REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MUNTINLUPA CITY

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 204

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff-Petitioner,

-versus-

SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA

Defendant-Respondent
x———————————————-x

MEMORANDUM

Defendants, through counsel, unto this Honorable Court most

respectfully submit and present this memorandum in the above-titled case
and aver that the defendant is denied of the Constitutional grant of due
process by the issuance of an illegal warrant of arrest for being improperly
issued by the RTC instead of the Sandiganbayan. Hence, should be allowed
to quash the filed information and be allowed to post bail.

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff-Petitioner, People of the Philippines as represented by the Office

of the Solicitor General.

2. Defendant-Respondent, Senator Leila M. De Lima is the former

Secretary of the Department of Justice.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. Then Department of Justice (DOJ) Sec. Sen. Leila M. De Lima (De

Lima) and OIC of the Bureau of Corrections (BoC) Rafael Marcos Ragos
(Ragos), conspired with DOJ employee Ronnie P. Dayan (Dayan),
asserting moral ascendancy or influence over the inmates in the New
Bilibid Prison (Bilibid), committed illegal drug trading.

3. De Lima and Ragos allegedly demanded, solicited, and extorted money

from the high profile inmates in Bilibid for her upcoming Senatorial
Campaign in the coming May 2016 elections. This scheme was executed
with the aid of the inmates being able to use mobile phones, illegally, to
unlawfully trade and traffic dangerous drugs, with which the proceeds
amounted to Php 5,000,000.00 on November 24, 2012, and Php
100,000.00 weekly “tara” from every high profile inmate.

1
4. An information was then filed against De Lima, for her alleged violation
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Following this is
the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest by the Muntinlupa RTC.

5. A preliminary investigation followed, to which the RTC found

reasonable ground to believe that the crime charged has been committed
and that De Lima et al are probably guilty.

6. De Lima is now detained by the Philippine National Police at Camp

Crame.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

I. WHETHER OR NOT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OR THE

SANDIGANBAYAN HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND TRY
THE CASE AGAINST SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA.

II. WHETHER OR NOT SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA MAY FILE

A MOTION TO QUASH AT THIS STAGE OF THE
PROCEEDINGS.

III. WHETHER OR NOT SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA BE

ALLOWED TO POST BAIL IN THIS CASE.

DISCUSSION OF ARGUMENTS

I. PROPER JURISDICTION ON THE

ISSUANCE OF A VALID WARRANT
OF ARREST LIES WITH THE
SANDIGANBAYAN

A. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN

Article XI Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution reads, “The present

anti-graft court known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and
exercise its jurisdiction as now or hereafter may be provided by law.” Our
present Constitution1 reaffirms the continuing existence of the
Sandiganbayan, and the authority of the Congress to fix its jurisdiction.2

It was observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Nunez 3 that

existence of such provision on the Sandiganbayan is a constitutional
recognition of the continuing need to combat graft and corruption already
recognized in earlier anti-graft laws.

With the aim to check public officers, the core function of the
mentioned office is to ensure that power given to the government and its
branches are not being abused. Public office is public trust, and thus
connotes accountability.

1
PHIL. CONST. art. XI, § 4.
2
Balmadrid v. Sandiganbayan, 195 SCRA 497, 503 (1991).
3
Nunez v. Sandiganbayan, 111 SCRA 433, 442 (1982).

2
 B. RA 795 ON THE EXCLUSIVE
JURISDICTION OF THE
SANIDGANBAYAN

The SC emphasized in the case of Magno v. People 4 the exclusive

original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, with reference to PD 1606, as
amended by RA 7975.5 Included as part of such exclusive original
jurisdiction are violations of Republic Act No. 3019, 6 where one or more of
the accused 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.

In the same manner, RA 82497 further defined the Sandiganbayan’s

jurisdiction by including “officials of the executive branch occupying the
positions of regional director and higher, otherwise classified as Grade ‘27’
and higher, of the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989
(Republic Act No. 6758).”

The counsel acknowledges that RA 9165 renders criminally liable

government officials and employees that are found guilty of committing
unlawful acts mentioned by said law. However, it must be taken into
consideration that RA 9165 only impliedly repealed RA 7975 insofar as
its jurisdiction on government officers and employees. Noting the case of
The Manila Railroad v. Rafferty, it is a canon of statutory construction that a
later statute, general in its terms and not expressly repealing a prior
special statute, will ordinarily not affect the special provisions of such
earlier statute.8

Given the abovementioned doctrine, it shall then be relevant to point

out that RA 7975 should prevail, and hence, that it is imperative for the
Sandiganbayan be the body to hear and try the case against De Lima.

II. MOTION TO QUASH SHOULD BE

GRANTED AT THIS STAGE
OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Senator De Lima may file a Motion to Quash at any time before

entering her plea.9

To quash means to nullify, void or declare invalid. In criminal cases, a

motion to quash is a request from the judge to declare void a complaint or
information instituted before the court. It is a special pleading, interlocutory
in nature, wherein there is a hypothetical admittance of the truth of the facts
spelled out in the information or complaint. However, despite this
4
Magno v. People, 647 SCRA 632, 638-639 (2011).
5
An Act to Strengthen the Functional and Structural Organization of the Sandiganbayan, amending for that
purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606, as amended [RA 7975], Republic Act No. 7975 (1995).
6
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act [RA 3019], Republic Act No. 3019 (1960).
7
An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, amending for the purpose of Presidential
Decree No. 1606, as amended, providing for funds therefor, and other purposes [RA 8249], Republic Act
No. 8249 (1997).
8
Manila Railroad Company v. Rafferty, 40 PHIL 224, 229 (1919).
9
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 117, § 1 (2000).

3
assumption, the information should still be dismissed based a valid ground
invoked by the defendant.

Said motion will only be sustained by courts if there exists a valid

ground which may be invoked. The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
enumerates an exclusive list,10 which may be raised:

(a) that the facts charged do not constitute an offense;

(b) that the court trying the case does not have jurisdiction over the
offense;

(c) that the court trying the case does not have jurisdiction over the
accused;

(d) that the officer who filed the information didn’t have authority to
do so;

(e) that it does not conform substantially to the form subscribed;

(f) that more than one offense is charged except when a single
punishment for various offenses is prescribed by law;

(g) that criminal liability or action has been extinguished;

(h) that it contains averments which, if true, would constitute a legal

excuse or justification; and

(i) that the accused has been previously convicted or acquitted of the
offense charged, or the case against him has been dismissed or
otherwise terminated without the consent of the accused.

Among the above enumerated, the defense presents a Motion to

Quash on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction over the
accused. Earlier explained, it is the Sandiganbayan which possesses the
exclusive jurisdiction over offenses or felonies committed by public officials
and employees in relation to their office. There being a lack of authority to
hear and try the case at hand, the quashal of the information is warranted,
further proceedings should no longer ensue.

The Motion filed early in the proceedings is only proper. The

limitation provided in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure that it be
filed before an enter of plea does not apply to the ground raising the
jurisdiction of courts. Section 9 of Rule 117 exempts the grounds provided
for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g), and (i) of section 3.11 The defense may raise a
motion to quash on said ground at any time during the proceedings.

III. SENATOR DE LIMA SHOULD BE

10
Id. § 3.
11
Id. § 9.

4
 ALLOWED TO POST BAIL

A. AS A MATTER OF
RIGHT OR DISCRETION

Section 4 Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides that “All persons in
custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right.” 12 However, Section 7
of the same Rule states that “No person charged with an offense punishable
by reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) shall be admitted to bail when the
evidence of guilt is strong.”13

Before conviction, every person has a right to bail except if charged

with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua, when the evidence of guilt
is strong. This right flows from the fact that in our jurisdiction, every person
is presumed to be innocent. No one should be subjected to the loss of
freedom, unless guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. 14 Exclusion from
bail in capital offenses, being an exception to an otherwise absolute right
guaranteed by the Constitution, the natural tendency of the court has been
toward a fair and liberal appreciation, rather than otherwise, of the evidence
in the determination of the degree of proof and presumption of guilt
necessary to warrant a deprivation of that right.15

Also, citing Padilla v. CA, When the accused is charged with a capital
offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
and evidence of guilt strong, bail shall be denied, as it is neither a matter of
right nor of discretion. If the evidence, however, is not strong, bail
becomes a matter of right.16

B. PENALTY UNDER RA 9165

Section 28 of RA 9165 states that the maximum penalty found in the

act shall be imposed, in addition to absolute perpetual disqualification from
any public office, if those found guilty of such unlawful acts are government
officials and employee. The maximum penalty imposed in the act is life
imprisonment (or reclusion perpetua) to death.

C. ON THE PROBABILITY OF
FLIGHT AND DE LIMA AS
A SENATOR

In the evaluation of the evidence, the probability of flight is one factor

to be taken into account. The sole purpose of confining accused in jail before
conviction, it has been observed, is to assure his presence at the trial. In
other words, if denial of bail is authorized in capital cases, it is only on the
theory that the proof being strong.17 Given the fact that Senator De Lima is
an incumbent senator, a lawyer, former Department of Justice Secretary, it is
evident that she will not endanger herself by not presenting herself at trial.
12
Id. Rule 114, § 4.
13
Id. § 7.
14
De la Camara v. Enage, 41 SCRA 1, 6-7 (1971).
15
MANUEL R. PAMARAN, REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 296 (2012)
16
Padilla v. Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 402, 438 (1997).
17
Pamaran book p296 to 297

5
 As stated in the case of Enrile v. Sandiganbayan:18

For purposes of admission to bail, the

determination of whether or not evidence of
guilt is strong in criminal cases involving
capital offenses, or offenses punishable with
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment lies
within the discretion of the trial court. But, as
the Court has held in Concerned Citizens v.
Elma, "such discretion may be exercised only
after the hearing called to ascertain the
degree of guilt of the accused for the purpose
of whether or not he should be granted
provisional liberty."

This national commitment to uphold

the fundamental human rights as well as value
the worth and dignity of every person has
authorized the grant of bail not only to those
charged in criminal proceedings but also to
extraditees upon a clear and convincing
showing: (1) that the detainee will not be a
flight risk or a danger to the community; and
(2) that there exist special, humanitarian and
compelling circumstances.

Just as in the case of Juan Ponce Enrile, De Lima cannot be

considered a flight risk. Her credibility and solid reputation in the public
service as the former Secretary of Justice and as an incumbent senator must
be given probative weight. Moreover, it would be more beneficial for the
Filipino people that she be allowed to post bail so she can perform her
functions as a duly-elected legislator. While being detained, she was even
able to pass a bill.

D. ON STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE
AND THE INFORMATION FILED

The evidence presented by the prosecution consists of those from

inmates who have been granted protection as state witnesses, even though
they have been convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. These
testimonies alone are not enough to convict her of the crimes charged, and
they can be classified as not credible and mere hearsay. More so, since some
of the witnesses have even retracted their statements. Since the privilege of
posting bail will not be given to those charged with a crime of reclusion
perpetua when the evidence of guilt is strong, De Lima must be allowed to
post bail. Also, as earlier stated, the Information should be invalidated
because it contains not one, but two crimes, namely--violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act, and corruption of a public officer. The fact that she is
being detained upon a faulty warrant is enough in itself for De Lima to be
granted the right to post bail.
18
Enrile v. Sandiganbayan, 767 SCRA 282, 312 (2015).

6
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE, defendant respondent respectfully prays that this

Honorable Court:

1. Declare that the warrant of arrest against Senator Leila De Lima

illegal and of no effect for lack of authority of the issuing court.
2. Grant the Motion to Quash the information filed against Senator De
Lima.
3. Allow Senator De Lima to post bail.

Other just and equitable reliefs under the foregoing are likewise being
prayed for.

Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila, Philippines. March 30, 2017.

Dannah Mikaela Galindez Marion Iya Merilles

Enrique Villamiel

Counsels for Defendant-Respondent

Muntinlupa