DE LIMA vs. HON.

GUERRERO
G.R. No. 229781 October 10, 2017

1) Under Section 90 of R. A. No. 9165, the RTC exercises exclusive original jurisdiction
over all violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act regardless of whether the accused
is a public officer with a salary grade of at least 27 and he committed the crime in relation to his
office and regardless of the imposable penalty. Section 60 of R. A. No. 9165 provides, as follows:

Section 90. Jurisdiction. - The Supreme Court shall designate special courts 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 in each judicial
region shall be based on the population and the number of cases pending in their respective
jurisdiction.

The DOJ shall designate special prosecutors to exclusively handle cases involving
violations of this Act.

No other trial court is mentioned in R. A. No. 9165 as having the authority to take
cognizance of drug-related cases. Thus, even if the violation of R. A. No. 9165 is punishable by
imprisonment of not more than six years, the crime is still exclusively cognizable by the RTC. The
only exception to this rule is that when the violation of R. A. No. 9165 is committed by a minor, or
in conspiracy with a minor, then the crime falls under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the
Family Court.

2) R. A. No. 9165 specifies the RTC as the only court with jurisdiction

to exclusively try and hear cases involving any violation thereto. This is an exception, couched in
the special law on dangerous drugs, to the general rule under Section 4(b) of PD 1606, as amended
by RA 10660. It is a canon of statutory construction that a special law prevails over a general law
and the latter is to be considered as an exception to the general.

3) The exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts are (1) xxxxx, (2) when the case
involves transcendental importance; (3) when the case is novel; (4) when the constitutional issues
raised are better decided by this Court; (5) when time is of the essence; (6) when the subject of
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 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 considered as an inappropriate
remedy.

4) As a rule, the denial of a motion to quash is an interlocutory order and is not 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 for certiorari which can be used only in the
absence of an appeal or any other adequate, plain and speedy remedy. The plain and speedy
remedy upon denial of an interlocutory order is to proceed to trial.

5) Probable cause for the 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 been committed by the person sought to be arrested. Hence, the judge, before issuing a warrant
of arrest, 'must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is 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 tasked to review in detail the evidence
submitted during the preliminary investigation. It is sufficient that he personally evaluates such
evidence in determining probable cause. The judge needs only to determine the probability, not the
certainty, of guilt of the accused and, in doing so, he need not conduct a de novo hearing.