Scribd
Upload
72 views2 pages

Senator Leila M. de Lima vs. Hon. Juanita Guerrero

The Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction over the drug-related criminal cases filed against Senator Leila De Lima. The pertinent law, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165), explicitly states that the Regional Trial Court has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving violations of the dangerous drugs law. While the Sandiganbayan generally has jurisdiction over criminal cases involving public officials, RA 9165 carves out an exception for drug cases and specifies that these fall under the RTC's authority. The Supreme Court therefore rejected De Lima's argument that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction instead of the RTC.

Uploaded by

Gracia Novel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
72 views2 pages

Senator Leila M. de Lima vs. Hon. Juanita Guerrero

The Supreme Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court, not the Sandiganbayan, has jurisdiction over the drug-related criminal cases filed against Senator Leila De Lima. The pertinent law, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165), explicitly states that the Regional Trial Court has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving violations of the dangerous drugs law. While the Sandiganbayan generally has jurisdiction over criminal cases involving public officials, RA 9165 carves out an exception for drug cases and specifies that these fall under the RTC's authority. The Supreme Court therefore rejected De Lima's argument that the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction instead of the RTC.

Uploaded by

Gracia Novel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No. 229781, October 10, 2017; SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, VS. HON.

JUANITA
GUERRERO, ET AL

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. These legislative inquiries led to the filing of three
complaints with the Department of Justice against Senator Leila M. De Lima, et al.;

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 in relation to Section (jj), Section 26(b), and Section 28 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165.

On February 23, 2017, respondent judge issued an Order finding probable cause for the
issuance of warrants of arrest against De Lima and her co-accused. Accordingly, the Warrant of
Arrest which contained no recommendation for bail, was issued against 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 Regional Trial Court – 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 posits 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 charged against the petitioner is Direct Bribery.

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

GE Held:
NE No, The pertinent special law governing drug-related cases is RA 9165, which updated the rules
RA
L
US
E
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. The designation of the RTC as the court with
the exclusive jurisdiction over drug-related cases is apparent in the following provisions where it
was expressly mentioned and recognized as the only court with the authority to hear drug-
related cases. Notably, no other trial court was mentioned in RA 9165 as having the authority to
take cognizance of drug-related cases. In this case, RA 9165 specifies the RTC as the court
with the jurisdiction to “exclusively try and hear cases involving violations of [RA 9165).” 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.

GE
NE
RA
L
US
E

You might also like