Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Solgen Comment
Solgen Comment
Solgen Comment
11
t'.: I \ ~ Ji,
.. "'
:. .JL
i'
DE LIMA'S
NIR,CO-POLITI SCASE
G.R. No. 229781 (De Lir:rut. vs.
Hon. J. Guerrero, People of the Philif)pines, et. al.)
'!
...j,..._
9 March 2017
I
11,..,
:..._., MANILA
En Banc
COMMENT
(With Opposition to the Application for Pr~lin1inary Injunction
and Urgent Prayer for Temporary Rest aining Orcler and
Status Quo Ante Order dated 24 February 2017)
PRELIMINARY STATEMiNT .
I
A few years back, petitioner Leila 9e Lima defied this 11
I
1
' " DE LJMA v. HON. GUERREIW, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
I
':-:::vr
NATURE OF THE PETIT~ON
I
~)ctit.i~n. ~<.~r Certiorari und .P1:ohibitio11 I~r:liminury
1
with ,Application for a Writ of lqjunt:tion and Urgent
P1 ayc1 loi Icmpornry Restra111111g Order and Status Quo Ante Order dated lcbruary 24, 2017, pp. 6-7.
2
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----:-----------------------x
3
Annex "G" ol'lhe Petition; DO.I .loiut Resolution dated February 14, 20'7, p. 5.
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of2002.
" DOJ .Joint Resolution dated February 14, 2017, p. 4 (Annex "G" of the lrclilion).
5
6
Annex "G" of the Petition; DO.I Joint Resolution dated February 14, 20 7, p. 4.
Id.
3
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
7
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
8
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards fi.)r Public Ollicials and Employees.
9
Anti-Torture Act of2009.
10
Making it Punishable for Public Officials and Employees lo Receive~ and for Private Persons lo Give
Gills 011 Any Occasion, Including Christmus.
11
Annex "G" ofthe Petition; DO.I .loinl Resolulion dated February 14, 2017, p. 4.
12 Id.
13 Id.
11
' A1111cx "D" of the Pctilion.
LI
-r--
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERREIW, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 22987 l
COMME~T WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
15
PeLition, p. 15.
16
17
Annex "G" of the Petition; DO.I Joint Rcsolulion <lated February 14, 2117, pp. 4-5.
Annex "E" of the Petition.
18
DO.I Joint Resolution eluted Febrnnry 14, 2017, pp. 39-10 (Annex "G" <,>f the Petit ion).
5
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
. COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
6
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
22
Annex "F" of the Petition (Motion lo Quash).
23
2
Annex "A" of the Petition (Order dated February 23, 2017).
" Petition, pp. 18-19.
25
Annex ".I" of the Petition.
7
DE LIMA v. I-JON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
8
' ' DE LIMA v. JJON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
;I
21.
On February 28, 2017, this Court issued a
Resolution requiring the respondents to file their cOJnment
on the petition and application for a writ of preliminary
injunction and prayer for ten1porary re training order and
status quo ante order within a non-exl. ndible period from
March 1 to 9, 2017. Likewise, this Hon rable Court set this
'
I~ ,.
case for oral argu1nents on Marcl1 14, 017. The Office of
the Solicitor General received the resolution on March 1,
2017.
GROUNDS
PROCEDURAL
i.. ~
THE PETITION SHOULD BE /DISMISSED
BECAUSE DE LIMA FAILED TO ~HOW 1UMAT
SHE MAS NO OTl-IER PLAIN, S~EEDY, AND
ADEQUATE REMEDY.
9
i...... .
1' DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
J
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
II
III
SUBSTANTIVE
IV
THE DOJ HAD JURISDICTION ~O CONDUCT
THE PRELIMINARY INVEST! ATION Of
THE COMPLAINTS AGAINST DE LIMA.
v
THE RTC HAS JURISDICTION! OVER THE
OFFENSE CHARGED AGAINST DE LIMA.
VI
VII --~-
THE RESPONDENT JUDGE os~-RVED Tl-IE
CONSTITUTIONAL AND . P :tOCEDURAL
RULES IN THE ISSUANCE Of THE
QUESTIONED ORDER AND WA RANTS Of
ARREST.
10
L.
jl.
11
VIII ii
. !"
~
~~
XI
r
J
l
I THE RESPONDENT JUDGE DID NOT
XII
II
~
I
;
!
t
l
I:
t
....
!-
~
11
DE LJMA v. HON. GUEl<.RERO, ET AL. ... ~~,.-
DISCUSSION
PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS
or quasi-judicial functions; (2) such tribu al, board or officer .... ~,--
i
acted without or in excess of jurisdic ion, or with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lacl< or in excess of
jurisdiction; and (3) there is no appeal n~r any plain, speedy
and aclequate remedy in the ordinary fOurse of law. 28 To
stress, the ren1ecly .of certiorari can only ~'')e resorted to when
there is no appeal, or any plain, spe dy, and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law. 29 ertiorari cannot be
used as a substitute for a lost ren1edy qf appeal. Certiorari
will lie only to correct errors of juriscjiction. It is not a
ren1ecly to correct errors of judgrnent. 4s long as tl1e court
I
LH Du yon v~. Court or Appeals, G.IC No. 172218, November 26, 2014.
29
Tun vs. People oflhc Philippines, G.R. No. 148194, April 12, 2002.
12
DE LJMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
. G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
I
acts. within its jurisdiction, any alleged. ~ rrors committed in
1
I
An order denying a motion to quast1 is interlocutory
and therefore not appealable, nor can it b~ tl1e subject of a
petition for certiorari. Suell order may only be reviewed in
the ordinary course of law by an appeal fr~m the judgment
after trial. In other words, it cannot b the subject of. '
-~r-
appeal until the judgment or a final order is rendered. The
ordinary proceclure to be followed in that event is to enter
'" Toi"""'" " Pooplo of Lho Phi lippin'", oL "I., G.R. No. L703 96, Ango1' J I, 2006
i/
'
13 --~-
i
!I
I
I
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.l( SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
14
" DE Lll'vlA v. !-JON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 22987 l
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
15
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERKEKO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x - - - - - - - - - - - _. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
35. The special and i111portant rea ons are set forth in
Dy v. Bibat-Palamos, 37 which the Court nun1erated as: (1)
when dictated by the public welfare and he advancement of ~
public policy; (2) when de111anded by th broader interest of IJ
36
Emphasis supplied.
37
705 SCRA 613 (2013).
n
39
G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015.
G.R. No. 189532; June 11, 2014.
HI Pctili~?ll, pp. 8-11.
16
DE LIMA v. !-JON. GUERRE!W, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
17
DE LJMA v. I-JON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITJON
x-----------------------------x
18
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERREIW, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
X-------------X
i
identity of the parties in the two acti~ins; (2) substantial
identity in the causes of action ancl in t 1e reliefs sought by
the parties; (3) and the identity between tile two actions
should be such that any judgn1ent that piay be rendered in
one case, regardless of which party is successful, would
48
amount to res judicata in the other. j
I
In Senator Jinggoy l=]ercito Es~~ada v. Office of the
1
42.
On1budsrna~1, 49 the Cou_rt ruled tl1at S nator Estr~9a was
guilty of foru111 shopping when he f lecl a pet1t1on for
certiorari before it despite the pendenxc of l1is n1otion for
reconsideration on tl1e finding of probabl cc:~use against hirn
in the Office of the On1budsman. The Co rt explained:
. Sen. Estrada claims that l1is rights r' ere violated but
he flouts the rules himself. .
I
,1 ~ c11uv1clcz vs. Salvador, G.R. Nu. 173331, Dci.:embcr 11,2013. I
G.R. Nos. 212140-41, January 21, 2015. Please sec also Go vs. Looy11ko, Cl.R. No. 147962, October 26,
2007, IV~adara vs. Percllo, G.R. Nu. 172449, Augusl 20, 2008, Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) vs.
Court ol Appeals, G.R. No. 18980 I, October 23, 2013.
19
' .DE LIMA v. I-JON. GUERREl\O, ET AL.
G.I<. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
20
j1,
!/
j!
,I
~
I
j
required first element of identity of partier is present. :
LJ.5. Tl1e rigl1ts asserted and the r lief prayed for are
likewise materially congruent. While it i : true that there is
I
11
to quash and that in the present petition, De Lima Ii
ii
essentially asks for the same remedy, i.e./ to enjoin the :1
:1
crin1inal proceedings against l1er. ..J1...
I
I
,I
!
46. It should be stressed at this print that identity of
causes of action does not mean absolute identity; otherwise,
a party could easily escape the operatiot of res judicata by
changing the forn1 of the action or the relief sought. The test
to detennine whether the causes of action are identical is to I
-fr<-
i
ascertain whether the same evidence will sustain both
actions, or whether there is an identity ir the facts essential
to the n1aintenance of the two actions. If the sa1ne facts or
evidence would sustain both, the two ac ions are considered
the same, ancl a judg1nent in the first 9ase is a bar to tl1e
subsequent action. Hence, a party cannot, by varying the
forn1 of action or adopting a different m~thod of presenting
his case, escape the operation of the prihciple that one and
the sarne cause of action shall not be twife litigated between
.the same parties or their privies. 51 I
51
Yup vs. Chua, G.R. No. 186730, .June 13, 2012.
21
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
.L
G.R. SP Nos. 229871 I
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION i
x - - - - -,.." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
I
49. In~luctably,
De Lima commi ked the abhorrent
practice of forum shopping when sh , sought re1nedies
before two courts by raising the same auses ancl praying
for essentially the same relief. She tri'fled with court
processes and exposed the courts to the possibility of
rendering conflicting decisions.
I
SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMEINTS
~
"53 Heirs of Marcelo Sotto, et al. vs. Mali Ide S. Palictc. G.R. No. 159691, cbruary 17. 20 14.
Sps. Melo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123686, November 16, 19i99; Office of the Ombudsman vs.
Court or Appeals, G.R. No. 18980 I, October 23, 2013.
22
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G. R. SP Nos. 22987 l
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
11
54 '1
Emphasis supplied. 11
55 ;I
Effective Apr.il I 1, 1978,
56
1~:rn1p I1as1s
' supp I'ice.I
J_
I
23
II
/I
11
i~ !l
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
L
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
55~
Such concurrent jurisdiction/ was stressed in
Honasan II vs. Panel of Pro ecutors, 57 1 wherein the Court
lleld that the authority of the Ombuds/111an to investigate
offenses involving public o ficers or ernployees is not
exclusive but is concurrent ith other tin1ilarly authorized
agencies of the governn1ent ucl1 as thr DOJ prosecutors,
thus: I
I
;::
SEC. 90. JurisclicUon. - ...
I
2Li
I
I
DE LJMA v. HON. GUERRElW, ET AL.
G.R. SP No~. 229871
COMMENT WITl-l OPPOSITION
x - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
I~- ....
The preliminary investigation of case~ filed under this
Act shall be terminated within a period of /thirty (30) days
from the date of their filing.
MEMORANDUM Of AGREIEMENT
-and- ~
I
I.
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (/DOJ), with office I! '
WITNESS ETH: !
!1
VVliEREAS,
com:urrent jurisdiction
the OMB and tlhe IDOJ
over the con1plai11ts 'for
have
--f-
i
I
L
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERREIW, ET AL.
I G.R. SP Nos. 229871
I. _ COMMENT WITl-l OPPOSITION
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - - x
I. Agreements
\.....
A. Jurisdiction
I
If upon the filing of a ~ cornplaint, the
~- .. ~
2.
~rosecu~ion offi~e of tile DOJ deterrr~ine~ t~a~ tl:e sarne is
1or a cnme fall111g under the exclusive J nsd1ct1011 of tl1e
Sandiganbayan, it shall advise the comolainant to file it
directly witl1 the OMB; xxx
I
DE LIMA v. lJON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
61
People vs. Mariano, ct al., G.IC No. L-40527 June 30, 1976 citing Mo1jan, Ruic::; of Court, 1970 Ed., Vol.
I, p. 36.
62
Sec People vs. Samuel and Loreta Vanz.ucla, G.R. No. 178266, .July 2H 2008.
u.1 Sec Morales vs. CA, G.R. No. 126623. December 12, 1997.
61
' Antonio M. Garcis vs. Ferro Chcmiculs Inc., G.R. No. 172505, Oclobcj I, 2014.
05
Pagayura vs. Hon. Tiro, G.R. No. L-30113, September 30, 1971.
1>1, SEC. 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. - Any allcmpl or conspirncy lo c9mmit the following unlawful t1cls
shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission qf ihc same as provided under this
Act: ...4~-
(a) ll~1porlatio~1 of any ~a~1gcr~us dr~1g andlo_r contro_llcd prc~ur~or r~nd essential chcmi~al; . !
'
(b) Sale, trachng, adm1111slrnl1on, d1spcnsat1011, delivery, d1st1libut1on and lra11sporlul1on of any
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
(c) Muinlcnancc of a den, dive or resort where any dangerous c~ug is used in any form;
(cl) Man_ufo~ture of any dan~_erous clru.g and/or controll~d prect rsor and essential chemical; and
67
(e) Cult1vat1on or culture ol plants which arc sources ol clanger us drugs.
Annex "I" .I uriscliction over Drug Related Cases.
27
11
DE LlfvlA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871 '1
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----~-----------------------x /1
II
!1
I,
,!
for Articles 191 and 193 where the penalty actually imposed
is less than two hundred pesos) were wi hin the jurisdiction
of the CFI. +-
8
Article 190. Possession, Preparation ancl Use q/Prohibiled Drugs, anrt A1laintenance of Oph1111 Dens.
''
Article 191. Keeper, Watchman and Visitor of Opi11111 Den.
Article 192. J111portation and Sale l//f'rohibited Drugs.
Article 193. 11/egal possession q/oph1111 pipe or other paraphernC1/iafor (he use of any prohibited drug.
Article 194. Prescribing opium unnecessarily jur a patient.
69
Enacted on June 17, 1948.
70
Article 190. - arresto mayor in ils medium period lo prision correcGjional in its minimum period and a
fine ranging from 300 to l ,000 pesos
Arlie le 191. - arresto 111C1yor and u fine rnnging from I 00 lo 300 pesos
Arlidc 192. - prisio11 correccional in its medium und maximum pcrio~ls and a fine ranging from 300 lo
l 0,000 pesos
Article 193. - arresto mt~por and a fine 1)ot exceeding 500 pesos
Article
11
194. - prision correccional or a fine rnnging from 300 to I0,000 1~csos, or bolh.
Enacted on April 4, 1972.
72
Undc1:st.:oring supplied.
28
I
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
.L.
74
of R.A. No. 5179 73 to try and decide certtjin criminal cases.
Their limited jurisdiction is concurrent with the CFI.
73
Enacted 011 ~eplember 8, 1967.
74
SEC I. In each of the sixteen judicial districts for the Courts of Firsl Instance as prcsenlly constituted,
there is hereby created a Circuit Criminal Court with limited juriscliclio1, concurrent with Lhe regular court
of first instance, to try and decide the following criminal cases foiling under the original and exclusive
jurisdiction of the lullcr:
J_
(u) Crimes committed by public officers, crin1es against persons and cri~1 cs against properly as defined und
i'
i
penalized under the Revised Penal Code, whether simple or complexed ith other crimes; 1:
(b) Violations of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-G an aud Corrupt Practices {\.ct, <md
Republic Act No. 1379; und
(c) Violations of sections 360 I, 3602, and 360<1 of the Tariff and Cuslo1~1s Code and sections 174, 175 and
345 of the National Internal Revenue Code.
75
Seetkm 44. Transito1y provisions. - The provisions of this Act sh II be immediately carriccl out in
accordance with an Executive Order to be issued by the President. Th' Court of Appeals, the Courts of
First Ins.lance, t.he Circuit Criminal Courts, tllC' Juvenile and Domesti Relations Courts, the Courts of
Agrarian Relations, lhc City Courts, the Municipal Courts, and the Mun'cipal Circuit Courls shall continue
lo li.111ction as presenlly constituted and organized, until the completion of the reorgm1ization provided in
this Act as declared by the President. Upon such declaration, the said co nts shall be deemed automatically
abolished and the incumbents thereof shall cease to hold office. The ca es pending in the old Courts shall
be trunsl'erred lo the appropriate Courts conslilutcd pursuant to this Act, together with the pcrlincnl
Jl1nclions, records, equipment, property and the necessary personnel.
29
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 22987 l
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION .
x------------------------~----x
76. In addition, R.A. No. 9165 did /not repeal R.A. No.
6425 so as to divest the RTCs of their e~clusive jurisdiction
over drug cases.
clllp IHISIS
76 I] . supp 1IC J .
77
See Revised Penal Code in relation lo Sec. 44 of R.A. No. 296.
n R.A. No. 6425 and R.A. No. 9165 in relation to R.A. No. 5179, B.P. 13)g. 129 and Circular 20.
30
-r-
i
DE LIMA v. HON. GUEKKEIW, ET AL.
G.K. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
._... ,,r;.....
Ii
Petitioner also contends that the leJislative intent of
. . J, --
R.A. No. 9165 is "to make use of the yxpertise of trial 1
i
11
C.R.Nos.187l17and 187127,0ctobcr 12,2011. /
32
DE LIMA v. L-JON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WLTH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
II 33
I
'' I
DE LIMA v. HON. GU8RRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
+-
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
34
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 22987 J
COMM~NT WJTH OPPO::IITION
x-----------------~-----------x
I
L.
\... HJSec Gonzales vs. G.ll-1 Land, Inc., G.R. No. 202664, November 10, ~015; Concurring Opinion ol'.lusticc
Lconcn.
81
' Conchita Carpio-Morales vs. CA, supm.
85
Id. (Emphasis and underscoring in the original)
35
!. ..
j
DE LIMA v. I-ION. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 22987 J
.11
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
I
i_ ___ ...
x-----------------------------x
I
I
L.....
I . "
After conviction in the Regionar Trial Court m
the appropriate criminal case filed, the Court shall
imme.diately schedule a hearing for th~ confiscation and
forfeiture of all tl1e proceeds of the offrnse and all the
1......
assets and properties of the accused eithrr owned or held
by him or in the name of some other pe11son~ if the .same
shall be found to be manifestly out of proportion to his/her
lawful income: Provided, however, Tha~ if tl1e forfeited : ~.
I
91. Section 27 states that anJ public officer or
employee who misappropriates, 111isapplies or fails to
account Yor confiscatecl, seized or sun enclerecl clangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essentia chen1icals,
I..
instruments/paraphernalia and/or lab ratory equipment
86
Underscoring supplied.
36
.
.... '
DE LIMA v. I-ION. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x- -- - ---- - - - ---- - ---- --- -- -- - -x
I
including the proceeds or properties pbtained fron1 the
unlawful acts shall be cri111inally liable. I1I' second parag~a~h
of the same provision, any elective local. or national off1c1al
who are found to have benefitecl fro111 t:Jhe proceeds of the
trafficking of dangerous drugs as presc~ibecl in tl1e Act, or
have received any .financial or n1ateripl contributions or
donations fron1 natural or juridical persrns found guilty of
trafficking dangerous drugs shall be penalized. .
. I
1
I ........
;92. The first paragraph of Sectio 1 27 n1entions tile
phrase "any public officer or en1ployee.u It rnal<es no
distinction as to salary grade. Tl1e seco d paragrapl1 of tl1e
section it includes botl1 elective local fficial and elective
national official. Elective national officia s include n1en1bers
of Congress. Except for those who enjoy irnrnunity from suit
durin'g their incun1bency, elective offici~ls who occupy the
highest elective positions in the country d:an be charged with
violations of R. A. No. 9165. The sarr1e flaw does not state
that these officials should be charge9 and tried in tl} e 1
Sandiganbayan. /
I
!
93. Additionally, Section 28 o'f R.A~ No. 9165 includes f
the accessory. pen~lty ?f absolute perp~tual disqualification
fron1 any public office, 1f those found guillty of such unlawful
acts are. government o~ficials and en1ployees. Again,
l1owever, 1t do~s. not ment101~ that the fases against these
1
r
j
'
governn1ent off1c1als shall be 1-11ed before the Sancliganbayan.
_L
I'
37
' 1 DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
:
Applying .this section, we l1eld iii Aguinaldo vs.
Domagas that for the Sandiganbayan tp have exclusive
original jurisdiction over offenses or feloniies committed by
public officers or employees under Section 4(a) (2) above,
it is not enough that the penalty presqribed there1=or is
,l1igher than prision correcciona/ or imp1isonment for six
years, or a fine of P6,000.00; it is also nf=Cessary that the
offenses or felonies were committed in/ relation to their
office. We reiterated this pronounceme11t in Sanchez vs.
Demetriou, Natividad vs. Felix, and Repup!ic vs. Asuncion.
In Sancl1ez, we restated the principle laid down in Montilla
vs. Hilario that an offense may be conside/recJ as committed
87 I
118
People vs. Misson, G.R. No. L-3488, November 28, 1950. I
I
89
Criminal Case No. 17-165. I
I
G.R. Nos. 118013-14, l I October 1995. I
38
I
'j
DE LIMA v. HON. GUBRRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
90
Emp Irns1s
. supp 1iceI ancI c1lat1011s
. . . I
om1ltcl.
40
.. ...
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
I
I
1.0:L. Lastly, contrary to De Lirna's dairn, not all crimes
co111n1itted by public officers in relation tp
their office under
Section 4 of P.O. No. 1606, as a111enc1e9 by R.A. No. 7975
and by R.A. No. 8249 and R.A. l\Jo. 1066g, are cognizable by
the Sandiganbayan. I
-!'-
As we have constantly l1elcJ in Jayandoni, Bocobo,
People v. Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Br. 32,
Manzano, and analogous cases, we must,jin the same way,
declare herein that the law, as it still. s ands at present,
.dictates that criminal and civil actions for damages in
cases of written defamations shall be fil~d simultaneously
or separately with the RTC to the exclysion of all other
courts. A subsequent enactment of a 1aw defining the
juriscliction of other courts cannot simplYi override, in the
absence of an express repeal or modificC1tion, the specific
provision in tl1e RPC vesting in t11e R1/C, as aforesaid,
!
91
G.R. No. 154473, April 24, 2009.
41
DE LIMA v. HOl'-1. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
42
--,...,,.._
;,'
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL..
G.R. SP Nos. 22987 l
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION I
x-----------------------------x
I
(a) The Information spells out th~
essential elements of Conspiracy
Co1n171it Illegal Drug Trac/ing. ti
I
10Ll. Respondent Judge Guerrero i~suecl a warrant of
arrest against De Li1na in the lawfujl exercise of her
jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 17-161.
I
---:-
111. De Lima argues nonetheless that pursuant to
Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended, it is
the Sandiganbayan, not the RTC, which exercises exclusive
original jurisdiction over the subject offense which, from the
93
Sec Article 8, Revised Penal Code.
94
95
Peop lc vs. Oan dasan, Jr., G.R. No. 194605, June 14, 2016.
Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999.
44
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
I I
l 13. Under Philippine law, conspiratly is understood on ...I.. ,
two levels. As a general rule, conspiracy ijs not a crin1e in our
jurisdiction. It is punished as a crin1e onl}{i when the Jaw fixes
a penalty for its co111111ission such as in c nspiracy to co111111it
treason, rebellion and sedition, 96 and as n the present case,
conspiracy to com111it drug trading.
'
,
.... ......
I
114. On the other hand, conspira/cy, as a mode of i'!
i:i
con1mitting a cri1ne, changes the cri1nin~I liability of all the
accused in the conspiracy and rnakes tren1 answerable as
co-principals regardless of the degree of~heir participation in i
II
the cri1ne. The liability of ~he conspirat rs is collective and 1
911
Joint Resolution dnlccl February 14, 2017, p. 47, par. 5.
46
DE LIMA v. I-ION. GUEKRERO, ET AL.
G.IZ. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----~-----------------------x i
. I
119. The facts in the Inforrnatio1f1 show cornplicity
an1ong De Lin1a, Ragos ancl Dayan to 90111111it illegal clrug
trading with. the high-profile inmates:/, The three were
charged with conspiracy uncler Section 2 0 of R.A. No. 9165
1
because the inn1ates could not have co1ducted tl1eir illegal
drug trading without the indispensable cooperation of the
three.
Lazarte, Jr. vs. Sand1ganbaya11, G.R. No. 180122, March 13, 2009, p81 SCRA 431, c1lrng bstrada vs.
Sundigunbynn, supra. I
100 v
1 ongco vs. People, G.R. No. 209373, July 30, 2014.
I
I
I
I 47
I l ! .
1 '
I
wi Datukan Malang Salibo vs. Warden, Quezon City Jail Annex, BJMf P Building, Camp Bagong Diwa,
Tuguig City and all other persons acting on his bchal f ancl/or having ustocly of Dalukan Malang Saliba,
G.R. No. 197597, April 8, 2015.
i 48
I
102
I
I
I
I
102 I
G.R. No. 156408, .lanuury 3 I, 2005. In Suem, it was held that "Ajcomparison of the clements of the
crime of falsification ofa public document, provided for in Article I I of the Rcvisl:d Penal Code, and
I
those of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 shows that the1 c is neither identity nor l:Xclusivc
inclusion between the offenses."
uuero vs. ["J cop Ie, supra..
IUJ (.'
10 1
1
' l\odriguez vs. ::>andiganbayan, 468 Phil. 374, 387 (2004), citing Pco plc vs. IVlont~jo, I08 l'hil. 613, 622
( 1960). . I
i 49
I
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, LIT AL.
G.K. SP Nos. 22987 l
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
"[i]t does not thus suffice to merely alleg 111 tl1e 111format1on
that the crime charged was committed by the offender in
relation to his office or that he took advantage of his
position as these are conclusions of law. The specific factual
allegations in the information that wou1q indicate the close
intin1acy between the discharge of th~ offender's official
duties and the con1n1ission of tile of'fens~ cl1arged, in order
to qualify tl1e. crin1e as having been con1~1itted in relation to
public office, are controlling. 11 I
i
134. Thus, in Lacson v. l::xecut"iv Secretary, 107 the
Court declared that for failure to shofi in the arnended
infonnations that the charge of 111ur~er was intirnately
connected w,ith the discharge of officif I functions of the
accused PNP officers,. the offense chaq;ied in the subject
cri111inal cases is plain murder and, th/erefore, within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of th/e RTC, not the
Sandiganbayan.
II -r-
'1','
135. Like in Adaza and Lacson, tliere is no intin1acy 11:
11
1:
50
' DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x I
expressly
to matters
v~stedby Jaw in tile Presilent relative
under the jurisdictipn of the
Department; j
L
i; employees under tl1e Secretary's/ direction in
accordance with this Code; ancl
I
II
(9) . ' Perform such other funJtions as may 1:
be provided by law. I I
i
51
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871 .
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
i
-11-
11
::
<i
.Ii
ij
11
11
II
II
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 22987 l
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x I
54
j_
,!
144. In De Lin1a's
case, Judge /'Guerrero faithfully
con1plied with Paragraph(a), Section 6 Rule 112 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure before issuifng the warrants of
arrest. The provision states: !
. I
Section 6. When warrant of arrest +ay issue. - (a}
By tl1e Regional Trial Court. - Within te11 (10) days from
the Filing of t11e complaint or information the judge shall
personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its
supporting evidence. He may immediatelyldismiss the case
if the evidence on record clearly fails to ektablish probable
cause. If he finds probable cause, l1e sl1a1) issue a warrant
of arrest, or a commitment order if t/1e accused has
CJlready been arrested pursuant to a warr9nt issued by the
judge who conducted the preliminary inves;tigation or when
the complaint or information was filed pu~suant to section
7 of tl1is Rule. In case of doubt on lie existence of.
probable cause, the judge may order tl[e prosecutor to
present c;idditional evidence within five (5) days from
notice and" the issue must be resolved by the court within
thirty (30) days from tl1e filing of tl1 e complaint of
information.
113
II
Mendoza v. People, G.R. No. 197293, April 21, 2014. I
11 1 I
' Baltazar vs. People G.R. No. 174016, July 28, 2008.
I
I 55
I
DE LIMA v. I-JON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP No::;. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x---------------- . ------------x
I
148. Respondent Judge Guerrero t=ound probable cause
for tile issua. nee o'f warrants of arrest a~ainst De Lima. and
1
I
. :LLl:9. J_udge . Guerrero rnade he11 own personally
detern1inatlon .ot probable cause in com1pliance with Soliven
In Soliven, the Court r~lecJ that the judge
117
vs. /Vlakasiar.
has to personally evaluate the report pncJ the supporting
docurnents sub111itted by the fiscal regarqing the existence of
probable cause and, on the basis thereo~, issue a warrant of
arrest. I
I
I
I
115
Enrique Viudez II v. CA, G.R. No. 152889, 2009.
116
I"::.mp Im:;1s
. supp 1tee
I.
117
G. R. No. 82585, November 14, 1988.
56
I
DE LIMA v. I-ION. GUERRERO, ET AL.
I
I
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPl>OSITION
x-----------------------------x
I
I
I
I
57
"'.T
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
i
investigation is nierely preli111inary, and does not finally
. adjudicate rights and obligationp of parties, as
con1pared to ad111inistrative cases,i where rights and
obligatiqns are finally adjudicated; pnd ... substantial
basis for purposes of prelimin~ry investigation
n1ay h1clude hearsay evidence.
I
14,
2017, consisting of fifty-two (52) pa~es;
b. Cornplaint-affidavit of 1 Reynaldo 0.
Esrneralda and Ruel M. Lasala dat~d October 13,
2016 consisting of twenty (20)1 pages, with
annexes marked as:
i
"A"- DOJ Department Order l\Jq. 677
"B"- DOJ Department Order l\Jo;. 981
. "C"- Affidavit of Rafael tRagos
consisting of three pages 1
11
"E -Jovencio P. Ablen, Jr. corlsisting of
ten ( 10) pages . /
"F"- Sinu111paang Salaysay ; of Jojo
Bailgad y Ronda I consisting of four ( 4)
pages i
"G"-Me111orandurn dated February 24,
2015 I
"H"-Sinun1paang Salaysay pf Jairne _,J,_.
Patcho consisting of three (3) jpages
"I"-Sinun1paang Salaysay of/ Ex-Police
Officer 3 Engelberto Arcena s Durano
I
consisting of six (6) pages 1
1
"J"-Sinumpaang Salaysay of: German
Agojo y Luna consisting of/ two (2)
pages 1
58
DE LJMA v. !-JON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.K. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
59
\.
'4"'t:
i
DE LI.MA v. I-JON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 22987 l
COMMENT WJTH OPPOSJTION
x-----------------------------x
I
"M" - Affidavit of Randy R.!I Pedroso
consisting of three (3) pag'es, with
attacl1rpents r
60
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WlTl-l OPPOSITION
x----~------------------------x
61
~
'
' DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871 ~
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION I
x-----------------------------x i
:1
i
!1
:l"
I
investigation having been previou~ly conducted, 11
125
Emphasis supplied.
62
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SL~ Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSLTION
x-----------------------------x
157. The corpus delicti, therefore, i,6 not the drug but
the agree111ent or atten1pt itself. In People v. Fabro/ 126 the I
Court elucidated on the proper interpretation of Section 21 .,,.......
/1
11
II
provided for selling and trading. 'I
11
,1
126
G.R. No. 114261, February I0, 2000
'' 63
I
!
DE LIMA v. Hot\!. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
I
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION I
x--------------------------~--x
I
'-
159. Pursuant to Article 8 of the
IevisedPenal Code
and Fabro, Section 26 of R.A. No. 9165 should oe properly
regarded as a crime in itself and inclepen ent of the crime of
the actual selling and trading of the dang rous drugs.
I
162. In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the
parties actually can1e together and agrer d in express terms
to enter into and pursue a common dEisign. The assent of
the 111inds 1nay be and, from the sed:recy of the crime,
usually inferred from proof of facts and ~ircu111stances which,
taken together, . indicate that they C1re parts of so1ne
complete whole. 129 Responsibility of al conspirator is not
confined to the acco111plishment of a pkrticular purpose of
conspiracy but extends to collateral /acts and offenses
incident to and growing out of the purpore intended. 130
129
Id., citing People vs. Caballero, 448 Phil. 514, 528-529 (2003).
Id., citing Pcuplc vs. Morilla, G.R. No. 189833, Fcbruury5, 201'1, 7 5 SCRA <152, 461.
130
Id., citing People v. Collado. G.R. No. 185719, June 17, 2013, 698 ~CRA 628, 650.
I 611
I
I
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 22987 l
COMMENT WITH OPPOSJTJON
x - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
X. RESPONDIENT JUDGIE
GUERREllO COMPLIED WITH
THE SO LIVEN RULING
BEFORE THE ISSUANCE Of
THE WARRANTS Of ARREST.
' ! I
131
Joint Resolution, p. <JO.
65
i'
I
'-
cause, the judge cannot be 'forced tci issue the arrest
warrant. 132 VVhat he is never allowed to cl~ is to blindly follow
the prosecutor's bare certification as t<b the existence of
probable cause. 133 Since respondent Jud~e Guerrero based
her finding of probable cause on the. evi~ence, her issuance
of the warrants of arrest cannot be consid~red arbitrary.
-1-
132
Sec Mendoza vs. People, G.R. No. 197293, April 21, 20 l'i. ,,_
October~. 200 I.
133 ..
13 1
Atty Tttlingdun vs. Judge Ecluurle, A.M. No. RT.1-01-1610,
' G.R. No. 82585, November 14, 1988.
135
Petition, p. 37.
136 Id.
1
66
_J __,,
i'
1:
~- DE LIMA. v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 22987 l
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
X. RESPONDENT JUDGE
GUERRERO DID NOT COMMIT
GRAVE ABUSE 01= DISCRETION IN
THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER
AND Tl-IE VVARRANTS OF ARREST.
1311
Sec Allado vs. Diokno, 232 SCKA I92, G.R. No. 113630, May 5, 1994.
llo vs. People, G.R. No. l 06632, October 9, l 997.
67
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
. COMMENT WITH OLWOSITION
x-----------------------------x
i
174. Respondent Judge Guerrero fo1uncJ probable cause
to issue the arrest warrants. A warrant /of arrest should be
issued if the judge after personal evaluation of the facts and
circ~111stances is convinced that probable cause exists that
an offense was comn1itted. 141 Jurisdictioij over an accused is
acquired when the Wqrrant of arrest is ?ervecl. Absent this,
the court cannot hold the accused fqr arraignment and
triaL 142
lIO
1 11
'
~ De Vern v::;. de Vera, 584 SCRA 506 (2009).
J 5 11,hif. 465 ( 1987).
Hao vs. People, G.R. No. 183345, September 17, 20 l'i.
1
1 12
' People vs. Yccyec, G.R. No. 183551, November 12, 2014; Andrcs:vs. Cucvas, 460 SCRA 38 (2005);
Mendoza vs. People, G.R. No. 197293, April 21, 2014.
113
All ac.Io vs. ~'
. J)'10Imo, supra.
68
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, LlT AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
CO!Vl!VIENT WlTH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
145
176. In People v. Castillo and Mejia,I
the Court
.
explained the distinction between the twlo kinds of probable I
cause determination: !
I
i
There are two kinds of determina tion of probable 1
1
'"' Mendoza vs. People, G.R. No. 197293, April 21, 20 I'I.
115
' 590 SCRA 95 (2009).
69
~:.
L.___,
submission of supporting affidavits of withesses. Thus:
1117ill
148
247 SCRA 652 ( 1995).
70
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 22987 J
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x----------------------~------x
1.19 Id.
71
\. DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 22987 l
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
I
its sound discretion. Tile court is tl1e best and sole juclge on
what to do with the case before it. The determination of tl1e
case is within its exclusive jurisdiction an~ con1petence.
151
~
I
inferred from the evidence presented : and not when its :i'
existence is sirr1ply doubtful. After all, it :cannot be expected
that, upon the filing of the informa:tion in court, tl1e
prosecutor would have already present~d all the evidence
necessary to secure a conviction of! the accused, the
obj~ctive of a previously-conducted prelijllinary investigation
bein'g merely to determine whether : there is sufficient
ground, to engender a well-founded beqef that a crime has
been co111111itted and that the responclernt is probably guilty
thereof ancl should be held for trial. 1 ~ 2 The proceedings
before a public prosecutor are ess~ntially preliminary,
150
588 SCRA 345 (2009) citing Marcelo vs. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 39, 48 (l 994), citing Crespo vs.
Mogul, 151 SCRA 462 (1987).
151
Crespo vs. Mogul, supra.
151
Id., alp. 637.
72
DE LJMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
IW Singian v. Sandiganbayan, 478 SCRA 3Ll8 (2005); Go vs. Fifth Divi~ion Sandiganbayan, supra.
I
I
73
I
I
l ... ,_, __
7LI
I '
DE LIM/-\ v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL .
. G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x--- - - - -- - -- - --- - -- --------- -- x
of/ Cri1ninal I
-r
192. Neither tile Revisecl Rules Procedure
nor well-settled jurisprudence requires tfy1at before a warrant
of arrest is issued, any pending motion! to quash 1nust first
be resolved. The Revised Rules of Crinninal Procedure and
any otl1er pertinent rules, for that n1att~r, are bereft of any I
!
provision indicating that the court, before issuing a warrant -4-
103
Napoles vs. Secretary De Lima, G.R. No. 213529 July 13, 2016 citing Santos-Concio vs. Department
of.Justice, 567 Phil. 70, 89 (2008) lPcr .I. Carpio Morales, Second Division].
75
l
l 11
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871 II
11
I
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
~
x-----------------------------x 1
~
'
I
193. De Lin1a nevertheless
.
capitalizes
I
on the statement
of the respondent Judg.e. that the COlj.lrt had to acquire
I'
~
i'
1
n1ust first resolve the issue of lack o~ jurisdiction before
issuing a warrant of arrest, because such act is itself an
exercise of jurisdiction. 1
' f/
I !
I
194. The petitioner's argument do~s not find textual
j
support in Sections 1 to 3, Rule 11i:::1. of ~he Revised Rules of
Crin1inal Procedure which govern a 111otioln to quash, thus:
.
11
I
lt>l Sec Marcos vs. Cabrera-Faller A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472 January 24, 2017. 11
76
Ii
- ~'.-
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPO:::>ITION
x---~------------------------~x
r
(f) That more than one offense is cl1arpec1 except when
a single punishment for vario1us offenses is
prescribed by law;
I
I
195. Furthern1ore, Section 5, Rule 1117 of the Revised
Rules of Crin1inal Procedure impliedly :recognizes that an
accused n1ay already be in custody, w0ether by virtue of
warr~nt of arrest or otherwise, when th~ motion to quash is
finally passed upon, viz:
I
--.f:r--
196. Tl1e issuance of the assa.iled Girder and warrant of
arrest by respondent Judge Guerrero is/ in accordance with
the Revisecl Rules of Criminal Procedur~. Under Section 6,
Rule 112 thereof, when an Inforn1ation ils filed with the trial
court, the judge is given ten days froh1 I
the filing of the
con1plaint or information to person'ally evaluate the
resolution of the prosecutor and its sup11orting evidence. He
has tl1e duty to dismiss it outright if the! evidence on record
fails to establish probable cause, issue a !warrant of arrest or
co111111itment order if he finds probable /cause, or order the
prosecutor to present additional evide11ce if he finds that
i
there is doubt on the existence of proba~le cause, viz:
iI
:,!I
77
..,
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP No~. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
j
Section
,
6. When warrant of arrest
I
may issue.
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. - Within ten 10 cla s
from the filing of the complaint or infor 1 ation, the juclge
shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor
ancl its supporting evidence. He ma imrhediatel dismiss
the case if the evidence on record clear! fails to establish
probable cause. If he finds probable cause, l1e shall issue a
warrant of arrest. or a commitment order if the accused
has already been arrested pursuant to a Vvarrant issued by
+
the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or 'I
11
j\
I
I:
I
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERKEKO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
..... --
'
200. De Lima's reliance on Tuliq,o and Roberts is
inarguably 1nisplaced for purposes of llol~ing in abeyance the
issuance of a warrant of arrest pending a Motion to Quash. If
1
79
,\
-, DE U.MA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
C0Mfv1ENT WITH OPPOSITION
x---~~------------------------x
blown
.,.
trial is to be preferred to ferret out/ the truth. 171 'i
i
I
d
! !I
XII. DE LIMA :U:S NOT ENTITLED TO A: -.\-
i.
i!
WRIT . OF PRELIMINARY1 :t"
1:
INJUNCTION AND STATUS QUO~ 1;
ANTE ORDER. I:
-----------------------; I:I'
-r-
1:
80
" \
i
207. The primary requirement in l issuing a writ of l
prelin1inary injunction is the existende of a clear and I
ii
unmistakable right in favor of the applicbnt. 174 An injunction -~-
will r:iot issue to protect a right not in e~se, or a right whicl1
is n1erely contingent and n1ay never 1arise since. To be
protected by injunction, the alleged right 111ust be clearly
founded on or granted by law or is enfo)rceable as a matter
of law. 175 In the absence of a clear leg a/ right, the issuance
of the injunctive relief constitutes I grave abuse of
discretion. 176 I
172
Au::itralian Professional Realty, Inc. vs. Municipality of Padre Ga\cia 13alangas Province, G. R. No.
183367, March 14, 2012. 1
173
17 1
China Banking Corp., et.al vs. Benjamin Co., ct.al., G. R. No. l 74569f September 17, 2008
' Oflicc of City Mayor of Parafiaquc v::i. Ebio, G. R. No. J 56303, December 19, 2007.
Heirs of Yu, ct al. vs. Honornblc Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 1~237 l, September 4, 20 l 3.
175
176
Equitable PC! Bank vs. 0.1-Mark Trading, G.R. No. 165950, August !I J, 2010.
. . p. 61 , pars. l 51- I 52.
iri I) cl1t1011,
81
',,
,
., DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. :229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
I
210. Tile Court in Ecli/berto Ran1~s, et al. v. I-Ion.
Benjan1in Aquino, et al., 178 citing tltie case of Jaime
f-/ernandez v. Delfin Albano, et al. 179 , ~ptly explained tile
rationale behind this doctrine, viz.: '
1
. ' i
211. Concededly, the doctrine that trin1inal prosecution
may not be restrained or stayed admits Jf exceptions. In the
case of Lino Brocka, et al. v. Juan Pone~ Enrile, 180 the Court
laid down the following exceptions to tlie/ general rule, tl1us:
I
(1) when the injunction is necessary to afford
adequate protection to the constitutional rights of
tl1e petitioner; I
-r
I
82
, I.
,_,__,,
l
', DE LIMA v. I-JON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 22987 l
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
I._,... _
83
',,,
DE LlMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
'l
'
\... ..-
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
I
x-----------------------------x
I
Inasmuch as a mandatory injunction tends to do
more tl1an to maintain tl1e status quo) it is generally
improper to issue such an injunction phor to tl1e final
hearing. It may . however, issue "in ca/ses of extreme
. urgency; where the right is very: clear; where
considerations of relative inconvenience !bear strongly in
complainant's favor; where there is a willful and unlawful
invasion of plaintiff's right against llis protest and
'1--~- remonstrance, th.e injury being a conti 11uing one; and 1
dispute. I
AFTERWORD
84
. )
DE LIMA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. SP Nos. 229871
l_ __ COMtv,IENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x II
'
entrusted with the power to protect theni are the same ones
. I
'
I~ .... ~
who actually violate the law to their:detrf 111ent? It has been
a long-l1eld sentii11ent among the ~itiz~nry tl1at justice is
only for the rich ancl powerful, as tirpe 9nc1 again influential
people escape the long arn1 of the law qncl are not brought
'
to justice for their nefarious activities. This rnust end.
'
I--
. I I
l----
culture of in1punity, as can be seen in h~w the government
is fighting corruption in gover11111ent. This case presents an
'- opportunity to reinforce the drive agai/nst corruption and
bolster the ongoing
,
war on crime and drugs.
I
restored. Let this case be the first amJon~J 111any tl1at will
show the Filipino people that no one is albove the law.
I
PRAYEHt
I
L.
The respondents consequently pray1 that this Honorable
I
i
..."'/"~--
85
'J
l .....
I I
-
~ . . SE C. CA~fDA
(__Solicitp.1:::--General
-Ft61fi\Jo. 24s~2
IBP Lifetin1e No. Ol53l 60/S-18-16 1
l ...
.-.t.-- a _ ....~--
RE NAN E. RAIVdOS
Assistant Solicitor! General
\ ..,,.
RE~MttA&ru(RES
Assistant Solicitor! General
Roll No. 296!77
IBP Lifetime NO.! 01743
MCLE Exen1ption No. v-oqoT79, 10-27-15
... t,i ..--
, ie,,,e 1111
1
1
0'.1vvt..-.. 'l/YJ.d'l 0. P{,ll./ \;/ l <t--t.J.A~-11...._...-fVl..,,.</"L
lV1~RISSA B. DELA C,RUZ-GALANDINES
Assistant Solicitor/ General
I
Roll No. 37Q23
IBP No. 1058061, ~-5-17
MCLE Exemption No. V-0~00740, 10-1-15
-
\
B E RNA~D G. HIE~NANDEZ
f/~~'Ii-tW~~\.f--
"-:) / :
f/J1~
I
l ......
I
I..
.. '
1
l
< r
'
~'_S
-1-0 H N lEMMlNtJELf. / MADAIVV BA
Assistant Solicitor1General
Roll No. 373p3 .... ,",. ....
IBP Lifetin1e No. 1010:367, 1.-8-16
MCLE Exemptioi~ . --1~9.: ~-0?0756, 10-1-15
II\./',,," i I
~
~.,,_ 1-----
i
1---
-
'
MCLE Exemption No. V-000781,
I
10-27-15
I
lu A~tant
i
(OS~~~
k. . ~i~.~. Z-C~IRRO
~
' ~
Ge~eral
). : 2 - )._,..._(
rfN .
Solicitori .
Roll No. 365:14
IBP Lifetime l\Jo. 02Lll44, 6-8-01
MCLE Exemption No. v-0 bos14, 6-24-15
1
---i--
MARIA CI!:I;; ,,,,~. ...-S tRONDAIN
i.... _ C l-.
.'.~!
:
r----
(
/
MERMAN R. CIM4FRANCA
Assistant Solicito11 General
Roll l\Jo. 36~22
IBP Lifetime No.I 06377
I
MCLE Exernption l\Jo. V-0/008831, 7-1-15 I
; ..
I
\.,.,_,_
~
I
THOMAS ~ARAGAN
Assistant So itor/General
Roll No. 388~-2
IBP Lifetime No. 09114, 4-29-10
MCLE Exerr1ption No. V-3~~3513,
I
6-24-15
QVJ14'--t. t . (7
J\ .
I,/'
I 'y.,Cor--r--
I
A N NA ESPERANZA RI. SOLOMON
Assistant Solicitor! General
I
I Roll No. 339!27
'
IBP Lifetime No. 014(23,
I
3-1-16
MCLE Exen1ption No. V-000739, 10-1-15
I
! <. . -' -------.,..
: -------
,. ,- 06~
. ,,
.-- )
DE/~ I (~JPUERTbLLANO
Assl -t n Solicitor! General
Roll No. 3.64!44
P Lifetime No.101927
MCLE Exemption No. V-000742, 10-1.-15
I
ir.
MA~g:LEN
Assistan.t Solicitor1
Cl;eneral
\
Roll No. 337]25
IBP Lifetime No.I 00253
MCLE Exemption No. V-d00741, 10-1-15
'
I
I
r~ ~ I
c---}1-t:{,11Jc./} . L~1Hr-
-1 ERM ES l. OCAMPO
A sistant Solicitor! General
Roll No. 401169 I
G.-v'61...rvwJnt~IL---J.9,(
) l_,.
NVRIAM SUSAN S. ~ERNANDEZ
Assistant Solicitor General
1
,'"'
I
'
/ //~L
l./ vJl. /..--~----
I
...---RAYMUND I. RI~""ODON
Assistant Solicitor General
Roll No. 39730
IBP Lifetime No. 0133195, 2-12-15
MCLE Con1pliance l\Jo. V-0011.790, 11-10-15
. I '
... / ...... /
/ .- ~
. v,
'/,
'/If'.'---.
f!
---.,.., .. --~
'
I
A
;- i
HENRY ANGELES I
"
II
OFFICE 01: "fHE SOLICrfiOR GENERAL '
II
I'
:11
Copy furnished:
I
I
I
1:
ii
II
-"-1-
:i'!
II
I
"
DE LllYIA v. HON. GUERRERO, ET AL.
G.R. No. 229781
COMMENT WITH OPPOSITION
x-----------------------------x
EXPLANATION I
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule /13 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Proce~ure)
I
(_~~ 'i~4-
/ - I
~-~ ~ o/.V!LENTON
//,,,, Ass i ciate Solicitor
I
I
Ar:c
.jl
l~
i
I
''
"I
II!
c~'ses
R.A. NO. 296 ..... xxx I I
June 1.7
~>,'
:.-'
1948 (f) In all criminal in which the penalty
provided by law is imprisonment for more
than six months, or a fine of more than two
IJ
1
./ hundred pesos. 1
1
- . . 11
,.
I
I
A.M. No. 00-8-01-SC WH~REAS, due to the
ust 1 2000 alarh1ing drug menace in the
country, it is the cor~sensus of many that the
1
designation of certain branches of the
Regional Trial Court~ as Special Courts to try
and decide drug dases regardless of the
quantity of the I drugs involved may
immediately addres~ the problem o1' delay in
the resolution of dr~gs cases.
"<;'.'.. 7
_y_ '
COMPREHENSIVE Sec. 90. Jurisdictio~. - The Supreme Court
DANGEROUS DRUGS shall designate speqal courts from among the
ACT OF 2002 existing Regional Trial Courts in each judicial
R.A. No. 9165 --~ region to exclusiv~ly try and hear cases
June 7. 2002 involving violations bf this Act. The number of
courts designated i1j each judicial region shall
be based on the po pulation and the number
1
of cases pendin~ in tl1eir respective
jurisdiction. xxx I
I
i
A.M. No. 05-9-03-SC WHEREFORE, Executive
October 11 2005 Judpes and presiding judges
'----'-~[ of special courts fo~ drug cases shall hereby
observe the followi~g guidelines:
1. Pursuant to Sec~ion 90 of R.A. No. 9165,
only courts desigr1ated by this Court as
special courts for/ drug cases can tal<e
cognizance of violat<ions of R.A. No. 9165.
~1
"~V
AM No. 16-07-06-SC
July 19, 2016
I !
NO~, THEREFORE, the
suweme Court hereby
.r
orders the 240 oth~r Regional Trial Courts to
[ .,. hear, try and deci?e cases filed under the
Comprehensive Darlgerous Drugs Act of2002,
as amended
......
.,,,
.1.:a:~M10.A. 1~slm.tti'~~
""'~l'" llJ'& '\o
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
.,,..,.f .(
J,111 JoJ,~~ IJ'.ll.
~o
1
r
I,
\o:it..l ~ ~ Ii' .11i'1JiJ 1ip I
r .MAr< 0 9 '.ll11
L._.___.:_
2..
I
-..
",;
I
f'~:..f":.::..:?. (:,~::' 11.'.1!'.~:~H7..0 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
t ,
,
(Revised as of April 1992)
I
I
with Office address al 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village Makati City, after !being sworn to depose and say:
pursuant to Section 3,4,5 ano 10, Huie 13 of the Hules of Court, as follows: l
By Personal Service To: ( ) By depositing a cppy to ~c._~hy or his/her attorney
on as :oihowr~~ .
( ) By leaving a cop~ in llt~er clerk or with a person
having charge therie~"" as shown on p
-- .~
( ) By delivering a c p to the Court/Tribunal Office on
_ _ _ _ as shoyvn on p _ __
By Hegislered Mail To: ( ) By depositing c~py on in the Post
Office at ______i,__ as evidenced by Registry
HON. JUANITO GUERRERO
Receipt(s) No.(s) ~-- hereto attached and
Regional Trial Court- Branch 204
indicated after the rame (s) of the addresse(s), and
Munlinlupa City Hall of Justice
National Road, Tun-a-sa_n_ _ _ _ _ __ with instruction to tl1e postmaster to return the mail to
Munlinlupa City, , Philippines the sender after (1 DI) days if undelivered.
I
: .:::yl
l:"""'''""~I""/,. I. Y'''"Y' ., . . . . ,. 1
"~;.p!.1Jvll'J.L:a., l!,;:;J1.v<JU:i,i:1.nJ. t:.1.A.O
r
f~SIS F~;W; 1 t.1 1111r~li1Vi.~-1H'l-O
'O ''"'>A
lllllll lllll llll llllll llllllllll lllll lllll lllll llll llllll lllll lllll lllll llll llll Solicitor, Gfficev Administering the Oath
17-006473-001'1 OfficJ of tf1e Solicitor General
I
1-
I
I': .
r
.. ,'
t
VERIFIED DECLARAT ION 1
I
l
I
I
I
'
~
I, JOHVIE M. VALENTON, hereby declare that the
l...
documents (and annexes thereof) hereto submitted I
1:
. March 9, 2017 I
II
Il
SUBSCRIBED Al\JD SWORN TO before me on this day of
9t1i
i
i
March 2017, affiant exhibiting her competent evidence of
identity, to wit: Office ID No. 2013-01003. T-I
i
//
''
L
I
\; ..
"'