TESTIMONY CONFINED PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

October 10, 2017

G.R. No. 229781

SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, Petitioner

vs.
HON. JUANITA GUERRERO, in her capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional
Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Respondents

FACTS.

 The Senate and the House of Representatives conducted several inquiries on

the proliferation of dangerous drugs syndicated at the New Bilibid Prison
(NBP), inviting inmates who executed affidavits in support of their
testimonies.
 the DOJ Panel proceeded with the conduct of the preliminary investigation
and, in its Joint Resolution dated February 14, 2017 recommended the filing
of Informations against petitioner De Lima.
 Accordingly, on February 17, 2017, three Informations were filed against
petitioner De Lima and several co-accused before the RTC of Muntinlupa City.
One of the Informations was docketed as Criminal
 On February 20, 2017, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash, mainly raising the
20

following: the RTC lacks jurisdiction over the offense charged against
petitioner; the DOJ Panel lacks authority to file the Information; the
Information charges more than one offense; the allegations and the recitals
of facts do not allege the corpus delicti of the charge; the Information is
based on testimonies of witnesses who are not qualified to be discharged as
state witnesses; and the testimonies of these witnesses are hearsay.
 On February 23, 2017, respondent judge issued the presently
assailed Order finding probable cause for the issuance of warrants of arrest
22

against De Lima and her co-

 On February 24, 2017, the PNP Investigation and Detection Group served
the Warrant of Arrest on petitioner and the respondent judge issued the
assailed February 24, 2017 Order, committing De Lima to the custody of the
PNP Custodial Center.
 On February 27, 2017, petitioner repaired to this court via the present
petition, praying for the following reliefs:
o Granting a writ of certiorari annulling and setting aside the Order dated
23 February 2017, the Warrant of Arrest dated the same date
o Granting a writ of prohibition enjoining and prohibiting respondent
judge from conducting further proceedings until and unless the Motion
to Quash is resolved with finality;
o Issuing an order granting the application for the issuance of temporary
restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction to the
proceedings; and
o Issuing a Status Quo Ante Order restoring the parties to the status
prior to the issuance of the Order and Warrant of Arrest, both dated
February 23, 201 7, thereby recalling both processes and restoring
petitioner to her liberty and freedom.
26

 OSG: The OSG argued that the petition should be dismissed as De Lima
failed to show that she has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.

ISSUE/S.
TESTIMONY CONFINED PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

Whether the respondent gravely abused her discretion in finding probable

cause to issue the Warrant of Arrest against her.

RULING. NO. RTC ordered to resume proceedings.

RESPONDENT JUDGE DID NOT ABUSE HER DISCRETION IN FINDING

PROBABLE CAUSE TO ORDER THE PETITIONER'S ARREST

ON THE CORPUS DELICTI OF THE CRIME.

Read as a whole, and not picked apart with each word or phrase construed
separately, the Information against De Lima goes beyond an indictment for Direct
Bribery under Article 210 of the RPC. As Justice Martires articulately explained, the
80

averments on solicitation of money in the Information, which may be taken as

constitutive of bribery, form "part of the description on how illegal drug trading took
place at the NBP." The averments on how petitioner asked for and received money
from the NBP inmates simply complete the links of conspiracy between her, Ragos,
Dayan and the NBP inmates in willfully and unlawfully trading dangerous drugs
through the use of mobile phones and other electronic devices under Section 5, in
relation to Section 3(jj), Section 26(b), and Section 28, of RA 9165.

On this score, that it has not been alleged that petitioner actually
participated in the actual trafficking of dangerous drugs and had simply
allowed the NBP inmates to do so is non sequitur given that the allegation
of conspiracy makes her liable for the acts of her co-conspirators. As this
Court elucidated, it is not indispensable for a co-conspirator to take a direct
part in every act of the crime. A conspirator need not even know of all the
parts which the others have to perform, as conspiracy is the common
81

design to commit a felony; it is not participation in all the details of the

execution of the crime. As long as the accused, in one way or another,
82

helped and cooperated in the consummation of a felony, she is liable as a

co-principal. As the Information provides, De Lima's participation and
83

cooperation was instrumental in the trading of dangerous drugs by the NBP

inmates. The minute details of this participation and cooperation are
matters of evidence that need not be specified in the Information but
presented and threshed out during trial.

The basis for petitioner's contention that respondent judge committed grave abuse
of discretion in issuing the February 23, 2017 Order finding probable cause to
115

arrest the petitioner is two-pronged: respondent judge should have first resolved the
pending Motion to Quash before ordering the petitioner's arrest; and there is no
probable cause to justify the petitioner's arrest.

Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment

equivalent to an evasion of positive duty or a virtual refusal to act at all in
contemplation of the law.116

In the present case, the respondent judge had no positive duty to first resolve
the Motion to Quash before issuing a warrant of arrest. There is no rule of
procedure, statute, or jurisprudence to support the petitioner's claim. Rather,
Sec.5(a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court required the respondent judge to evaluate
117

the prosecutor's resolution and its supporting evidence within a limited period of
only ten (10) days, viz.:
TESTIMONY CONFINED PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

HEARSAY RULE ON ACCUSED/INMATE’S TESTIMONY

Nowhere in Ramos v. Sandiganbayan - the case relied upon by petitioner - did this
137

Court rule that testimonies given by a co-accused are of no value. The Court simply
held that said testimonies should be received with great caution, but not that they
would not be considered. The testimony of Ramos' co-accused was, in fact, admitted
in the cited case. Furthermore, this Court explicitly ruled in Estrada v. Office of the
Ombudsman that hearsay evidence is admissible during preliminary investigation.
138

The Court held thusly:

Thus, probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as

there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is
admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation
because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally
adjudicate rights and obligations of parties.

Verily, the admissibility of evidence, their evidentiary weight, probative

140

value, and the credibility of the witness are matters that are best left to be
resolved in a full-blown trial, not during a preliminary investigation where
141

the technical rules of evidence are not applied nor at the stage of the
142

determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

Thus, the better alternative is to proceed to the conduct of trial on the
merits for the petitioner and the prosecution to present their respective
evidence in support of their allegations.

With the foregoing disquisitions, the provisional reliefs prayed for, as a consequence,
have to be rejected.

OTHER ISSUES.

*** RULING IS THE SAME AS IN OTHER CASES.

CERTIFICATE OF NON-FORUM-SHOPPING

NOT MANDATORY BUT WAS REQUIRED IN THIS CASE DUE TO NON-

COMPLIANCE WITH HEIRARCHY OF COURTS ergo FORUM-SHOPPING EXISTS.

VERIFICATION UNDER JURAT

CURABLE BUT NOT IN THIS CASE. Not signed in the presence of the Lawyer.
Violation but moot for the whole petition is premature.

NON-COMPLIANCE TO THE RULE ON HEIRARCHY OF COURTS.

In like manner, petitioner's argument that the rule on the hierarchy of court should
be disregarded as her case involves pure questions of law does not obtain. One of
the grounds upon which petitioner anchors her case is that the respondent judge
erred and committed grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause to issue her
arrest.
TESTIMONY CONFINED PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

By itself, this ground removes the case from the ambit of cases involving pure
questions of law. It is established that the issue of whether or not probable cause
exists for the issuance of warrants for the arrest of the accused is a question of fact,
determinable as it is from a review of the allegations in the Information, the
Resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor, including other documents and/ or
evidence appended to the Information.

This matter, therefore, should have first been brought before the appellate court,
which is in the better position to review and determine factual matters.

THE PRESENT PETITION IS PREMATURE

The prematurity of the present petition is at once betrayed in the reliefs sought by
petitioner's Prayer, which to restate for added emphasis.

More importantly, her request for the issuance of a writ of prohibition under
paragraph (b) of the prayer "until and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved with
finality," is an unmistakable admission that the RTC has yet to rule on her Motion to
Quash and the existence of the RTC's authority to rule on the said motion. This
admission against interest binds the petitioner; an admission against interest being
the best evidence that affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute.

In the palpable absence of a ruling on the Motion to Quash -- which puts the
jurisdiction of the lower court in issue -- there is no controversy for this Court to
resolve; there is simply no final judgment or order of the lower court to review,
revise, reverse, modify, or affirm. As per the block letter provision of the
Constitution, this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction in a vacuum nor issue a
definitive ruling on mere suppositions.

Succinctly, the present petition is immediately dismissible for this Court lacks
jurisdiction to review a non-existent court action. It can only act to protect a party
from a real and actual ruling by a lower tribunal. Surely, it is not for this Court to
negate "uncertain contingent future event that may not occur as anticipated, or
indeed may not occur at all," as the lower court's feared denial of the subject Motion
to Quash. 63