De Lima vs.

Guerrero case digest

FACTS:

On February 17, 2017, three Information were filed against petitioner De

Lima and several co-accused before the RTC of Muntinlupa City. One of
the information was raffled off to Branch 204, presided by respondent
Judge. This information charging petitioner for violation of Section 5,
Section 26 (b), and Section 28 of R.A. 9165.

On February 23, 2017, respondent Judge issued an Order finding probable

cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest against the De Lima and her
co-accused. Accordingly, the warrant of arrest which contained no
recommendation for bail, was issued against the petitioner.

On February 24, 2017, the PNP Investigation and Detection Group served
the Warrant of Arrest on Petitioner and the respondent Judge issued an
order committing petitioner to the custody of the PNP Custodial Center.

On February 27, 2017, Petitioner repaired to the Supreme Court via the
present petition, praying for annulling and setting aside the Warrant of
Arrest of the RTC Branch 204, Muntinlupa City as the said court lacks
jurisdiction over the petitioner.

Petitioner argues that, based on the allegations of the Information in the

criminal case, the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction to try and hear the
case against her. She posists that the Information charges her not with
violation of RA 9165 but with Direct Bribery – a felony within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan given her rank as the former
Secretary of Justice with Salary grade 31. For the Petitioner, even
assuming that the crime described in the Information is a violation of RA
9165, the Sandiganbayan still has the exclusive jurisdiction to try the case
considering that the acts described in the Information were intimately
related to her position as the Secretary of Justice. Some justices of this
court would even adopt the petitioner’s view, declaring that the
Information charge against the petitioner is Direct Bribery.

ISSUE:

Whether Sandiganbayan not the RTC has jurisdiction over the person of
the petitioner?

HELD:

No. The pertinent Special Law governing drug-related cases is RA 9165,

which updated the rules provided in RA 6425, otherwise known as the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. A plain reading of RA 9165, as of RA
6425, will reveal that jurisdiction over drug-related cases is exclusively
vested with the Regional Trial Court and no other.