellate court that reviews the of all political complexions, the controversy involves run-of-the-mill matters that could have
determination of facts and law made by the trial courts. It is collegiate in nature. This been resolved with ease by the lower court had it been given a chance to do so in the first
nature ensures more standpoints in the review of the actions of the trial court. But the place.
Court of Appeals also has original jurisdiction over most special civil actions. Unlike the
trial courts, its writs can have a nationwide scope. It is competent to determine facts
and, ideally, should act on constitutional issues that may not necessarily be novel In like manner, petitioner’s argument that the rule on the hierarchy of court should be
unless there are factual questions to determine. disregarded as her case involves pure questions of law does not obtain. One of the grounds
upon which petitioner anchors her case is that the respondent judge erred and committed February 24, 2017 committing petitioner to the custody of the PNP Custodial Center. Clearly
grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to issue her arrest. By itself, this ground petitioner seeks the recall of said orders to effectuate her release from detention and
removes the case from the ambit of cases involving pure questions of law. It is established restore her liberty. She did not ask for the dismissal of the subject criminal case.
that the issue of whether or not probable cause exists for the issuance of warrants for the
arrest of the accused is a question of fact, determinable as it is from a review of the More importantly, her request for the issuance of a writ of prohibition under paragraph
allegations in the Information, the Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor, including other (b) of the prayer “until and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved with finality,” is an
documents and/or evidence appended to the Information. This matter, therefore, should unmistakable admission that the RTC has yet to rule on her Motion to Quashand the
have first been brought before the appellate court, which is in the better position to review existence of the RTC’s authority to rule on the said motion. This admission against
and determine factual matters. interest binds the petitioner; an admission against interest being the best evidence that
affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute. It is based on the presumption that “no
Yet, petitioner harps on the supposed judicial efficiency and economy of abandoning the man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration is true.” It can be
rule on the hierarchy of courts in the present case. Indeed, the Court has considered the presumed then that the declaration corresponds with the truth, and it is her fault if it does
practical aspects of the administration of justice in deciding to apply the exceptions rather not.
than the rule. However, it is all the more for these practical considerations that the Court
must insist on the application of the rule and not the exceptions in this case. As petitioner Moreover, petitioner under paragraphs (c) and (d) prayed for a TRO and writ of
herself alleges, with the President having declared the fight against illegal drugs and preliminary injunction and a status quo ante order which easily reveal her real motive in
corruption as central to his platform of government, there will be a spike of cases brought filing the instant petition — to restore to “petitioner her liberty and freedom.”
before the courts involving drugs and public officers. As it now stands, there
are 232,557 criminal cases involving drugs, and around 260,796 criminal cases involving Nowhere in the prayer did petitioner explicitly ask for the dismissal of Criminal Case No.
other offenses pending before the RTCs. This Court cannot thus allow a precedent allowing 17-165. What is clear is she merely asked the respondent judge to rule on her Motion to
public officers assailing the finding of probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants to Quash before issuing the warrant of arrest.
be brought directly to this Court, bypassing the appellate court, without any compelling
reason. 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
The Present Petition is Premature  Quash according to the desire of petitioner.
The prematurity of the present petition is at once betrayed in the reliefs sought by
petitioner’s Prayer, which to restate for added emphasis, provides: This Court, in Solid Builders, Inc. v. China Banking Corp., explained why a party should
WHEREFORE, premises considered, and in the interest of substantial justice and not preempt the action of a trial court:
fair play, Petitioner respectfully prays the Honorable Court that judgment be rendered: Even Article 1229 of the Civil Code, which SBI and MFII invoke, works against
a. Granting a writ of certiorari annulling and setting aside the Order dated 23 February them. Under that provision, the equitable reduction of the penalty stipulated by the
2017, the Warrant of Arrest dated the same date, and the Order dated 24 February parties in their contract will be based on a finding by the court that such penalty is
2017 of the Regional Trial Court  Branch 204, Muntinlupa City, in Criminal Case iniquitous or unconscionable. Here, the trial court has not yet made a ruling as to
No. 17-165 entitled People of the Philippines versus Leila M. De Lima et al.; whether the penalty agreed upon by CBC with SBI and MFII is unconscionable. Such
b. Granting a writ of prohibition enjoining and prohibiting respondent judge from finding will be made by the trial court only after it has heard both parties and weighed
conducting further proceedings until and unless the Motion to Quash is their respective evidence in light of all relevant circumstances. Hence, for SBI and
resolved with finality; MFII to claim any right or benefit under that provision at this point is premature.
c. Issuing an order granting the application for the issuance of temporary restraining (Emphasis supplied)
order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction to the proceedings; and  
d. Issuing a Status Quo Ante Order restoring the parties to the status prior to the In State of Investment House, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Court likewise held that a
issuance of the Order and Warrant of Arrest, both dated February 23, 2017,
petition for certiorari can be resorted to only after the court a quo has already and actually
thereby recalling both processes and restoring petitioner to her liberty and
freedom. (Emphasis supplied)
rendered its decision. It held, viz.:
We note, however, that the appellate court never actually ruled on whether or
 
not petitioner’s right had pre-scribed. It merely declared that it was in a position to so
Under paragraph (a), petitioner asks for a writ of certiorari annulling the Order dated rule and thereafter required the parties to submit memoranda. In making such a
February 23, 2017 finding probable cause, the warrant of arrest and the Order dated
 declaration, did the CA commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
jurisdiction? It did not. ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
x x x x warranto, and habeas corpus.
All things considered, this petition is premature. The CA has decided nothing (2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or
and whatever petitioner’s vehement objections may be (to any eventual ruling on the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
the issue of prescription) should be raised only after such ruling shall have (a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty,
actually been promulgated. international or executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation,
The situation evidently does not yet call for a recourse to a petition for certiorari order, instruction, ordinance, or regulation is in question.
under Rule 65. (Italicization from the original. Emphasis supplied) (b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll,
  or any penalty imposed in relation thereto.
An analogous ruling was made by this Court in Diaz v. Nora, where it ruled in this wise: (c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
x x x In the case of the respondent labor arbiter, he has not denied the motion for (d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion
execution filed by the petitioner. He merely did not act on the same. Neither had perpetua or higher.
petitioner urged the immediate resolution of his motion for execution by said (e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
arbiter. In the case of the respondent NLRC, it was not even given the opportunity to (Emphasis supplied)
pass upon the question raised by petitioner as to whether or not it has  
jurisdiction over the appeal, so the records of the case can be remanded to the In the palpable absence of a ruling on the Motion to Quash — which puts the jurisdiction
respondent labor arbiter for execution of the decision. of the lower court in issue — there is no controversy for this Court to resolve; there is simply
Obviously, petitioner had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy to seek relief from no final judgment or order of the lower court to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm. As
public respondents but he failed to avail himself of the same before coming to this per the block letter provision of the Constitution, this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction in
Court. To say the least, the petition is premature and must be struck down.
a vacuum nor issue a definitive ruling on mere suppositions.
(Emphasis supplied)
Succinctly, the present petition is immediately dismissible for this Court lacks jurisdiction
 
to review a non-existent court action. It can only act to protect a party from a real and actual
The dissents would deny the applicability of the foregoing on the ground that these were
ruling by a lower tribunal. Surely, it is not for this Court to negate “uncertain contingent
not criminal cases that involved a pending motion to quash. However, it should be obvious
future event that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all,” as the lower
from the aforequoted excerpts that the nature of the cases had nothing to do with this
court’s feared denial of the subject Motion to Quash.
Court’s finding of prematurity in those cases. Instead, what was stressed therein was that
the lower courts had not yet made, nor was not given the opportunity to make, a ruling
The established rule is that courts of justice will take cognizance only of controversies
before the parties came before this forum.
“wherein actual and not merely hypothetical issues are involved.” The reason underlying the
rule is “to prevent the courts through avoidance of premature adjudication from entangling
Indeed, the prematurity of the present petition cannot be overemphasized considering
themselves in abstract disagreements, and for us to be satisfied that the case does not
that petitioner is actually asking the Court to rule on some of the grounds subject of her
present a hypothetical injury or a claim contingent upon some event that has not and indeed
Motion to Quash. The Court, if it rules positively in favor of petitioner regarding the grounds
may never transpire.”
of the Motion to Quash, will be preempting the respondent Judge from doing her duty to
resolve the said motion and even prejudge the case. This is clearly outside of the ambit of
Even granting arguendo that what is invoked is the original jurisdiction of this Court
orderly and expeditious rules of procedure. This, without a doubt, causes an inevitable
under Section 5(1) of Article VIII, the petition nonetheless falls short of the Constitutional
delay in the proceedings in the trial court, as the latter abstains from resolving the incidents
requirements and of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. In the absence of a final judgment,
until this Court rules with finality on the instant petition.
order, or ruling on the Motion to Quash challenging the jurisdiction of the lower court, there
is no occasion for this Court to issue the extraordinary writ of certiorari. Without a judgment
Without such order, the present petition cannot satisfy the requirements set before this
or ruling, there is nothing for this Court to declare as having been issued without jurisdiction
Court can exercise its review powers. Section 5(2)(C) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
or in grave abuse of discretion.
explicitly requires the existence of “final judgments and orders of lower courts” before the
Court can exercise its power to “review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal
Furthermore, it is a basic requirement under Rule 65 that there be “[no] other plain,
or certiorari” in “all cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue,” viz.:
SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
speedy and adequate remedy found in law.” Thus, the failure to exhaust all other remedies,
as will be later discussed, before a premature resort to this Court is fatal to the petitioner’s forum shopping, and any violation of these rules results in the dismissal of a
cause of action. case. The acts committed and described herein can possibly constitute direct contempt.
 
Petitioner even failed to move for the reconsideration of the February 23 and 24, 2017 This policy echoes the last sentence of Section 5, Rule 7 of the Rules of Court, which
Orders she is currently assailing in this Petition. As this Court held in Estrada v. Office of states that “[i]f the acts of the party or his counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate
the Ombudsman, “[a] motion for reconsideration allows the public respondent an forum shopping, the same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall
opportunity to correct its factual and legal errors x x x [it] is mandatory before the filing of a constitute direct contempt as well as a cause for administrative sanctions.”
petition for certiorari.” The reasons proffered by petitioner fail to justify her present
premature recourse. 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.
Various policies and rules have been issued to curb the tendencies of litigants to Forum shopping therefore exists when the following elements are present: (a) identity of
disregard, nay violate, the rule enunciated in Section 5 of Article VIII of the Constitution to parties, or at least such parties representing the same interests in both actions; (b) identity
allow the Court to devote its time and attention to matters within its jurisdiction and prevent of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c)
the overcrowding of its docket. There is no reason to consider the proceedings at bar as an the identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other
exception. action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action
under consideration.
Petitioner Violated the Rule Against Forum Shopping
It is settled that forum shopping exists when a party repetitively avails himself of several Anent the first requisite, there is an identity of parties when the parties in both actions
judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially are the same, or there is privity between them, or they are successors-in-interest by title
founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances, and all subsequent to the commencement of the action litigating for the same thing and under the
raising substantially the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely by, same title and in the same capacity.
some other court. It is considered an act of malpractice as it trifles with the courts and
abuses their processes. Thus, as elucidated in Luzon Iron Development Group Corporation Meanwhile, the second and third requisites obtain where the same evidence necessary
v. Bridestone Mining and Development Corporation, forum shopping warrants the immediate to sustain the second cause of action is sufficient to authorize a recovery in the first, even if
dismissal of the suits filed: the forms or the nature of the two (2) actions are different from each other. If the same facts
Forum shopping is the act of litigants who repetitively avail themselves of multiple or evidence would sustain both, the two (2) actions are considered the same within the rule
judicial remedies in different fora, simultaneously or successively, all substantially that the judgment in the former is a bar to the subsequent action; otherwise, it is not.
founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances; and
raising substantially similar issues either pending in or already resolved adversely by All these requisites are present in this case.
some other court; or for the purpose of increasing their chances of obtaining a favorable
decision, if not in one court, then in another. The rationale against forum shopping is
The presence of the first requisite is at once apparent. The petitioner is an accused in
that a party should not be allowed to pursue simultaneous remedies in two
different courts, for to do so would constitute abuse of court processes which the criminal case below, while the respondents in this case, all represented by the Solicitor
tends to degrade the administration of justice, wreaks havoc upon orderly judicial General, have substantial identity with the complainant in the criminal case still pending
procedure, and adds to the congestion of the heavily burdened dockets of the before the trial court.
courts.
x x x x As for the second requisite, even a cursory reading of the petition and the Motion to
What is essential in determining the existence of forum shopping is the Quash will reveal that the arguments and the reliefs prayed for are essentially the
vexation caused the courts and litigants by a party who asks different courts
same. In both, petitioner advances the RTC’s supposed lack of jurisdiction over the offense,
and/or administrative agencies to rule on similar or related causes and/or grant
the alleged multiplicity of offenses included in the Information; the purported lack of
the same or substantially similar reliefs, in the process creating the possibility of
conflicting decisions being rendered upon the same issues. the corpus delicti of the charge, and, basically, the nonexistence of probable cause to indict
x x x x her. And, removed of all nonessentials, she essentially prays for the same thing in both the
We emphasize that the grave evil sought to be avoided by the rule against forum present petition and the Motion to Quash: the nullification of the Information and her
shopping is the rendition by two competent tribunals of two separate and contradictory restoration to liberty and freedom. Thus, our ruling in Ient v. Tullet Prebon (Philippines), Inc.
decisions. To avoid any confusion, this Court adheres strictly to the rules against does not apply in the present case as the petition at bar and the motion to quash pending
before the court a quo involve similar if not the same reliefs. What is more, while Justice anti-graft court. It was never conferred with the power to try drug-related cases even those
Caguioa highlights our pronouncement in Ient excepting an “appeal or special civil action committed by public officials. In fact, respondents point out that the history of the laws
for certiorari” from the rule against the violation of forum shopping, the good justice enabling and governing the Sandiganbayan will reveal that its jurisdiction was streamlined
overlooks that the phrase had been used with respect to forum shopping committed to address specific cases of graft and corruption, plunder, and acquisition of ill-gotten
through successive actions by a “party, against whom an adverse judgment or order has wealth.
[already] been rendered in one forum.” The exception with respect to an “appeal or special
civil action for certiorari” does not apply where the forum shopping is committed Before discussing the issue on jurisdiction over the subject matter, it is necessary to
by simultaneous actions where no judgment or order has yet been rendered by either clarify the crime with which the petitioner is being charged. For ease of reference, the
forum. To restate for emphasis, the RTC has yet to rule on the Motion to Quash. Thus, Information filed with the RTC is restated below:
the present petition and the motion to quash before the RTC are simultaneous actions that PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
do not exempt petitions for certiorari from the rule against forum shopping. Plaintiff,
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
INFORMATION
With the presence of the first two requisites, the third one necessarily obtains in the
 
present case. Should we grant the petition and declare the RTC without jurisdiction over the The undersigned Prosecutors, constituted as a Panel pursuant to Department Orders
offense, the RTC is bound to grant De Lima’s Motion to Quash in deference to this Court’s 706 and 790 dated October 14, 2016 and November 11, 2016, respectively, accuse
authority. In the alternative, if the trial court rules on the Motion to Quash in the interim, the LEILA M. DE LIMA, RAFAEL MARCOS Z. RAGOS and RONNIE PALISOC DAYAN, for
instant petition will be rendered moot and academic. violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 3(jj), Section 26(b) and Section 28,
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
In situations like the factual milieu of this instant petition, while nobody can restrain a Act of 2002, committed as follows:
party to a case before the trial court to institute a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the That within the period from November 2012 to March 2013, in the City of
Muntinlupa, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
Rules of Court, still such petition must be rejected outright because petitions that cover
accused Leila M. De Lima, being then the Secretary of the Department of
simultaneous actions are anathema to the orderly and expeditious processing and Justice, and accused Rafael Marcos Z. Ragos, being then the Officer-in-Charge
adjudication of cases. of the Bureau of Corrections, by taking advantage of their public office,
conspiring and confederating with accused Ronnie P. Dayan, being then the
On the ground of forum shopping alone, the petition merits immediate dismissal. employee of the Department of Justice detailed to De Lima, all of them having
  moral ascendancy or influence over inmates in the New Bilibid Prison, did then
The Regional Trial Court has Jurisdiction  and there commit illegal drug trading, in the following manner: De Lima and
Ragos, with the use of their power, position, and authority demand, solicit and
Even discounting the petitioner’s procedural lapses, this Court is still wont to deny the
extort money from the high-profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison to support
instant petition on substantive grounds.
the Senatorial bid of De Lima in the May 2016 election; by reason of which, the
inmates, not being lawfully authorized by law and through the use of mobile
Petitioner argues that, based on the allegations of the Information in Criminal Case No. phones and other electronic devices, did then and there willfully and
17-165, the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case against her. She unlawfully trade and traffic dangerous drugs, and thereafter give and deliver
posits that the Information charges her not with violation of RA 9165 but with Direct Bribery to De Lima, through Ragos and Dayan, the proceeds of illegal drug
— a felony within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan given her rank as the trading amounting to Five Million (P5,000,000.00) Pesos on 24 November
former Secretary of Justice with Salary Grade 31. For the petitioner, even assuming that the 2012, Five Million (P5,000,000.00) Pesos on 15 December 2012, and One
Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos weekly “tara” each from the high
crime described in the Information is a violation of RA 9165, the Sandiganbayan still has the
profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison.
exclusive jurisdiction to try the case considering that the acts described in the Information
CONTRARY TO LAW.
were intimately related to her position as the Secretary of Justice. Some justices of this  
Court would even adopt the petitioner’s view, declaring that the Information charged against Notably, the designation, the prefatory statements and the accusatory portions of
the petitioner is Direct Bribery. 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
The respondents, on the other hand, maintain that the RTC has exclusive jurisdiction to 3(jj), Section 26(b), and Section 28, Republic Act No. 9165.”From the very designation
try violations of RA 9165, including the acts described in the Information against the of the crime in the Information itself, it should be plain that the crime with which the
petitioner. The Sandiganbayan, so the respondents contend, was specifically created as an
petitioner is charged is a violation of RA 9165. As this Court clarified in Quimvel v. People, other allegations in the Information portray a much bigger picture, Illegal Drug Trading. The
the designation of the offense in the Information is a critical element required under Section latter crime, described by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) as “a
6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court in apprising the accused of the offense being global illicit trade involving the cultivation, manufacture, distribution and sale of substances,”
charged, viz.: necessarily involves various component crimes, not the least of which is the bribery and
The offense charged can also be elucidated by consulting the designation of the corruption of government officials. An example would be reports of recent vintage regarding
offense as appearing in the Information. The designation of the offense is a critical billions of pesos’ worth of illegal drugs allowed to enter Philippine ports without the scrutiny
element required under Sec. 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court for it assists in of Customs officials. Any money and bribery that may have changed hands to allow the
apprising the accused of the offense being charged. Its inclusion in the Information
importation of the confiscated drugs are certainly but trivial contributions in the furtherance
is imperative to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford him of the opportunity to
prepare his defense accordingly. Its import is underscored in this case where the
of the transnational illegal drug trading — the offense for which the persons involved should
preamble states that the crime charged is of “Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to be penalized.
Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.” (Emphasis supplied)
  Read as a whole, and not picked apart with each word or phrase construed separately,
Further, a reading of the provisions of RA 9165 under which the petitioner is prosecuted the Information against De Lima goes beyond an indictment for Direct Bribery under Article
would convey that De Lima is being charged as a conspirator in the crime of Illegal Drug 210 of the RPC. As Justice Martires articulately explained, the averments on solicitation of
Trading. The pertinent provisions of RA 9165 read: money in the Information, which may be taken as constitutive of bribery, form “part of the
SECTION 3. Definitions.—As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean: description on how illegal drug trading took place at the NBP.” The averments on how
x x x x petitioner asked for and received money from the NBP inmates simply complete the links of
(jj) Trading.—Transactions involving the illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs conspiracy between her, Ragos, Dayan and the NBP inmates in willfully and unlawfully
and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals using electronic devices such as, trading dangerous drugs through the use of mobile phones and other electronic devices
but not limited to, text messages, e-mail, mobile or landlines, two-way radios, Internet,
under Section 5, in relation to Section 3(jj), Section 26(b), and Section 28, of RA 9165.
instant messengers and chat rooms or acting as a broker in any of such transactions
whether for money or any other consideration in violation of this Act.
x x x x On this score, that it has not been alleged that petitioner actually participated in the
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution actual trafficking of dangerous drugs and had simply allowed the NBP inmates to do so
and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential is non sequitur given that the allegation of conspiracy makes her liable for the acts of her
Chemicals.—The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five coconspirators. As this Court elucidated, it is not indispensable for a coconspirator to take a
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be direct part in every act of the crime. A conspirator need not even know of all the parts which
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
the others have to perform, as conspiracy is the common design to commit a felony it is not
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
participation in all the details of the execution of the crime. As long as the accused, in
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity
and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. one way or another, helped and cooperated in the consummation of a felony, she is liable
x x x x as a coprincipal. As the Information provides, De Lima’s participation and cooperation was
SECTION 26. Attempt or Conspiracy.—Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the instrumental in the trading of dangerous drugs by the NBP inmates. The minute details of
following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the this participation and cooperation are matters of evidence that need not be specified in the
commission of the same as provided under this Act: Information but presented and threshed out during trial.
x x x x
 (b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and
Yet, some justices remain adamant in their position that the Information fails to allege
transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
the necessary elements of Illegal Drug Trading. Justice Carpio, in particular, would cite
chemical.
x x x x cases supposedly enumerating the elements necessary for a valid Information for Illegal
SECTION 28. Criminal Liability of Government Officials and Employees.—The Drug Trading. However, it should be noted that the subject of these cases was “Illegal Sale”
maximum penalties of the unlawful acts provided for in this Act shall be imposed, in of dangerous drugs — a crime separate and distinct from “Illegal Trading” averred in the
addition to absolute perpetual disqualification from any public office, if those found guilty Information against De Lima. The elements of “Illegal Sale” will necessary differ from the
of such unlawful acts are government officials and employees. elements of Illegal Trading under Section 5, in relation to Section 3(jj), of RA 9165. The
  definitions of these two separate acts are reproduced below for easy reference:
While it may be argued that some facts may be taken as constitutive of some elements SECTION 3. Definitions.—As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:
of Direct Bribery under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), these facts taken together with the x x x x
 (ii) Sell.—Any act of giving away any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor (u) Manufacture.—The production, preparation, compounding or processing of
and essential chemical whether for money or any other consideration. any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, either directly
(jj) Trading.—Transactions involving the illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs or indirectly or by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by
and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals using electronic devices such as, means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis,
but not limited to, text messages, e-mail, mobile or landlines, two-way radios, Internet, and shall include any packaging or repackaging of such substances, design or
instant messengers and chat rooms or acting as a broker in any of such transactions configuration of its form, or labeling or relabeling of its container; except that such terms
whether for money or any other consideration in violation of this Act. do not include the preparation, compounding, packaging or labeling of a drug or other
  substances by a duly authorized practitioner as an incident to his/her administration or
It is obvious from the foregoing that the crime of illegal tradinghas been written in dispensation of such drug or substance in the course of his/her professional practice
strokes much broader than that for illegal sale. In fact, an illegal sale of drugs may be including research, teaching and chemical analysis of dangerous drugs or such
substances that are not intended for sale or for any other purpose.
considered as only one of the possible component acts of illegal trading which may be
x x x x
committed through two modes: (1) illegal trafficking using electronic devices; or (2) acting as (kk) Use.—Any act of injecting, intravenously or intramuscularly, of consuming,
a broker in any transactions involved in the illegal trafficking of dangerous drugs. either by chewing, smoking, sniffing, eating, swallowing, drinking or otherwise
introducing into the physiological system of the body, any of the dangerous drugs.
On this score, the crime of “illegal trafficking” embraces various other offenses  
punishable by RA 9165. Section 3(r) of RA 9165 provides: With the complexity of the operations involved in Illegal Trading of drugs, as recognized
(r) Illegal Trafficking.—The illegal cultivation, culture, delivery, administration, and defined in RA 9165, it will be quite myopic and restrictive to require the elements of
dispensation, manufacture, sale, trading, transportation, distribution, importation, Illegal Sale — a mere component act — in the prosecution for Illegal Trading.
exportation and possession of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical.
More so, that which qualifies the crime of Illegal Trafficking to Illegal Trading may make
 
it impossible to provide the details of the elements of Illegal Sale. By “using electronic
In turn, the crimes included in the definition of Illegal Trafficking of drugs are defined as
devices such as, but not limited to, text messages, e-mail, mobile or landlines, two-way
follows:
radios, Internet, instant messengers and chat rooms,” the Illegal Trading can be remotely
(a) Administer.—Any act of introducing any dangerous drug into the body of any
person, with or without his/her knowledge, by injection, inhalation, ingestion or other perpetrated away from where the drugs are actually being sold; away from the subject of
means, or of committing any act of indispensable assistance to a person in the illegal sale. With the proliferation of digital technology coupled with ride sharing and
administering a dangerous drug to himself/herself unless administered by a duly delivery services, Illegal Trading under RA 9165 can be committed without getting one’s
licensed practitioner for purposes of medication. hand on the substances or knowing and meeting the seller or buyer. To require the
x x x x elements of Illegal Sale (the identities of the buyer, seller, the object and consideration, in
(d) Chemical Diversion.—The sale, distribution, supply or transport of legitimately Illegal Trade) would be impractical.
imported, in-transit, manufactured or procured controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, in diluted, mixtures or in concentrated form, to any person or entity engaged
in the manufacture of any dangerous drug, and shall include packaging, repackaging,
 
labeling, relabeling or concealment of such transaction through fraud, destruction of The same may be said of the second mode for committing Illegal Trading, or trading by
documents, fraudulent use of permits, misdeclaration, use of front companies or mail “acting as a broker” in transactions involved in Illegal Trafficking. In this instance, the
fraud. accused may neither have physical possession of the drugs nor meet the buyer and seller
x x x x and yet violate RA 9165. As pointed out by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, as early as 1916,
(i) Cultivate or Culture.—Any act of knowingly planting, growing, raising, or jurisprudence has defined a broker as one who is simply a middleman, negotiating contracts
permitting the planting, growing or raising of any plant which is the source of a relative to property with which he has no custody, viz.:
dangerous drug.
A broker is generally defined as one who is engaged, for others, on a
x x x x
commission, negotiating contracts relative to property with the custody of which
(k) Deliver.—Any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another,
he has no concern; the negotiator between other parties, never acting in his own
personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration.
name, but in the name of those who employed him; he is strictly a middleman and for
x x x x
some purposes the agent of both parties. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
(m) Dispense.—Any act of giving away, selling or distributing medicine or any
 
dangerous drug with or without the use of prescription.
x x x x In some cases, this Court even acknowledged persons as brokers even “where they
actually took no part in the negotiations, never saw the customer.” For the Court, the
primary occupation of a broker is simply bringing “the buyer and the seller together, even reading of RA 9165, as of RA 6425, will reveal that jurisdiction over drug-related cases is
if  no sale  is eventually made.” Hence, in indictments for Illegal Trading, it is illogical to exclusively vested with the Regional Trial Court and no other. The designation of the RTC
require the elements of Illegal Sale of drugs, such as the identities of the buyer and as the court with the exclusive jurisdiction over drug-related cases is apparent in the
the seller, the object and consideration. For the prosecution of Illegal Trading of drugs to following provisions where it was expressly mentioned and recognized as the only court
prosper, proof that the accused “act[ed] as a broker” or brought together the buyer and with the authority to hear drug-related cases:
seller of illegal drugs “using electronic devices such as, but not limited to, text messages, e- Section 20. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of
mail, mobile or landlines, two-way radios, Internet, instant messengers and chat rooms” is the Unlawful Act, Including the Properties or Proceeds Derived from the Illegal
sufficient. Trafficking of Dangerous Drugs and/or Precursors and Essential Chemicals.—
x x x x
After conviction in the Regional Trial Court in the appropriate criminal case filed,
The DOJ’s designation of the charge as one for Illegal Drug Trading thus holds sway. the Court shall immediately schedule a hearing for the confiscation and forfeiture of all
After all, the prosecution is vested with a wide range of discretion — including the discretion the proceeds of the offense and all the assets and properties of the accused either
of whether, what, and whom to charge. The exercise of this discretion depends on a owned or held by him or in the name of some other persons if the same shall be found
smorgasbord of factors, which are best appreciated by the prosecutors. to be manifestly out of proportion to his/her lawful income:
x x x x
As such, with the designation of the offense, the recital of facts in the Information, there During the pendency of the case in the Regional Trial Court, no property, or
can be no other conclusion than that petitioner is being charged not with Direct Bribery but income derived therefrom, which may be confiscated and forfeited, shall be disposed,
alienated or transferred and the same shall be in custodia legis and no bond shall be
with violation of RA 9165.
admitted for the release of the same.
x x x x
Granting without conceding that the information contains averments which constitute the Section 61. Compulsory Confinement of a Drug Dependent Who Refuses to
elements of Direct Bribery or that more than one offence is charged or as in this case, Apply Under the Voluntary Submission Program.—x x x
possibly bribery and violation of RA 9165, still the prosecution has the authority to amend A petition for the confinement of a person alleged to be dependent on
the information at any time before arraignment. Since petitioner has not yet been arraigned, dangerous drugs to a Center may be filed by any person authorized by the Board with
then the information subject of Criminal Case No. 17-165 can still be amended pursuant to the Regional Trial Court of the province or city where such person is found.
x x x x
Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court which reads:
Section 62. Compulsory Submission of a Drug Dependent Charged with an
SECTION 14. Amendment or Substitution.—A complaint or information may be
Offense to Treatment and Rehabilitation.—If a person charged with an offense where
amended, in form or in substance, without leave of court, at any time before the
the imposable penalty is imprisonment of less than six (6) years and one (1) day, and is
accused enters his plea. After the plea and during the trial, a formal amendment may
found by the prosecutor or by the court, at any stage of the proceedings, to be a drug
only be made with leave of court and when it can be done without causing prejudice to
dependent, the prosecutor or the court as the case may be, shall suspend all further
the rights of the accused.
proceedings and transmit copies of the record of the case to the Board.
 
In the event the Board determines, after medical examination, that public interest
Now the question that irresistibly demands an answer is whether it is requires that such drug dependent be committed to a center for treatment and
the Sandiganbayan or the RTC that has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Criminal rehabilitation, it shall file a petition for his/her commitment with the Regional Trial
Case No. 17-165, i.e., violation of RA 9165. Court of the province or city where he/she is being investigated or tried. x x x
x x x x
It is basic that jurisdiction over the subject matter in a criminal case is given only by law Section 90. Jurisdiction.—The Supreme Court shall designate special courts
in the manner and form prescribed by law. It is determined by the statute in force at the time from among the existing Regional Trial Courts in each judicial region to exclusively
try and hear cases involving violations of this Act. The number of courts designated
of the commencement of the action. Indeed, Congress has the plenary power to define,
in each judicial region shall be based on the population and the number of cases
prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of various courts. It follows then that Congress may
pending in their respective jurisdiction.
also, by law, provide that a certain class of cases should be exclusively heard and The DOJ shall designate special prosecutors to exclusively handle cases involving
determined by one court. Such would be a special law that is construed as an exception to violations of this Act.
the general law on jurisdiction of courts.  
Notably, no other trial court was mentioned in RA 9165 as having the authority to
The pertinent special law governing drug-related cases is RA 9165, which updated the take cognizance of drug-related cases. Thus, in Morales v. Court of Appeals, this Court
rules provided in RA 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. A plain
categorically named the RTC as the court with jurisdiction over drug-related cases, as x x x x
follows: Consequently, it is not accurate to state that the “abolition” of the Courts of
Applying by analogy the ruling in People v. Simon, People v. De Lara,People v. First Instance carried with it the abolition of their exclusive original jurisdiction in
Santos, and Ordonez v. Vinarao, the imposable penalty in this case which involves drug cases vested by Section 39 of R.A. No. 6425, as amended by P. D. No. 44. If
0.4587 grams of shabu should not exceed prisión correccional. We say by analogy that were so, then so must it be with respect to Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code
because these cases involved marijuana, not methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). and Section 57 of the Decree on Intellectual Property. On the contrary, in the resolution
In Section 20 of RA. No. 6425, as amended by Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659, the of 19 June 1996 in Caro v. Court of Appeals and in the resolution of 26 February 1997
maximum quantities of marijuana and methamphetamine hydrochloride for purposes of in Villalon v. Baldado, this Court expressly ruled that Regional Trial Courts have the
imposing the maximum penalties are not the same. For the latter, if the quantity involved exclusive original jurisdiction over libel cases pursuant to Article 360 of the Revised
is 200 grams or more, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from Penal Code. In Administrative Order No. 104-96 this Court mandates that:
P500,000 to P10 million shall be imposed. Accordingly, if the quantity involved is below x x x x
200 grams, the imposable penalties should be as follows: The same Administrative Order recognizes that violations of R.A. No. 6425, as
x x x x amended, regardless of the quantity involved, are to be tried and decided by the
Clearly, the penalty which may be imposed for the offense charged in Criminal Regional Trial Courts therein designated as special courts. (Emphasis and
Case No. 96-8443 would at most be only prisión correccionalduration is from six (6) underscoring supplied)
months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Does it follow then that, as the petitioner  
insists, the RTC has no jurisdiction thereon in view of the amendment of Section Yet, much has been made of the terminology used in Section 90 of RA 9165. The
32 of B.P. Blg. 129 by R.A. No. 7691, which vested upon Metropolitan Trial Courts, dissents would highlight the provision’s departure from Section 39 of RA 6425 — the
Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts exclusive original erstwhile drugs law, which provides:
jurisdiction over all offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six (6) SECTION 39. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Criminal Court.—The Circuit Criminal
years irrespective of the amount of fine and regardless of other imposable Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all cases involving offenses
accessory or other penalties? This Section 32 as thus amended now reads: punishable under this Act.
x x x x  
The exception in the opening sentence is of special significance which we cannot
For those in the dissent, the failure to reproduce the phrase “exclusive original
disregard. x x x The aforementioned exception refers not only to Section 20 of B.P. Blg.
129 providing for the jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts in criminal cases, but also
jurisdiction” is a clear indication that no court, least of all the RTC, has been vested with
to other laws which specifically lodge in Regional Trial Courts exclusive such “exclusive original jurisdiction” so that even the Sandiganbayan can take cognizance
jurisdiction over specific criminal cases, e.g., (a) Article 360 of the Revised Penal and resolve a criminal prosecution for violation of RA 9165.
Code, as amended by R.A Nos. 1289 and 4363 on written defamation or libel; (b)  
Decree on Intellectual Property (P.D. No. 49, as amended), which vests upon Courts of As thoroughly discussed by Justice Peralta in his Concurring Opinion, such deduction is
First Instance exclusive jurisdiction over the cases therein mentioned regardless of the unwarranted given the clear intent of the legislature not only to retain the “exclusive original
imposable penalty and (c) more appropriately for the case at bar, Section 39 of R.A. No. jurisdiction” of the RTCs over violations of the drugs law but to segregate from among the
6425, as amended by P.D. No. 44, which vests on Courts of First Instance, Circuit
several RTCs of each judicial region some RTCs that will “exclusively try and hear cases
Criminal Courts, and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts concurrent exclusive
original jurisdiction over all cases involving violations of said Act. involving violations of [RA 9165].” If at all, the change introduced by the new
x x x x phraseology of Section 90, RA 9165 is not the deprivation of the RTCs’ “exclusive
That Congress indeed did not intend to repeal these special laws vesting exclusive original jurisdiction” but the further restriction of this “exclusive original jurisdiction”
jurisdiction in the Regional Trial Courts over certain cases is clearly evident from the to select RTCs of each judicial region. This intent can be clearly gleaned from the
exception provided for in the opening sentence of Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129, as interpellation on House Bill No. 4433, entitled “An Act Instituting the Dangerous Drugs Act of
amended by R.A No. 7691. These special laws are not, therefore, covered by the 2002, repealing Republic Act No. 6425, as amended”:
repealing clause (Section 6) of R.A. No. 7691. Initially, Rep. Dilangalen referred to the fact sheet attached to the Bill which states
Neither can it be successfully argued that Section 39 of RA. No. 6425, as that the measure will undertake a comprehensive amendment to the existing law on
amended by P.D. No. 44, is no longer operative because Section 44 of B.P. Blg. dangerous drugs — RA No. 6425, as amended. Adverting to Section 64 of the Bill on
129 abolished the Courts of First Instance, Circuit Criminal Courts, and Juvenile and the repealing clause, he then asked whether the Committee is in effect amending or
Domestic Relations Courts. While, indeed, Section 44 provides that these courts were to repealing the aforecited law.
be “deemed automatically abolished” upon the declaration by the President that the Rep. Cuenco replied that any provision of law which is in conflict with the
reorganization provided in B.P. Blg. 129 had been completed, this Court should not provisions of the Bill is repealed and/or modified accordingly.
lose sight of the fact that the Regional Trial Courts merely replaced the Courts of
First Instance as clearly borne out by the last two sentences of Section 44, to wit:
 In this regard, Rep. Dilangalen suggested that if the Committee’s intention was only x x x x
to amend RA No. 6425, then the wording used should be “to amend” and not “to repeal” THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. BARBERS).
with regard to the provisions that are contrary to the provisions of the Bill. I have no problem with that, Mr. Chairman, but I’d like to call your attention to the
Adverting to Article VIII, Section 60, on Jurisdiction Over Dangerous Drugs Case, fact that my proposal is only for designation because if it is for a creation that
which provides that “the Supreme Court shall designate Regional Trial Courts to have would entail another budget, Mr. Chairman. And almost always, the Department
original jurisdiction over all offenses punishable by this Act,” Rep. Dilangalen inquired of Budget would tell us at the budget hearing that we lack funds, we do not have
whether it is the Committee’s intention that certain RTC salas will be designated money. So that might delay the very purpose why we want the RTC or the
by the Supreme Court to try drug-related offenses, although all RTCs have municipal courts to handle exclusively the drug cases. That’s why my proposal is
original jurisdiction over those offenses. designation not creation.
Rep. Cuenco replied in the affirmative. He pointed that at present, the THE CHAIRMAN (REP. CUENCO).
Supreme Court’s assignment of drug cases to certain judges is not exclusive Areglado. No problem, designation. Approved.
because the latter can still handle cases other than drug-related cases. He added  
that the Committee’s intention is to assign drug-related cases to judges who will The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 is not transferred to
handle exclusively these cases assigned to them. the Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or
In this regard, Rep. Dilangalen stated that, at the appropriate time, he would like to
higher, regardless of whether the violation is alleged as committed in relation to office.
propose the following amendment; “The Supreme Court shall designate specific salas
of the RTC to try exclusively offenses related to drugs.”
Rep. Cuenco agreed therewith, adding that the Body is proposing the creation of The power of the Sandiganbayan to sit in judgment of high-ranking government officials is
exclusive drug courts because at present, almost all of the judges are besieged by a not omnipotent. The Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is circumscribed by law and its limits are
lot of drug cases some of which have been pending for almost 20 years. (Emphasis and currently defined and prescribed by RA 10660, which amended Presidential Decree No.
underscoring supplied) (PD) 1606. As it now stands, the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over the following:
  SEC. 4. Jurisdiction.—The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original
Per the “Records of the Bilateral Conference Committee on the Disagreeing Provisions jurisdiction in all cases involving:
of Senate Bill No. 1858 and House Bill No. 4433,” the term “designation” of RTCs that will a. Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-
exclusively handle drug-related offenses was used to skirt the budgetary requirements that Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2, Title
VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of the accused are officials
might accrue by the “creation” of exclusive drugs courts. It was never intended to divest the
occupying the following positions in the government, whether in a permanent, acting or
RTCs of their exclusive original jurisdiction over drug-related cases. The Records are clear: interim capacity, at the time of the commission of the offense:
THE CHAIRMAN (REP. CUENCO). (1) Officials of the executive branch occupying the positions of regional director
x x x [W]e would like to propose the creation of drug courts to handle
and higher, otherwise classified as Grade ‘27’ and higher, of the Compensation
exclusively drug cases; the imposition of a 60-day deadline on courts within and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758), specifically
which to decide drug cases; and No. 3, provide penalties on officers of the law and
including:
government prosecutors for mishandling and delaying drugs cases. x x x x;
We will address these concerns one by one.
(2) Members of Congress and officials thereof classified as Grade ‘27’ and
1. The possible creation of drugs courts to handle exclusively drug cases. Any higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989;
comments?
(3) Members of the judiciary without prejudice to the provisions of the
x x x x Constitution;
THE CHAIRMAN (SEN. BARBERS).
(4) Chairmen and members of the Constitutional Commissions, without
We have no objection to this proposal, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, this is prejudice to the provisions of the Constitution; and
one of the areas where we come into an agreement when we were in Japan.
(5) All other national and local officials classified as Grade ‘27’ and higher
However, I just would like to add a paragraph after the word “Act” in Section 86 of under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989.
the Senate versions, Mr. Chairman. And this is in connection with the designation
b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes
of special courts by “The Supreme Court shall designate special courts from committed by the public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a.) of this
among the existing Regional Trial Courts in each judicial region to exclusively try
section in relation to their office.
and hear cases involving violations of this Act. The number of court designated in c. Civil and criminal cases filed pursuant to and in connection with Executive Order
each judicial region shall be based on the population and the number of pending
Nos. 1, 2, 14 and 14-A, issued in 1986.
cases in their respective jurisdiction.” That is my proposal, Mr. Chairman. Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction where
THE CHAIRMAN (REP. CUENCO).
the information: (a) does not allege any damage to the government or any bribery; or (b)
We adopt the same proposal.
 alleges damage to the government or bribery arising from the same or closely related Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660, provides but the general rule,
transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One Million pesos (P1,000,000.00). couched in a “broad and general phraseology.” Exceptions abound. Besides the
  jurisdiction on written defamations and libel, as illustrated in Morales and People v.
The foregoing immediately betrays that the Sandiganbayanprimarily sits as a Benipayo, the RTC is likewise given “exclusive original jurisdiction to try and decide any
special anti-graft court pursuant to a specific injunction in the 1973 Constitution. Its criminal action or proceedings for violation of the Omnibus Election Code,” regardless of
characterization and continuation as such was expressly given a constitutional fiat under whether such violation was committed by public officers occupying positions classified as
Section 4, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which states: Grade 27 or higher in relation to their offices. In fact, offenses committed by members of the
SECTION 4. The present anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall Armed Forces in relation to their office, i.e., in the words of RA 7055,  “service-connected
continue to function and exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by
crimes or offenses,” are not cognizable by the Sandiganbayan but by court-martial.
law.
 
Certainly, jurisdiction over offenses and felonies committed by public officers is not
It should occasion no surprise, therefore, that the Sandiganbayanis without jurisdiction
determined solely by the pay scale or by the fact that they were committed “in relation to
to hear drug-related cases. Even Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660,
their office.” In determining the forum vested with the jurisdiction to try and decide criminal
touted by the petitioner and the dissents as a catch all provision, does not operate to strip
actions, the laws governing the subject matter of the criminal prosecution must likewise be
the RTCs of its exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165. As pointed out by
considered.
Justices Tijam and Martires, a perusal of the drugs law will reveal that public officials were
never considered excluded from its scope. Hence, Section 27 of RA 9165 punishes
In this case, RA 9165 specifies the RTC as the court with the jurisdiction to
government officials found to have benefited from the trafficking of dangerous drugs, while
“exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of [RA 9165].” This is an
Section 28 of the law imposes the maximum penalty on such government officials and
exception, couched in the special law on dangerous drugs, to the general rule under
employees. The adverted sections read:
SECTION 27. Criminal Liability of a Public Officer or Employee for
Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660. It is a canon of statutory construction
Misappropriation, Misapplication or Failure to Account for the Confiscated, Seized that a special law prevails over a general law and the latter is to be considered as an
and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled exception to the general.
Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory
Equipment Including the Proceeds or Properties Obtained from the Unlawful Act Parenthetically, it has been advanced that RA 10660 has repealed Section 90 of RA
Committed.—The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five 9165. However, a closer look at the repealing clause of RA 10660 will show that there is no
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00), in express repeal of Section 90 of RA 9165 and well entrenched is the rule that an implied
addition to absolute perpetual disqualification from any public office, shall be imposed
repeal is disfavored. It is only accepted upon the clearest proof of inconsistency so
upon any public officer or employee who misappropriates, misapplies or fails to account
for confiscated, seized or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous repugnant that the two laws cannot be enforced. The presumption against implied repeal is
drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or stronger when of two laws involved one is special and the other general.107The mentioned
laboratory equipment including the proceeds or properties obtained from the unlawful rule in statutory construction that a special law prevails over a general law applies
acts as provided for in this Act. regardless of the laws’ respective dates of passage. Thus, this Court ruled:
Any elective local or national official found to have benefited from the proceeds x x x [I]t is a canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails over a
of the trafficking of dangerous drugs as prescribed in this Act, or have received any general law regardless of their dates of passage — and the special is to be considered
financial or material contributions or donations from natural or juridical persons found as remaining an exception to the general.
guilty of trafficking dangerous drugs as prescribed in this Act, shall be removed from So also, every effort must be exerted to avoid a conflict between statutes. If
office and perpetually disqualified from holding any elective or appointive reasonable construction is possible, the laws must be reconciled in that manner.
positions in the government, its divisions, subdivisions, and intermediaries, including Repeals of laws by implication moreover are not favored, and the mere repugnancy
government-owned or between two statutes should be very clear to warrant the court in holding that the later in
-controlled corporations. time repeals the other.
SECTION 28. Criminal Liability of Government Officials and Employees.—The
maximum penalties of the unlawful acts provided for in this Act shall be imposed, in To reiterate for emphasis, Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended by RA 10660, is the
addition to absolute perpetual disqualification from any public office, if those found guilty
general law on jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over crimes and offenses committed by
of such unlawful acts are government officials and employees. (Emphasis supplied)
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. Even granting arguendo that the Court declares the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction
over the information subject of Criminal Case No. 17-165, still it will not automatically result
The exceptional rule provided under Section 90, RA 9165 relegating original exclusive in the release from detention and restore the liberty and freedom of petitioner.
jurisdiction to RTCs specially designated by the Supreme Court logically follows given the  
technical aspect of drug-related cases. With the proliferation of cases involving violation of The RTC has several options if it dismisses the criminal case based on the grounds raised
RA 9165, it is easy to dismiss them as common and untechnical. However, narcotic by petitioner in her Motion to Quash.
substances possess unique characteristics that render them not readily identifiable. In fact,
they must first be subjected to scientific analysis by forensic chemists to determine their Under Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, the trial court has three (3) possible alternative
composition and nature. Thus, judges presiding over designated drugs courts are specially actions when confronted with a Motion to Quash:
trained by the Philippine Judicial Academy (PhilJa) and given scientific instructions to equip 1. Order the amendment of the Information;
them with the proper tools to appreciate pharmacological evidence and give analytical 2. Sustain the Motion to Quash; or
insight upon this esoteric subject. After all, the primary consideration of RA 9165 is the fact 3. Deny the Motion to Quash.
that the substances involved are, in fact, dangerous drugs, their plant sources, or their
controlled precursors and essential chemicals. Without a doubt, not one of The first two options are available to the trial court where the motion to quash is
the Sandiganbayanjustices were provided with knowledge and technical expertise on meritorious. Specifically, as to the first option, this court had held that should the Information
matters relating to prohibited substances. be deficient or lacking in any material allegation, the trial court can order the amendment
  of the Information under Section 4, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, which states:
SECTION 4. Amendment of Complaint or Information.—If the motion to quash is
Hard figures likewise support the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the RTCs over
based on an alleged defect of the complaint or information which can be cured by
violations of RA 9165. As previously stated, as of June 30, 2017, there are 232,557 drugs amendment, the court shall order that an amendment be made.
cases pending before the RTCs. On the other hand, not even a single case filed before If it is based on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, the
the Sandiganbayan from February 1979 to June 30, 2017 dealt with violations of the prosecution shall be given by the court an opportunity to correct the defect by
drugs law. Instead, true to its designation as an anti-graft court, the bulk of the cases filed amendment. The motion shall be granted if the prosecution fails to make the
before the Sandiganbayan involve violations of RA 3019, entitled the “Anti-Graft and amendment, or the complaint or information still suffers from the same defect despite
Corrupt Practices Act” and malversation. With these, it would not only be unwise but the amendment.
reckless to allow the tribunal uninstructed and inexperienced with the intricacies of drugs  
cases to hear and decide violations of RA 9165 solely on account of the pay scale of the The failure of the trial court to order the correction of a defect in the Information curable
accused. by an amendment amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power. So, this Court held in Dio v.
People:
Likewise of special significance is the proviso introduced by RA 10660 which, to This Court has held that failure to provide the prosecution with the opportunity to amend is
an arbitrary exercise of power. In People v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division):
reiterate for emphasis, states:
When a motion to quash is filed challenging the validity and sufficiency of an
Provided, That the Regional Trial Court shall have exclusive original
Information, and the defect may be cured by amendment, courts must deny the motion
jurisdiction where the information: (a) does not allege any damage to the
to quash and order the prosecution to file an amended Information. Generally, a defect
government or any bribery; or (b) alleges damage to the government or bribery arising
pertaining to the failure of an Information to charge facts constituting an offense is one
from the same or closely related transactions or acts in an amount not exceeding One
that may be corrected by an amendment. In such instances, courts are mandated not to
million pesos (P1,000,000.00).
automatically quash the Information; rather, it should grant the prosecution the
  opportunity to cure the defect through an amendment. This rule allows a case to
The clear import of the new paragraph introduced by RA 10660 is to streamline the proceed without undue delay. By allowing the defect to be cured by simple amendment,
cases handled by the Sandiganbayan by delegating to the RTCs some cases involving unnecessary appeals based on technical grounds, which only result to prolonging the
high-ranking public officials. With the dissents’ proposition, opening the Sandiganbayanto proceedings, are avoided.
the influx of drug-related cases, RA 10660 which was intended to unclog the dockets of More than this practical consideration, however, is the due process underpinnings
the Sandiganbayan would all be for naught. Hence, sustaining the RTC’s jurisdiction over of this rule. As explained by this Court in People v. Andrade, the State, just like any
other litigant, is entitled to its day in court. Thus, a court’s refusal to grant the
drug-related cases despite the accused’s high-ranking position, as in this case, is all the
prosecution the opportunity to amend an Information, where such right is expressly
more proper.
 granted under the Rules of Court and affirmed time and again in a string of Supreme As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not
Court decisions, effectively curtails the State’s right to due process. appealable; an appeal from an interlocutory order is not allowed under Section
  1(b), Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. Neither can it be a proper subject of a petition
Notably, the defect involved in Dio was the Information’s failure to establish the venue for certiorari which can be used only in the absence of an appeal or any other
— a matter of jurisdiction in criminal cases. Thus, in the case at bar where petitioner has not adequate, plain and speedy remedy. The plain and speedy remedy upon denial of
an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial as discussed above. (Emphasis and
yet been arraigned, the court a quo has the power to order the amendment of the February
underscoring supplied)
17, 2017 Information filed against the petitioner. This power to order the amendment is not
 
reposed with this Court in the exercise of its certiorari powers.
At this juncture, it must be stressed yet again that the trial court has been denied the
opportunity to act and rule on petitioner’s motion when the latter jumped the gun and
Nevertheless, should the trial court sustain the motion by actually ordering the quashal
prematurely repaired posthaste to this Court, thereby immobilizing the trial court in its
of the Information, the prosecution is not precluded from filing another information. An order
tracks. Verily, De Lima should have waited for the decision on her motion to quash instead
sustaining the motion to quash the information would neither bar another prosecution or
of prematurely filing the instant recourse.
require the release of the accused from custody. Instead, under Section 5, Rule 117 of the
Rules of Court, the trial court can simply order that another complaint or information be
In the light of the foregoing, the best course of action for the Court to take is to dismiss
filed without discharging the accused from custody. Section 5, Rule 117 states, thus:
the petition and direct the trial court to rule on the Motion to Quash and undertake all the
Section 5. Effect of sustaining the motion to quash.—If the motion to quash is
necessary proceedings to expedite the adjudication of the subject criminal case.
sustained, the court may order that another complaint or information be
filed except as provided in Section 6 of this rule. If the order is made, the  
accused, if in custody, shall not be discharged unless admitted to bail. If no order Respondent Judge did not Abuse Her Discretion in Finding Probable Cause to Order
is made or if having been made, no new information is filed within the time specified in the Petitioner’s Arrest
the order or within such further time as the court may allow for good cause, the  
accused, if in custody, shall be discharged unless he is also in custody for another The basis for petitioner’s contention that respondent judge committed grave abuse of
charge. discretion in issuing the February 23, 2017 Order finding probable cause to arrest the
  petitioner is two-pronged: respondent judge should have first resolved the pending Motion
Section 6, Rule 117, adverted to in the foregoing provision, prevents the refiling of an to Quash before ordering the petitioner’s arrest; and there is no probable cause to justify the
information on only two grounds: that the criminal action or liability has already been petitioner’s arrest.
extinguished, and that of double jeopardy. Neither was invoked in petitioner’s Motion to
Quash filed before the court a quo. Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment
equivalent to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to act at all in contemplation of
The third option available to the trial court is the denial of the motion to quash. Even the law.
granting, for the nonce, the petitioner’s position that the trial court’s issuance of the warrant
for her arrest is an implied denial of her Motion to Quash, the proper remedy against this In the present case, the respondent judge had no positive duty to first resolve
court action is to proceed to trial, not to file the present petition for certiorari. This the Motion to Quash before issuing a warrant of arrest. There is no rule of procedure,
Court in Galzote v. Brionesreiterated this established doctrine: statute, or jurisprudence to support the petitioner’s claim. Rather, Sec. 5(a), Rule 112 of the
A preliminary consideration in this case relates to the propriety of the chosen legal
Rules of Court117 required the respondent judge to evaluate the prosecutor’s resolution and
remedies availed of by the petitioner in the lower courts to question the denial of his
motion to quash. In the usual course of procedure, a denial of a motion to gnash filed
its supporting evidence within a limited period of only ten (10) days, viz.:
by the accused results in the continuation of the trial and the determination of the SEC. 5. When warrant of arrest may issue.—
guilt or innocence of the accused. If a judgment of conviction is rendered and the (a) By the Regional Trial Court.—Within ten (10) days from the filing of the
lower court’s decision of conviction is appealed, the accused can then raise the denial of complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the
his motion to quash not only as an error committed by the trial court but as an added prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the
ground to overturn the latter’s ruling. evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause,
In this case, the petitioner did not proceed to trial but opted to immediately question he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order when the complaint or
the denial of his motion to quash via a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of information was filed pursuant to Section 6 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the
the Rules of Court. existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional
evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court
within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or information.
   and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds
It is not far-fetched to conclude, therefore, that had the respondent judge waited longer no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s report and require the submission of
and first attended to the petitioner’s Motion to Quash, she would have exposed herself to a supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the
existence of probable cause.
possible administrative liability for failure to observe Sec. 5(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of
 
Court. Her exercise of discretion was sound and in conformity with the provisions of the
It must be emphasized, however, that in determining the probable cause to issue the
Rules of Court considering that a Motion to Quash may be filed and, thus resolved by a trial
warrant of arrest against the petitioner, respondent judge evaluated the Information and “all
court judge, at any time before the accused petitioner enters her plea. What is more, it is in
the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation conducted in this case.”
accord with this Court’s ruling in Marcos v. Cabrera-Faller that “[a]s the presiding judge, it
The assailed February 23, 2017 Order is here restated for easy reference and provides,
was her task, upon the filing of the Information, to first and foremost determine the
thusly:
existence or nonexistence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused.”
After a careful evaluation of the herein Information and all the evidence
presented during the preliminary investigation conducted in this case by the
120
This Court’s ruling in Miranda v. Tuliao  does not support the petitioner’s Department of Justice, Manila, the Court finds sufficient probable cause for the issuance
position. Miranda does not prevent a trial court from ordering the arrest of an accused even of Warrants of Arrest against all the accused LEILA M. DE LIMA x x x. (Emphasis
pending a motion to quash the information. At most, it simply explains that an accused can supplied)
seek judicial relief even if he has not yet been taken in the custody of law.  
As the prosecutor’s report/resolution precisely finds support from the evidence
Undoubtedly, contrary to petitioner’s postulation, there is no rule or basic principle presented during the preliminary investigation, this Court cannot consider the
requiring a trial judge to first resolve a motion to quash, whether grounded on lack of respondent judge to have evaded her duty or refused to perform her obligation to satisfy
jurisdiction or not, before issuing a warrant of arrest. As such, respondent judge committed herself that substantial basis exists for the petitioner’s arrest. “All the evidence presented
no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed February 23, 2017 Order even before during the preliminary investigation” encompasses a broader category than the “supporting
resolving petitioner’s Motion to Quash. There is certainly no indication that respondent evidence” required to be evaluated in Soliven. It may perhaps even be stated that
judge deviated from the usual procedure in finding probable cause to issue the petitioner’s respondent judge performed her duty in a manner that far exceeds what is required of her
arrest. by the rules when she reviewed all the evidence, not just the supporting documents. At the
very least, she certainly discharged a judge’s duty in finding probable cause for the
And yet, petitioner further contends that the language of the February 23, 2017 Order issuance of a warrant, as described in Ho v. People:
violated her constitutional rights and is contrary to the doctrine in Soliven v. Makasiar. The above rulings in Soliven, Inting and Lim, Sr. were iterated in Allado v. Diokno,
Petitioner maintains that respondent judge failed to personally determine the probable where we explained again what probable cause means. Probable cause for the
cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest since, as stated in the assailed Order, issuance of a warrant of arrest is the existence of such facts and circumstances that
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has
respondent judge based her findings on the evidence presented during the preliminary
been committed by the person sought to be arrested. Hence, the judge, before issuing a
investigation and not on the report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor. warrant of arrest, ‘must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is
This hardly deserves serious consideration. sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested is
probably guilty thereof.’ At this stage of the criminal proceeding, the judge is not yet
Personal determination of the existence of probable cause by the judge is required tasked to review in detail the evidence submitted during the preliminary investigation. It
before a warrant of arrest may issue. The Constitution and the Revised Rules of Criminal is sufficient that he personally evaluates such evidence in determining probable cause.
Procedure command the judge “to refrain from making a mindless acquiescence to the In Webb v. De Leon, we stressed that the judge merely determines the probability, not
the certainty, of guilt of the accused and, in doing so, he need not conduct a de
prosecutor’s findings and to conduct his own examination of the facts and circumstances
novo hearing. He simply personally reviews the prosecutor’s initial determination finding
presented by both parties.” This much is clear from this Court’s ruling in Solivencited by the
probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence.
petitioner, viz.: x x x x
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the x x x [T]he judge cannot rely solely on the report of the prosecutor in finding
issuing judge to satisfy himself the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Obviously and
the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not understandably, the contents of the prosecutor’s report will support his own conclusion
required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following that there is reason to charge the accused for an offense and hold him for trial.
established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the However, the judge must decide independently. Hence, he must have supporting
supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause evidence, other than the prosecutor’s bare report, upon which to legally sustain
 his own findings on the existence (or nonexistence) of probable cause to issue an inmate Peter Co [were] proceeds from illicit drug trade, which were given to support the
arrest order. This responsibility of determining personally and independently the senatorial bid of De Lima.
existence or nonexistence of probable cause is lodged in him by no less than the most Also in the same period, Dayan demanded from Ragos money to support the senatorial
basic law of the land. Parenthetically, the prosecutor could ease the burden of the judge bid of De Lima. Ragos demanded and received P100,000 tarafrom each of the high-
and speed up the litigation process by forwarding to the latter not only the information profile inmates in exchange for privileges, including their illicit drug trade. Ablen
and his bare resolution finding probable cause, but also so much of the records and the collected the money for Ragos who, in turn, delivered them to Dayan at De Lima’s
evidence on hand as to enable His Honor to make his personal and separate judicial residence.
finding on whether to issue a warrant of arrest.  
Lastly, it is not required that the complete or entire records of the case during the The foregoing findings of the DOJ find support in the affidavits and testimonies of
preliminary investigation be submitted to and examined by the judge. We do not intend several persons. For instance, in his Affidavit dated September 3, 2016, NBI agent Jovencio
to unduly burden trial courts by obliging them to examine the complete records of
P. Ablen, Jr. narrated, viz.:
every case all the time simply for the purpose of ordering the arrest of an
21. On the morning of 24 November 2012, I received a call from Dep. Dir. Ragos asking
accused. What is required, rather, is that the judge must have sufficient
where I was. I told him I was at home. He replied that he will fetch me to accompany
supporting documents (such as the complaint, affidavits, counter-affidavits,
him on a very important task.
sworn statements of witnesses or transcript of stenographic notes, if any) upon
22. Approximately an hour later, he arrived at my house. I boarded his vehicle, a
which to make his independent judgment or, at the very least, upon which to
Hyundai Tucson, with plate no. RGU910. He then told me that he will deliver
verify the findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause. The
something to the then Secretary of Justice, Sen. Leila De Lima. He continued and
point is: he cannot rely solely and entirely on the prosecutor’s recommendation, as
said “Nior confidential ‘to. Tayong dalawa lang ang nakakaalam nito. Dadalhin natin
Respondent Court did in this case. Although the prosecutor enjoys the legal
yung quota kay Lola. 5M ‘yang nasa bag. Tingnan mo.”
presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties and functions, which in
23. The black bag he was referring to was in front of my feet. It [was a] black handbag.
turn gives his report the presumption of accuracy, the Constitution, we repeat,
When I opened the bag, I saw bundles of One Thousand Peso bills.
commands the judge to personally determine probable cause in the issuance of
24. At about 10 o’clock in the morning, we arrived at the house located at Laguna Bay
warrants of arrest. This Court has consistently held that a judge fails in his bounden duty
corner Subic Bay Drive, South Bay Village, Parañaque City.
if he relies merely on the certification or the report of the investigating officer. (Emphasis
25. Dep. Dir. Ragos parked his vehicle in front of the house. We both alighted the vehicle
supplied)
but he told me to stay. He then proceeded to the house. 
  26. From our parked vehicle, I saw Mr. Ronnie Dayan open the gate. Dep. Dir. Ragos
Notably, for purposes of determining the propriety of the issuance of a warrant of arrest, then handed the black handbag containing bundles of one thousand peso bills to Mr.
the judge is tasked to merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of the guilt of the Dayan.
accused. She is given wide latitude of discretion in the determination of probable cause for 27. At that time, I also saw the then DOJ Sec. De Lima at the main door of the house.
the issuance of warrants of arrest. A finding of probable cause to order the accused’s arrest She was wearing plain clothes which is commonly known referred to as “duster.”
does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. 28. The house was elevated from the road and the fence was not high that is why I was
It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense able to clearly see the person at the main door, that is, Sen. De Lima.
29. When Dep. Dir. Ragos and Mr. Dayan reached the main door, I saw Mr. Dayan hand
charged.
the black handbag to Sen. De Lima, which she received. The three of them then
entered the house.
Again, per the February 23, 2017 Order, respondent judge evaluated all the evidence 30. After about thirty (30) minutes, Dep. Dir. Ragos went out of the house. He no longer
presented during the preliminary investigation and on the basis thereof found probable has the black handbag with him.
cause to issue the warrant of arrest against the petitioner. This is not surprising given 31. We then drove to the BuCor Director’s Quarters in Muntinlupa City. While cruising,
that the only evidence available on record are those provided by the Dep. Dir. Ragos told me “Nior ‘wag kang maingay kahit kanino at wala kang nakita
complainants and the petitioner, in fact, did not present any counter-affidavit or ha,” to which I replied “Sabi mo e. E di wala akong nakita.”
evidence to controvert this. Thus, there is nothing to disprove the following preliminary 32. On the morning of 15 December 2012, Dep. Dir. Ragos again fetched me from my
house and we proceeded to the same house located at Laguna Bay corner Subic
findings of the DOJ prosecutors relative to the allegations in the Information filed in Criminal
Bay Drive, South Bay Village, Parañaque City.
Case No. 17-165: 33. That time, I saw a plastic bag in front of my feet. I asked Dep. Dir. Ragos “ Quota na
Thus, from November 2012 to March 2013, De Lima[,] Ragos and Dayan should be naman Sir?” Dep. Dir. Ragos replied “Ano pa nga ba, ‘tang ina sila lang meron.”
indicted for violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 3(jj), Section 26(b) and Section
 
28, of R.A. 9165, owing to the delivery of P5 million in two (2) occasions, on 24
Petitioner’s co-accused, Rafael Ragos, recounted in his own Affidavit dated September
November 2012 and 15 December 2012, to Dayan and De Lima. The monies came
26, 2016 a similar scenario:
8. One morning on the latter part of November 2012, I saw a black handbag containing  
a huge sum of money on my bed inside the Director’s Quarters of the BuCor. I The source of the monies delivered to petitioner De Lima was expressly bared by
looked inside the black handbag and saw that it contains bundles of one thousand several felons incarcerated inside the NBP. Among them is Peter Co, who testified in the
peso bills.
following manner:
9. I then received a call asking me to deliver the black handbag to Mr. Ronnie Dayan.
6. Noong huling bahagi ng 2012, sinabi sa akin ni Hans Tan na nanghihingi ng
The caller said the black handbag came from Peter Co and it contains “Limang
kontribusyon sa mga Chinese sa Maximum Security Compound ng NBP si dating DOJ
Manok” which means Five Million Pesos (Php5,000,000.00) as a “manok” refers to
Sec. De Lima para sa kanyang planong pagtakbo sa Senado sa 2013
One Million Pesos (Php1,000,000.00) in the vernacular inside the New Bilibid
Elections. Dalawang beses akong nagbigay ng tig-P5 Million para tugunan ang hiling ni
Prison.
Sen. De Lima, na dating DOJ Secretary;
10. As I personally know Mr. Dayan and knows that he stays in the house of the then
7. Binigay ko ang mga halagang ito kay Hans Tan para maibigay kaySen. Leila
DOJ Sec. Leila M. De Lima located at Laguna Bay corner Subic Bay Drive, South
De Lima na dating DOJ Secretary. Sa parehong pagkakataon, sinabihan na lang ako
Bay Village, Parañaque City, I knew I had to deliver the black handbag to Sen. De
ni Hans Tan na naibigay na ang pera kay Ronnie Dayan na siyang tumatanggap ng
Lima at the said address.
pera para kay dating DOJ Sec. De Lima. Sinabi rin ni Hans Tan na ang nagdeliver ng
11. Before proceeding to the house of Sen. De Lima at the above[-]mentioned address,
pera ay si dating OIC ngBuCor na si Rafael Ragos.
I called Mr. Ablen to accompany me in delivering the money. I told him we were
8. Sa kabuuan, nakapagbigay ang mga Chinese sa loob ng Maximum ng P10
going to do an important task.
Million sa mga huling bahagi ng taong 2012 kay dating DOJ Sec. De Lima para sa
12. Mr. Ablen agreed to accompany me so I fetched him from his house and we
kanyang planong pagtakbo sa Senado sa 2013 Elections. Ang mga perang ito ay
proceeded to the house of Sen. De Lima at the above mentioned address.
mula sa pinagbentahan ng illegal na droga.
13. While we were in the car, I told Mr. Ablen that the important task we will do is
deliver Five Million Pesos (Php5,000,000.00) “Quota” to Sen. De Lima. I also told
 
him that the money was in the black handbag that was on the floor of the All these, at least preliminarily, outline a case for illegal drug trading committed in
passenger seat (in front of him) and he could check it, to which Mr. Ablen conspiracy by the petitioner and her co-accused. Thus, the Court cannot sustain the
complied. allegation that respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed
14. Before noon, we arrived at the house of Sen. De Lima located at Laguna Bay Order for petitioner’s arrest.
corner Subic Bay Drive, South Bay Village, Parañaque City.
15. I parked my vehicle in front of the house. Both Mr. Ablen and I alighted from the Petitioner would later confine herself to the contention that the prosecution’s evidence is
vehicle but I went to the gate alone carrying the black handbag containing the Five
inadmissible, provided as they were by petitioner’s co-accused who are convicted felons
Million Pesos (Php5,000,000.00).
16. At the gate, Mr. Ronnie Dayan greeted me and opened the gate for me. I then and whose testimonies are but hearsay evidence.
handed the handbag containing the money to Mr. Dayan.
17. We then proceeded to the main door of the house where Sen. De Lima was waiting Nowhere in Ramos v. Sandiganbayan — the case relied upon by petitioner — did this
for us. At the main door, Mr. Dayan handed the black handbag to Sen. De Lima, Court rule that testimonies given by a co-accused are of no value. The Court simply held
who received the same. We then entered the house. that said testimonies should be received with great caution, but not that they would not be
18. About thirty minutes after, I went out of the house and proceeded to my quarters at considered. The testimony of Ramos’ co-accused was, in fact, admitted in the cited case.
the BuCor, Muntinlupa City. 
Furthermore, this Court explicitly ruled in Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman138 that
19. One morning in the middle part of December 2012, I received a call to again deliver
hearsay evidence is admissible during preliminary investigation. The Court held thusly:
the plastic bag containing money from Peter Co to Mr. Ronnie Dayan. This time the
Thus, probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as
money was packed in a plastic bag left on my bed inside my quarters at the BuCor,
there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in
Muntinlupa City. From the outside of the bag, I could easily perceive that it contains
determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such
money because the bag is translucent.
investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and
20. Just like before, I fetched Mr. Ablen from his house before proceeding to the house
obligations of parties.  (Emphasis supplied)
of Sen. De Lima located at Laguna Bay corner Subic Bay Drive, South Bay Village,
Parañaque City, where I know I could find Mr. Dayan.
21. In the car, Mr. Ablen asked me if we are going to deliver “quota.” I answered yes. Verily, the admissibility of evidence, their evidentiary weight, probative value, and the
22. We arrived at the house of Sen. De Lima at the above[-]mentioned address at credibility of the witness are matters that are best left to be resolved in a full-blown trial, not
noontime. I again parked in front of the house. during a preliminary investigation where the technical rules of evidence are not applied nor
23. I carried the plastic bag containing money to the house. At the gate, I was greeted at the stage of the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
by Mr. Ronnie Dayan. At that point, I handed the bag to Mr. Dayan. He received Thus, the better alternative is to proceed to the conduct of trial on the merits for the
the bag and we proceeded inside the house.
petitioner and the prosecution to present their respective evidence in support of their
allegations.

With the foregoing disquisitions, the provisional reliefs prayed for, as a consequence,
have to be rejected.
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.
SO ORDERED.