Of the majority opinion written by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, Justices Leonardo-De Castro, Martires, Del Castillo, and Tijam fully concurred with the ponencia while Justice Peralta submitted his separate opinion and Justice Perlas-Bernabe, her Separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion. I summarize their opinions in this column, the third in a series on De Lima vs. Guerrero which is the recent Supreme Court decision that denied the petition of Senator Leila De Lima questioning the cases filed against her and asking for her release from detention.
In fully concurring with the ponencia, Associate Justice Leonardo-De Castro notes petitioner’s patent disregard of the procedural rules including the filing of petition prematurely without first filing a motion for reconsideration and the lack of proper verification and certification of non-forum shopping. She points out the inconsistency of petitioner’s fundamental argument in her petition when she attributes grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondent judge for not acting on her Motion to Quash and yet, according to the justice, petitioner argues that respondent judge’s issuance of the assailed orders, i.e. Order dated 23 February 2017, finding probable cause for issuance of warrants of arrest and the warrant of arrest should have been considered a denial of the very same motion. She adds—respondent judge should be accorded reasonable time to resolve the Motion to Quash. She also gives stress on the failure by the petitioner to file a motion for reconsideration to the adverse decision by the respondent judge and failure to elevate the matter before the Court of Appeals instead of filing directly with the Supreme Court her petition. Further, De Castro states that the alleged defects in the information do not warrant the quashal. For Leonardo-De Castro, “trading of dangerous drugs” covers more than just the sale of drugs and a singular buy-and-sell transaction. It connotes a series of transactions.
For his part, Justice Martires also recognizes the procedural defects in the petition, and in addition he states that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over crimes involving illegal drugs as mandated by Republic Act. No. 9165 which is applicable in this case. He further says that the information charges petitioner and 2 others with conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading under Sec. 26(b) of the said law, explaining that by benefiting from the proceeds of drug trafficking, an elective official, regardless of his salary grade, and whether or not the violation of sec. 27 of RA No. 9165 was committed in relation to his office, automatically brings him to the fold of RA No. 9165; hence the RTC.
In his five page concurring opinion, Justice Del Castillo notes that petitioner is being charged with conspiring to engage in illegal drug trafficking which is a case cognizable and within the jurisdiction of the RTC. Moreover, he clarifies that it is not the salary grade that determines which court should hear and has jurisdiction over the case but the allegations in the information.
Associate Justice Tijam, after acknowledging the procedural defects of the petition, proceeds to discuss the substantive issues, concurring with the majority in saying that the RTC has jurisdiction to try the case of petitioner for the reason that conspiracy to commit illegal trading under sec. 5 of Republic Act No, 9165 is within the ambit of the RTC. He further says that Republic Act No. 10660 cannot be used as a basis to wrest from RTC jurisdiction because the information alleged the involvement of the amount which exceeds P1,000,000.00. Further, he sees no reason to reverse the preliminary investigation of the DoJ Panel of Prosecutors since petitioner failed to present evidence to her claim that the criminal charge against her is merely political harassment. Neither can petitioners clamor to apply the rules of evidence meritorious since a preliminary investigation is not part of the trial, he adds.
Justice Peralta separately submits that because of the novelty and transcendental importance of the jurisdictional issue of the case the respondent judge should have been allowed to resolve the motion to quash. However, he conforms to the majority that petitioner committed procedural lapses and that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case. The novel question of law Peralta refers to is “whether the Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over drug cases under R.A. No. 9165 committed by public officers or employees in relation to their office,’ pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1606, Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486 Creating a Special Court to be Known as “SANDIGANBAYAN” and for other purposes, as amended by R.A. No. 10660, x x x”
Finally, Justice Perlas-Bernabe, while concurring with the majority opinion that the Information reflects the charge of Illegal Drug Trading, she is however of the view that although petitioner stands accused of the crime of Illegal Drug Trading, the latter is alleged to have committed the same “in relation to her office.” And because of this attending peculiarity, the case against petitioner falls within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan and not the RTC, which is where the case was filed. As a consequence, according to Perlas-Bernabe, the case against petitioner should be dismissed.
In the next column, I will summarize the dissenting opinions of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Justice Benjamin Caguioa. This will be followed by a column on Justice Marvic Leonen’s dissent. The series will be completed with own analysis and critique of the decision.
Facebook: deantonylavs Twitter: tonylavs