Together with Senior Justice Antonio Carpio, Justice Marvic Leonen registered his strong dissent to the majority opinion on the case of Senator Leila de Lima. He states that while he is not surprised by the majority vote, he nonetheless finds disturbing the unsettling of established doctrines, the misapplication of unrelated canons and failure of the majority to render a good judgment.
He argues that based on extant law and case law, the Sandiganbayan, not the respondent Regional Trial Court, has jurisdiction over the offense as charged in the Information. According to Leonen, the information alleged acts of petitioner during her tenure as Secretary of the Department of Justice. The acts she alleged to have committed are in relation to her office. Jurisdiction over crimes committed by a Secretary of Justice in relation to his or her office is explicit, unambiguous and specifically granted to the Sandiganbayan by law contrary to the majority who relied on Section 90 of Republic Act No. 9165 which only authorizes the Supreme Court to designate among Regional Trial Courts special courts for drug offenses. None of these provisions explicitly states that only the Regional Trial Court has exclusive and original jurisdiction over drug offenses. It merely implies that the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the drug offenses.
Further, Leonen also opines that the issuance of the Warrant of Arrest was unconstitutional because the Respondent Regional Trial Court Judge Juanita Guerrero did not conduct the required personal examination of the witnesses and other pieces of evidence against the accused to determine probable cause. She only examined the documents presented by the prosecution which is not enough considering (a) the crime charged was not clear, (b) the prosecution relied on convicted prisoners; and (c) the sworn statements of the convicted prisoners did not appear to harmonize with each other.
To Leonen, the charge of “Conspiracy to Commit Illegal Drug Trading” is nonexistent. He points out that illegal trading, for which petitioner is being charged, does not only require the identities of the buyer and seller but also requires the identity of the broker and the essential element in all violations of Republic Act No. 9165 is the dangerous drug itself. The failure to identify the corpus delicti in the Information would render it defective.
As a result of the lack of jurisdiction, the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in determining probable cause and in issuing the warrant of arrest. On this point he explains that the complexity of this case should have led respondent judge to actually conduct a physical hearing, call the witnesses, and ask probing questions. After all, even Justices of this Court were left bewildered by what was charged, leaving this Court divided between Direct Bribery, Illegal Trading, or even Illegal Trafficking.
Moreover, he adds, assuming that the RTC had jurisdiction over the offense charged in the Information and that the judge properly went through the preliminary investigation, still, the evidence presented by the prosecution does not actually prove that there was probable cause to charge petitioner with conspiracy to commit illegal drug trading or illegal drug trading.
The testimonies of the convicts of the New Bilibid Prison who have not personally appeared before the Department of Justice but were merely presented to the House of Representatives during a hearing in aid of legislation were fraught with inconsistencies. Moreover, the vindictive and oppressive manner by which petitioner was singled out and swiftly taken into custody is an exceptional circumstance that should have placed the courts on guard that a possible miscarriage of justice may occur. According to Leonen, it is clear by their actuations and pronouncements that the President, the Secretary of Justice, and the Solicitor General were already convinced that petitioner should be prosecuted even before a preliminary investigation could be conducted.
Leonen also digresses from the opinion by the majority in that he believes petitioner did not violate the rule on forum shopping since a question of lack of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceeding. To support his argument he stresses that because of the novelty of the issue presented, a direct recourse to this Court despite the pendency of the same action in the trial court should be allowed.
As to petitioner’s lack of signature in the verification, Leonen has this to say: No one is questioning petitioner’s identification or signature in the Petition. No one alleges that she falsified her signature in the Petition or that the notary public was unauthorized to notarize the Petition. The evil sought to be prevented by the defective verification, therefore, is not present in this case.
Finally, Leonen makes an impassioned appeal for justice, asking the Court not to waver when rights are clearly violated. It is from the courage of the Court’s position and the clarity in our (the Court’s) words that empowers our people to find their voice even in the most hostile of environments.
The De Lima decision is disturbing, unsettling. But I am still hopeful the Court would find its way and reverse it on motion for reconsideration.
Facebook: deantonylavs Twitter: tonylavs