Primary Holding

The Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is dismissed for lack of merit due to prematurity, violation of the hierarchy of courts and the rule against forum shopping, and for failure to demonstrate grave abuse of discretion by the respondent judge. The Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204 has jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 17-165.

Background

Legislative inquiries into drug syndicates at the New Bilibid Prison led to complaints against Senator De Lima for illegal drug trading. These complaints were consolidated before the Department of Justice (DOJ) Panel of Prosecutors for preliminary investigation. De Lima challenged the DOJ Panel's jurisdiction, arguing that the Ombudsman had exclusive jurisdiction.

Facts

• 1. The Senate and House conducted legislative inquiries on illegal drug trade at the New Bilibid Prison based on testimonies of inmate-witnesses.
• 2. Four complaints were filed with the DOJ against Senator De Lima for illegal drug trading, which were consolidated.
• 3. De Lima argued before the DOJ Panel that the Ombudsman had exclusive jurisdiction and alleged partiality of the DOJ Panel.
• 4. De Lima did not submit a counter-affidavit, citing pending motions.
• 5. The DOJ Panel proceeded with preliminary investigation and recommended filing Informations.
• 6. Three Informations were filed in the RTC of Muntinlupa City, charging De Lima with violation of RA 9165 for illegal drug trading.
• 7. The Informations alleged that De Lima, then DOJ Secretary, conspired with Rafael Ragos and Ronnie Dayan to solicit and extort money from NBP inmates to fund her senatorial campaign, in exchange for privileges allowing inmates to trade drugs using electronic devices.
• 8. RTC Judge Guerrero found probable cause and issued a Warrant of Arrest against De Lima and co-accused.
• 9. De Lima filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with the Supreme Court, questioning the RTC's jurisdiction and the validity of the arrest warrant.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. RTC lacks jurisdiction over the offense; Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction because the offense is Direct Bribery, a graft-related offense.
• 2. DOJ Panel lacked authority to file the Information; Ombudsman has exclusive jurisdiction.
• 3. Information charges more than one offense.
• 4. Information lacks corpus delicti of the charge.
• 5. Information is based on hearsay testimonies of unqualified state witnesses.
• 6. Respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the Warrant of Arrest without resolving the Motion to Quash and without personally determining probable cause.
• 7. Petition is an exception to the hierarchy of courts due to transcendental importance and pure questions of law.
• 8. Petition is not premature as the RTC effectively denied the Motion to Quash by issuing the warrant of arrest.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. Petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust plain, speedy, and adequate remedy and for violating the hierarchy of courts.
• 2. Petitioner violated the rule against forum shopping.
• 3. RTC has jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165; Sandiganbayan jurisdiction is limited to graft and corruption cases, not drug-related offenses.
• 4. Respondent Judge observed constitutional and procedural rules and did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
• 5. Petition is premature as the Motion to Quash is still pending before the RTC.
• 6. Petitioner falsified jurats in the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping.

Issues

• 1. Whether petitioner is excused from hierarchy of courts doctrine.
• 2. Whether pendency of Motion to Quash renders the petition premature.
• 3. Whether petitioner violated the rule against forum shopping.
• 4. Whether RTC or Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over violation of RA 9165.
• 5. Whether respondent Judge gravely abused discretion in finding probable cause.
• 6. Whether petitioner is entitled to Temporary Restraining Order/Status Quo Ante Order.

Ruling

• 1. Petition dismissed for prematurity as Motion to Quash before RTC is pending.
• 2. Petition dismissed for violating the hierarchy of courts doctrine; direct resort to Supreme Court is not justified as relief can be obtained from lower courts (Court of Appeals).
• 3. Petition dismissed for forum shopping, as a similar petition was filed in the Court of Appeals questioning the DOJ Panel's jurisdiction.
• 4. Petitioner's procedural infirmity of falsifying jurats in verification and certification against forum shopping also grounds for dismissal.
• 5. RTC has jurisdiction over violation of RA 9165; Sandiganbayan is primarily an anti-graft court.
• 6. Respondent Judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause and issuing warrant of arrest; Judge followed procedure under Rule 112, Rules of Court.
• 7. Petitioner is not entitled to TRO/Status Quo Ante Order as petition is dismissed and no grave abuse of discretion shown.

Doctrines

• 1. Hierarchy of Courts Doctrine: Lower courts should be resorted to first unless there are exceptional circumstances justifying direct resort to higher courts, particularly the Supreme Court.
• 2. Forum Shopping: Prohibited act of repetitively availing oneself of several judicial remedies in different courts, simultaneously or successively, all substantially founded on the same transactions and the same essential facts and circumstances.
• 3. Prematurity of Petition: A petition for certiorari is premature if the court a quo has not yet ruled on the matter, as in this case, the Motion to Quash before the RTC.
• 4. Defective Verification: Petition with improper verification can be treated as unsigned pleading and cause for dismissal.
• 5. Defective Certification Against Forum Shopping: Failure to comply with certification against forum shopping is generally not curable and cause for dismissal.
• 6. Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of RTC for RA 9165 Violations: RA 9165 vests exclusive jurisdiction over drug-related cases to the Regional Trial Courts.
• 7. Sandiganbayan Jurisdiction (Anti-Graft Court): Primarily for graft and corruption cases involving high-ranking government officials and employees, not drug-related offenses unless falling under specific exceptions.
• 8. Jurat Requirement: Notarial protocol requiring affiant to sign instrument in the presence of notary public.
• 9. Defective Verification as Unsigned Pleading: Pleading lacking proper verification is treated as unsigned pleading.
• 10. Verification for Good Faith Allegations: Verification assures allegations are made in good faith and are true and correct.
• 11. Certification Against Forum Shopping - Assurance of No Simultaneous Remedies: Certification against forum shopping prevents party-litigant from pursuing simultaneous remedies in different fora.
• 12. Defective Verification may be Cured; Defective Certification Generally Not Curable: Unlike verification, non-compliance with certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by subsequent submission or correction.
• 13. Doctrine of Admission Against Interest: Admission against interest is the best evidence. Petitioner's prayer requesting prohibition "until and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved" is an admission that RTC has yet to rule on Motion and that RTC has authority to rule.
• 14. Doctrine of Prosecutorial Discretion: Prosecution has wide discretion on whether, what, and whom to charge.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "the proper course of action was for it to dismiss the petition."
• 2. "Procedural rules are not to be belittled or simply disregarded, for these prescribed procedures ensure an orderly and speedy administration of justice."
• 3. "Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without prejudice, unless otherwise provided x x x."
• 4. "A pleading required to be verified which x x x lacks a proper verification, shan be treated as an unsigned pleading."
• 5. "Verification is deemed substantially complied with when one who has ample knowledge to swear to the truth of the allegations in the complaint or petition signs the verification, and when matters alleged in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct."
• 6. "the proper course of action is to dismiss outright the present petition."
• 7. "the proper course of action is to dismiss outright the present petition."

Precedents Cited

• 1. William Go Que Construction v. Court of Appeals: Cited to illustrate the significance of proper jurat and effect of its invalidity on Verification and Certification Against Forum Shopping.
• 2. Fernandez v. Villegas: Cited to explain substantial compliance with verification and certification requirements.
• 3. Salumbides, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman: Cited to distinguish effects of non-compliance with verification and certification against forum shopping and that defective verification is an unsigned pleading.
• 4. The Diocese of Bacolod v. Commission on Elections: Cited to explain the doctrine on hierarchy of courts and exceptions.
• 5. Aala v. Uy: Cited to summarize well-defined exceptions to the doctrine on hierarchy of courts.
• 6. Solid Builders Inc. v. China Banking Corp.: Cited to explain why a party should not preempt action of trial court and prematurity.
• 7. State of Investment House, Inc. v. Court of Appeals: Cited to hold that petition for certiorari can be resorted to only after court a quo has rendered decision and prematurity.
• 8. Diaz v. Nora: Analogous ruling on prematurity of certiorari petition where labor arbiter had not yet acted on motion for execution.
• 9. Miranda v. Tuliao: Ruling that does not support petitioner's position that RTC cannot issue warrant of arrest before resolving Motion to Quash.
• 10. Marcos v. Cabrera-Faller: Ruling that Judge's task upon filing information is to first determine existence of probable cause for arrest.
• 11. Soliven v. Makasiar: Doctrine of personal determination of probable cause by the judge.
• 12. Quimvel v. People: Designation of offense in the Information as critical element for apprising accused.
• 13. Quimvel v. People, Webb v. De Leon, Allado v. Diokno, Soliven v. Makasiar, Inting and Lim, Sr.: Cited to explain probable cause standard for arrest warrant issuance.
• 14. Luzon Iron Development Group Corporation v. Bridgestone Mining and Development Corporation: Elucidated forum shopping and its consequences.
• 15. Ient v. Tullet Prebon (Philippines), Inc.: Distinguished in the context of forum shopping; exceptions to rule against forum shopping do not apply to simultaneous actions.
• 16. People v. Simon, People v. De Lara, People v. Santos, and Ordonez v. Vinarao: Cases used by analogy to determine imposable penalty in drug cases.
• 17. Morales v. Court of Appeals: Named RTC as court with jurisdiction over drug-related cases.
• 18. Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman: Motion for reconsideration as mandatory step before filing petition for certiorari.
• 19. Dio v. People: Failure to give prosecution opportunity to amend information is arbitrary exercise of power; failure to establish venue in Information in Dio.
• 20. People v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division): Courts must deny motion to quash if defect can be cured by amendment and grant prosecution opportunity to cure defect.
• 21. People v. Andrade: State, like any litigant, entitled to its day in court.
• 22. Galzote v. Briones: Denial of motion to quash leads to trial, not certiorari.
• 23. People v. Benipayo, People v. Ocampo v. Abando: Cases indicating RTC has exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide criminal actions for violation of Omnibus Election Code irrespective of public officer status.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Rule 65 of the Rules of Court: Certiorari and Prohibition.
• 2. Rule 117 of the Rules of Court: Motion to Quash.
• 3. Rule 112, Section 5(a) of the Rules of Court: Procedure for issuance of warrant of arrest by RTC.
• 4. Rule 7, Section 4 and Section 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure: Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping.
• 5. Rule II, Section 6 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: Jurat requirements.
• 6. Article VIII, Section 5(2)(C) of the 1987 Constitution: Supreme Court's power of review requiring final judgments/orders of lower courts.
• 7. Article VIII, Section 5 (1) of the 1987 Constitution: Original Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
• 8. Article XI, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution: Constitutional Fiat for Sandiganbayan.
• 9. Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution: Right against unreasonable searches and seizures, probable cause for warrants.
• 10. Article III, Section 14(1) of the 1987 Constitution: Right to due process in criminal prosecutions.
• 11. Section 5, Section 3(jj), Section 26(b), Section 28 of RA 9165: Provisions related to illegal drug trading and penalties, under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
• 12. Section 3(r) of RA 9165: Definition of Illegal Trafficking.
• 13. Section 90 of RA 9165: Jurisdiction over drug cases designated to RTCs.
• 14. Section 27 and Section 28 of RA 9165: Criminal Liability of Government Officials and Employees under RA 9165.
• 15. Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code: Direct Bribery.
• 16. Article 1229 of the Civil Code: Equitable reduction of penalty.
• 17. Section 39 of RA 6425: Jurisdiction of Circuit Criminal Courts under previous Dangerous Drugs Act.
• 18. Section 4 of PD 1606 as amended by RA 10660: Jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan.
• 19. Section 32 of BP Blg 129 as amended by RA 7691: Jurisdiction of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
• 20. Section 39 of RA 6425 as amended by PD 44: Concurrent exclusive original jurisdiction.
• 21. Section 90 of RA 9165 vs Section 39 of RA 6425: Comparison of jurisdiction phrasing.
• 22. Special 6th Division of the Court of Appeals.
• 23. DOJ Department Order No. 790.