The stakes are high in the De Lima decision, and not only for the opposition senator but for the country and for the future of our justice and anti-corruption system. This is why I am starting this series on De Lima vs. Guerrero as people need to be aware of the ramifications of what the Supreme Court decided in the case. If the decision is affirmed, it will be a big tragedy for the rule of law. But I am still hopeful, given the close voting, that the Court will reverse itself.
I will start the series with this summary of the main opinion written by Justice Presbitero Velasco whom Senator De Lima earlier asked to inhibit from the case for conflict of interest. It will be followed by summaries of the various dissenting and concurring opinions and end with my own analysis.
As has been reported, the majority opinion dismissed for lack of merit the petition for prohibition and certiorari filed by petitioner. Earlier, Senator De Lima, in her petition, raised, among others, the issue of whether or not the trial court or the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction over the violation of Republic Act No. 9165 averred in the assailed information.
In justifying the dismissal of De Lima’s petition, the SC, on the procedural issues raised by the petitioner, ruled as follows:
First, that petitioner did not sign the Verification and Certification against Forum Shopping and Affidavit of Merit of the petition in front of the notary which is required by the Rules on Notarial Practice. According to the ruling, without the presence of the notary upon the signing of the Verification and the Certification against Forum Shopping, there is no assurance that the petitioner swore under oath that the allegations in the petition have been made in good faith or are true and correct, and not merely speculative.
Second, that petitioner violated the hierarchy of courts when she filed the petition before the SC and not with the Court of Appeals. Velasco emphasized that the hierarchy of courts is an important component of the orderly administration of justice and should not be trifled with.
Third, the petition is premature. Velasco points out that her petition seeks to nullify the warrant of arrest and not to dismiss the criminal case. More importantly, according to the Court, her request for the issuance of a Motion to Quash is an unmistakable admission that the RTC had yet to rule on her Motion to Quash and the existence of the RTC to rule on such motion. Third, she violated the rule against forum shopping when she filed the present petition despite the pendency of a Motion to Quash the information before the RTC-Muntinlupa.
On the substantive issues, the SC made the following findings:
First, that the RTC has jurisdiction over the case. Velasco pointed out that from the designation of the crime in the information itself, which is “violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, sec. 5, in relation to sec. 3(ii), sec. 26(b), and sec. 28, Republic Act No. 9165, it is clear that petitioner is charged with violation of RA No. 9165. The information against the petitioner goes beyond the indictment of direct bribery under the Revised Penal Code. The crime of “illegal trafficking” embraces other offenses punishable by RA No. 9165. With the designation of the offense and the recital of facts, there is no question that petitioner is being charged not with direct bribery but with violation of RA No. 9165; and RA No. 9165, a special law, mentions no other court to exclusively try and hear drug related cases other than the RTC.
Secondly, the Court also rules that the respondent judge did not abuse her discretion in finding probable cause to order petitioner’s arrest. It explains that respondent judge has no positive duty to first resolve the Motion to Quash before issuing a warrant of arrest. Moreover, as the prosecutor’s report/resolution finds support from the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation and the judge issued the assailed warrant of arrest after evaluating the information and “all the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation, it cannot be said that the respondent judge abused her discretion in finding probable cause and issuing the warrant of arrest against petitioner.”
This, according to Justice Velasco’s opinion, is not surprising considering that the only evidence presented before the court are those provided by the complainants and the petitioner, in fact, did not present any counter-affidavit or evidence to controvert this. The Court further states, “Verily, the admissibility of evidence, their evidentiary weight, probative value, and the credibility of witnesses are matters best resolved in a full-blown trial, not during the preliminary investigation where the technical rules are not applied nor at the stage of determination of probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest. Thus the better alternative is to proceed with the conduct of the trial on the merits for the petitioner and the prosecution to present their respective evidence in support of their allegation.”
In his dissent, Associate Justice Antonio Carpio does not mince words when he described the majority decision as “one of the grossest injustices” in recent memory. In my next column, I will write how the most senior Justice of the Supreme Court reached that conclusion.
Facebook: deantonylavs Twitter: tonylavs