Professional Documents
Culture Documents
:"11;~
''~'
....
ECEJ . rt1.
..COUl''''
ti: i
'l\;~"'i''"~ . .. ...
LEILA M. DE LIMA,
Petitioner,
-versus-
r
''"1'
. \
1
'
~-
Muntinlupa City, Branch 204,
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
P/DIR. GEN. RONALD M. DELA
ROSA in his capacity as Chief of
For Certiorari
Prohibition
Application
and
with
for
J
'\.._,,,,
the Philippine National Police, P1eliminary Injunction,
PSUPT PHILIP GIL M. PHILIPPS, and Urgent Prayer for
in his capacity as Directo1, TRO and Status Quo Ante
Headquarters Support Service, Order
SUPT. ARNEL JAMANDRON
APUD, in his capacity as Chief,
PNP Custodial Service Unit, and
ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER
'
THEIR CONTROL, !~~,.m~rnt'J~~
\\(~ ~\'~t:-~ 'f'.!!ll';~ll! ~r('i~~i:i. ':i~~
(111 ~~..1 "1 lil t''"'" i'l ~~
"U ~ ~ ~ : ,\,tr~) ~. bL~1;.~.:J ~~ii.:
!
SUPERVISION, INSTRUCTION
\. l , \
....
OR DIRECTION IN RELATION
TO THE ORDERS THAT MAY BE
ISSUED BY THE COURT,
Respondents.
x------------------------------------------------------x
PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION
WITH APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION, AND.URGENT PRAYER FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER AND STATUS Quo ANTE ORDER
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI {Rule 65)
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
Page 2
-tr- I
SUPREME COURT
PREFATORY STATEMENT
con1pron1ised.
I
She seeks the I-Ionorable Court's intervention, not just for the /,
11.
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 3
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et a/.
SUPREME COURT
Law of the Land and to our notions of fairness and justice, such
offense takes on an even 111ore repiehensible, virulent and expansive
dimension when what is at stake is not just a single person's life,
liberty and property, but also the very shength of the foundations of .,:i
i
our den1ocratic way of life and republican fonn of governn1ent, if
I,
nan1ely, the people's right to be secure fr01n political persecution, and i'
11
for which she was elected by the people without fear of political i11
II
re tribu ti on.
II
ii
1r-
11
l "-
We would be allowing tyranny to once again rule over our
people.
For who would have the courage to speak up for the victin'ls of
extrajudicial killings? Who will dare fight for the truth to con1e out
during Senate inquiries, particularly those probing into the
corruption scandals involving the President's fraternity brothers, or
the n1urderous and extortionist operations being perpelTated by
n1en1b~rs of the law enforcen1ent agents who have, thus far, been
:!
virtually given a free pass by the President for the thousands of
killings supposedly con1111itted during "legitin1ate police
operations"? Who will dare stand in the way of the atte111pts to
railroad critical pieces of legislation, such as the re-in1position of the
Death Penally, which has serious and severe ilnplications on the
Crin1inal Justice Systen1 and our international con1n1itn1ents, which '!i
all need to first be fully threshed out? I'
---~--
i,1
:\
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page4 I
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et a/. li
SUPREME COURT ii
:i
I
11
Petitioner, who was elected Senator by 111ore than 14 1nillion Filipino ,,;1
I
voters, was not accorded her right to due process before she was
pren1alurely deprived of her liberty and severely ilnpaired fro111
perforn1ing her duties as a public servant?
Indeed, injustice has a price. In this case, with the chilling effect
that injustice creates, the price is our syste1n of checks and balances.
i
To be very, very clear, the dan1age to the Filipino people's right
to be represented by the Petitioner in the I-Ialls of the Senate is no
1!
..........
;1
I!
I
_
longer inerely inchoate or speculative, but is already extant and
further being ai11plified with every second that she is incarcerated
I
and unable to perforn1 her duties. Just to cite son1e exa1nples, in the
\
c01ning week:
'
i
practices; and (b) the tax refonn bills and reforn1 agenda of
the Duterte ad111inishation;2
President Duterte's Unnumbered bill entitled, "Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion" with focus on
the following:
''
f
'
i
I J/.
\ 1. PSRN 118 (Resolution Directing The Proper Senate Committee To Conduct An Inquiry, In Aid Of
Legislation, Ori The Tax Reform Proposals Of The Department Of Finance With The Ultimate Goal
Of Improving The Country's Tax Collection Effort While Ensuring That The Country's Tax System Is
Simpler, More Equitable And Progressive);
2. SBN 308 (An Act Creating The Office Of The National Taxpayer Advocate To Safeguard The Rights
Of The Taxpayers And For Other Purposes);
3. SBN 815 (An Act Ordaining A Bill Of Rights For Taxpayers);
4. SBN 132 (An Act Amending Section 3 Of The National Internal Revenue Code Of 1997, As
Amended, Establishing A Taxpayer Assistance Service In Th.e Bureau Of Internal Revenue And For
Other Purposes);
5. Hernoval of VAT Exemption on Materials used on Socialized Housing and Money Remittance
Centers - Senate Bill No. (SBN) 1044 (An Act Exempting Sales Of Construction Materials And
Lease Of Construction Equipment Intended For Socialized Housing Projects And Housing Or
Rehabilitation Projects For Victims Of Disasters, From Value-Added Tax; Amending For The
~-...--.
Purpose Of Section 109 Of The National Internal Revenue Code);
6. Removal of Income Tax Exemption on PCSO/Horse Race Winnings - SBN1099 (An Act Amending
SecUon 24 And 25 Of Republic Act No. 8424, Otherwise Known As The National Internal Revenue
Code Of 1997, As Amended By Removing The Tax Exemption On Sweep takes And Lotw Winnings
In The Philippines); and
7. Limiting VAT Zero-rating to Direct Exports only.
Atty. Al/ado v. Judge Diokno, G.R. No. 113630, 5 May 1994.
Salonga v. Cruz-Pano, G.R. No. 59524, 18 February 1985.
Lad/adv. Velasco, G. R. Nos. 172070-72, 01 June 2007.
i
I'
I
I
1:
_wIi __
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 6
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al
SUPREME COURT
i\
~-'
Ii
People v. Chavez, G.R. No. 140690, 19 June 2001.
I
,.
I
. ~
Likewise, pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the san1e Rule,
" Petitioner de Lin1a pleads for other incidental reliefs as law and
justice 111ay require, such as but not li1nited to the inhibition of
respondent judge and the lTansfer of venue of the crin1inal case to
avoid iniscarriage of justice.
Vigan Electric Light Co., Inc. v. Public Service Commission [L-19850, Jan. 30, 1964]; Luzon Surety Co. v.
Marbella, et al. [L-16088, Sept. 30, 1960]; Dir. of Lands v. Santamaria, (44 Phil 594).
People v. Palacio [L-13933, Mar. 26,1960].
Luzon Surety Co. v. Marbel/a [L-16088, Sept. 30, 1960]. --L
10
Matutina v. Bas/on [L-14637, Aug. 24, 1960).
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI {Rule 65) Pages
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
~-
First, a direct resort to this court is allowed when there are
genuine issues of constitutionality that must be addressed
at the most immediate time. A direct resort to this court
!.. includes availing of the remedies of certiorari and prohibition
to assail the constitutionality of actions of both legislative
and executive branches of the government [See Aquino Ill v.
COMELEC,G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010, 617 SCRA 623,
637-638 [Per J. Perez, En Banc]; Magallona v. Ermita, G.R.
No. 187167, August 16, 2011, 655 SCRA 476, 487-488 [Per J.
Carpio, En Banc].].
_l__
I
I
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 9
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
"' ,.,,_ .,_ r .. 1..:- n~ .. nA~~lnn C:vnlnrnfnri11rn lnr h R l\ln 1 ~qr;~? l1inp 11 ?014. Emohasis supplied;
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 12
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
--~---
!
THE PARTIES
I
l
4. LEILA M. DE LIMA is a Filipino, of legal age, a Senator of the
'~-
Republic, and with office address at Roon1 502, Senate of the
Philippines, Jose W. Diokno Blvd., Pasay Cily. She ni.ay be served
with pleadings, orders and other processes in c01u1ection with this
case through her counsel at the address stated below.
_;_
'
ii.
i',
a) NPS No. XVI-INV-16J-00313, entitled Volunteers against
Crfrne and Corruption (VACC), represented by Dante Jimenez
versus Senator Leila M. de Linza et al.;
T
b) NPS XVI-INV-16J-00315, entitled Reynaldo Esrneralda and
Ruel Lasala versus Senator Leila M. de Lima et al.;
'
:1
I
I
II
:J
'i
7"--
!
I:
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 14 I
16 -~-
See pages 3 to 11 of the Omnibus Motion, attached as Annex "D" hereof. I
17 I
See pages 11to16 of the Omnibus Motion, attached as Annex "D" hereof, and Annex "C" of said
Omnibus Motion (a compilation of the reported acts and public declaration of Secretary Aguirre) I
I
attacl1ed as Annex "D-1" hereof.
11 "-"'"'1 ___ -.t.-1< ....... L... .... ...J """" f\..,,,...,.,,v "n" horonf ,,
,,'i
I
'
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERT~ORARI (Rule 65) Page 15
Oe Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
!
Petitioner, will no longer be allowed to belatedly
~ . subn1it their counter-affidavits; and
pending incidents.
----
i
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 18
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
issued. The saine acts of respondent judge were even attended with
undue haste and inordinate interest as there is still a Motion to Quash
that is yet to be resolved, and that she could not have 111ade a
personal detern1inalion of probable cause given the volu1ninous
records subn1itted by the prosecution and the likewise volun1inous
Motion to Quash filed by Petitioner. There is report that respondent
judge just arrived in her court a few hours fro1n a trip fron1 out of the
country.
23. Later that san1e 1norning, during the'hearing set to hear the
Motion to Reset filed by the DOJ Panel, respondent judge defended
the issuance of the Warrant of Arrest despite her failure to first
consider and resolve the Petitioner's Motion to Quash, by 111aking the
gravely erroneous clailn that she had to acquire jurisdiction over the
person of the Petitioner first before she could resolve her Motion to
Quash, to wit:
During Friday hearing, Executive Judge Juanita T. Guerrero, the
Presiding Judge of Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 204
explained that she has to acquire jurisdiction over De Lima
i before she could resolve her motion to quash.
\,,,_
-1-
24. Definitely dissatisfied with the acts and 0111issions of
respondent judge, which grossly violated her substantive and
procedural rights, that ani.ounted to grave abuse of discretion on the 1
part of respondent judge, Petitioner files this Petition for Certiorari
I
and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. i
i
I
I__
.. ,......,.;
,,., ........... ,.. ,. , I - - w I . . I ... , , .~.. \., ..., ,., ; " .-.. /.' .,,. ,..,,,. \
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 20
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
f;
ISSUES
ARGUMENTS
1'
\,
II
III
'- ....-~ IV
DISCUSSION
I
!
26. As discussed above, respondent judge proceeded to issue
the assailed Order and Warrant of Arrest on 23 February 2017, when
I
_.._
i
there was still a pending Motion to Quash that was filed on 20
February 2017, and that the said Motion was still set for hearing on 24
February 2017. The prosecution even filed a n1otion to reset the said
I
hearing to a ni.uch later date, i.e., to March 3, 2017, thus negating any
notion of urgency on the part of the prosecution. Inarguably, the said
n1()Jinn w::-i.c:: .c::till nrndirnr and unresolved at the tin1e the questioned
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule !,55) Page 22 +
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
27. As stated above, the respondent judge claiined that she had
to acquire jurisdiction over the person of the Petitioner first before
she could resolve her Motion to Quash.
-- I
<.,_ Except in applications for bail, it is not necessary for the court
to first acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused to
dismiss the case or grant other relief. The outright dismissal of
the case even before the court acquires jurisdiction over the
person of the accused is authorized under Section 6(a), Rule r I
112 of .tfie Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and the
Revised .Rules on Summary Procedure (Sec. 12a). In Allado vs. .I
31. In fact, the Supren1e Court has held that the very filing of a
Motion to Quash particularly puts the court on notice that it 111ight be
about to deprive an iiu1ocent person of her liberty, thus 111aking it
in1perative for the court to act with judicious deliberation. Failing to
act with the required prudence is, in the words of the I-Ionorable
Court, a 111istake that cmu1ot be condoned, to wit:
What tainted the procedure further was that the Judge issued
a warrant for the arrest of the petitioners, including, Mr. Ben
Lim, Jr. despite the filing of the Omnibus Motion to Quash,
Recall Warrants of Arrest and/or For Reinvestigation raising
among others the issue that Mr. Ben Lim, Jr., was not even a
member of the board of directors. With the filing of the
motion, the judge is put on alert that an innocent person may
have been included in the complaint. In the Order dated 13
November 1998, in denying the motion to quash, Judge
Primitivo Blanca ruled that:
I
\ _,.
Courts in resolving a motion to quash cannot consider
facts contrary to those alleged in the information or which
do not appear on the face of the information because said
motion is hypothethical admission of the facts alleged in
the information xx x. (citations omitted.) .....,......__.._
I
32. More in1portantly, as the court a quo has no jurisdiction I
--~-
over the subject case, as extensively explained in the Motion to Quash,
the questioned Order and Warrant of Arrest is a patent nullity. In the
case of Leonor v. Court of Appea.ls,23 the Supren1e Court ruled that:
22 Citations omitted.
23
G.R. No. 112597. April 2, 1996. In the US case of Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Ov.App.,
80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092, it was held that:
"One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy,
ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of
confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Judgment is a "void
" r - '-- ---..l---..l : .. ..J-~~~+ 1~.-1,,..,.1 ;,.,;rrli,..tirm "ftho c11hii>rt m;:iltpr nr nf thP. oarties.
1_:
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 24
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
(b) That the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over
the offense charged;
_, .. ......,___
i[
I
. '.
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI {Rule 65) Page 25
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
,I
.I
36. The Joint Resolution dated 14 February 2017, upon which
the Inforn1ation is based, states under paragraph 2 of page 3 that:
\__..
... [B]y reason of which, the inmates, not being lawfully
authorized by law and through the use of mobile phones and
-r-
other electronic devices, did then and there wilfully and I .
I
38. On the basis of such actual allegations, the Inforn1ation
-+
I
charges the accused with violation of Section 3 Qj), Section 26 (b) and
\ Section 28 of Republic Act No. 9165.
'-
I.,.'I
Ii
recital of facts is any allegation of actual or even in1plied con1plicity JI
of the accused in the illegal drug bade, as it does not even allege, for 11
/1
1:
instance, that the accused gave instTuctions to the NBP inn1ates to
gather the n1oney that she den1anded fr0111 the illegal drug trade.
/i
11
/;
illegal drug bade. There is no allegation, 11u1ch less proof fro111 the
records that would show that the crhninal activities of the NBP I/
II
huuates were participateq in by the accused. /1
11
1!
I!
42. In other words, nowhere does the Inforn1ation allege that /1
there was unity of action and purpose between the accused on the
one hand, and the NBP in1nates on the other. On the contrary, the
(
\ Infonnation itself is unequivocal that the alleged acts and purpose of
the accused are distinct fron1 those of the NBP inn1ates.
1!
!j
43. Therefore, as there is no allegation, n1uch less proof of t1
actual participation in the illegal drug bade, the proper designation 11
( Art. 210. Direct bribery. - Any public officer who shall agree
to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection with the I
performance of this official duties, in consideration of any 1i-
offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer, ,I
,1
personally or through the mediation of another, shall suffer 1
the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum 11
periods and a fine [of not less than the value of the gift and]
not less than three times the value of the gift in addition to the i
penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same /I
shall have been committed. I
I:
I!
II
45. Direct bribery exists when the following ele1nents are i/
present: /.
11
.l
SUPREME COURT , . IrI
another.
I
Third, that such offer or pron1ise be accepted or gift 11
Bribery exists, not only (1) when the gift is offered voluntarily
by ayrivate person, or (2) when the gift is solicited by a public
I I-- :.1. ..__ "-h"' -1---
;.> ~ I -
public officer, but also (3) when the gift is solicited by a public
officer;, as the consideration for his refraining from the
performance of an official duty and the private person gives
the gift for fear of the consequences which would result if the
officer performs his functions (Dec. of Nov. 3, 1879, Sup. Ct.
Spain, cited in People vs. Sope, 75 Phil. 810) 26
50. Lastly, the In.fornl.at-i.on also alleged facts that relate the
special consideration/ protection to be a function of the accused as
Secretary of Justice.
/i
including: 1!
I!
xxx xxx xxx
53. Repuhlic Act ("RA") No. 6758, on the other hand, provides i
--,..,.--
ii
that the posilio1: of the Secretary of Justice is assigned the Salary 11
I
I'
G raL:l e o f- "3'1" '
'" , v1.z.:
11
!1!
xxx xxx xxx
I
, 1
,!
!!
,i',
ii
rank as follows: the Executive Secretary, Department lj
Secretary, Presidential Spokesman, Ombudsman, Press
Secretary, Presidential Assistant with Cabinet Rank,
Presidential Adviser, National Economic and Development
AuthoriW Director General, Court of Appeals Presiding Justice,
Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice, Secretary of the Senate,
Secretary of the House of Representatives, and President of
the University of the Philippines. 28
I
I
1:-
I.
1 .
,.., __ , ,...., _ _,_, __ 1 --...I n-1~~..J- n/,....,,.. r:o f\lr. 1 (.;Q()()A 1 i:;
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 32
Oe Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
11
murder in [the] abstract, the facts in a particular case may
show that:
3
l Ibid, citing Cunanan v. Arceo, G.R. No. 116615, March 1, 1995, 242 SCRA 88, citing Sanchez v .
~ r'"''"'"""r-rn" r.,1/1nn'J\l
,I
72. In the instant case, it is clear that the legislature did not
intend to hansfer the jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165
con1n1itted by officials rnentioned in Section 4(a) of PD 1606, as
ainended, in relation to their public office to the regional trial courts
because if it did, it could ha.ve expressly stated so in RA 9165. It did
not.
11
i
~,, Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
v; n A------ .... rl"'I,, r n 1\1,.., 1rv"Jno""l 11 n ..................... h,....,.. 1nn"'l
I
i
IIII
I!
ij
l I ~
. '11
76. Thus, given the circumstances, had it not been for the grave
abuse of discretion con1111itted by respondent judge, either (a) the
crin1inal case should have been dis1nissed as there is no probable .I
cause against Petitioner, or, at the very least, (b) the proceedings, :I
I
including the issuance of arrest warrant against Petitioner, should 11
have been held in abeyance during the pendency of the petition for
review with the DOJ Secretary. _L i
,,
11
i!
i
RESPONDENT JUDGE GROSSLY ,,
:i
1
ii
VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL 11
WARRANT.
l
I/
77. The Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution provides that:
i
1!
1"- .
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their Ii,
' :/
I'
fl
the judge;
11
-~I
c. The detern1ination n1ust be n1ade after exa111ination
under oath or affir111ation of the con1plainant and the
\
wil11esses he n1ay produce;
80. In this case, requisites (a), (b), and (c) are utterly inissing.
1 The first requisite, as it touches on the substantive aspect of
,/
evaluating the evidence on record to detennine whether there is
actual basis to support a finding of probable cause, will be tackled
extensively. in the next section. This part of the discussion dwells on
-4-
the procedural irregularities and anon1alies co1n1nitted by respondent
judge.
pronounced that: Ii
I~
11
11
ii
if
),
--r-
IiIi1'
/1
I
I
I
.i
83. The clear language itself of the foregoing text just shows i
that what was carefully evaluated supposedly by respondent judge I
were the Inforrnation and all evidence presented during the prelirninary -tr
'
\\ investigation of the case. It did not evidently comply with the .. /..
requiren1ent in Soliven that what should have been evaluated "'Was
the report and the supporting documents subrnitted by the prosecutor.
11
l.1
+
/!
i1!
1'
,i
. I-
.I .
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 40
:1
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, (!t al.
SUPREME Cou1n . ~
1
Verily, respondent judge committed grave abuse of ~-
(a) By the Regional Trial Court. Within (10) days froll] the
filing of the complaint or information, the judge"shcI
personally evaluate the resolution of the pr_p:secuto~
and its supporting evidence. He may iQ:lmedfate1\i"
dismiss the case if the evidence on recor4i'clearly-fails
to establish probable cause. If he finds_.J>robable
cause, he shall issue a warrant ~ arrest, or a
~
~
~
!
1
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 41
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al. , I
SUPREME COURT
,__,__
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 42
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
CONTRARY TO LAW. 43
. i -
43
Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.
1
"' G.R. No. 200165, January 30, 2013.
. 11
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 43 I!
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al. +--
SUPREME COURT \i
I
I
Hundred Thousand (Pl00,000.00) Pesos weekly "Tara" each
from the high profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison. 46
I
I
97. In fact, even where the identity and illegal character of the !
\ ...~-- ' Indeed, it must be pointed out that the prosecution filed a I
defective Information. An Information is fatally defective I
when it is clear that it does not really charge an offense or 11
\!
was able to allege the identity of the buyer and the seller, it i;1
failed to particularly allege or i.dentify in the Information the Ii
subject matter of the sale or the corpus delicti. We must 11
'.
if
remember that one of the essential elements to convict a
II),
person of sale of prohibited drugs is to identify with certainty
II1,
the corpus delicti. Here, the prosecution took the liberty to
/1
I
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 44
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
--~--
98. In this case, the defect .in the Inforn1ation is inuch worse
than n1ere an1biguity, as there is absolute absence of any allegation as
to both the identity of the drugs allegedly traded, or the quantity
thereof.
i
\.. _
_.,
cri1ne charged
.,!
100. It is clear that the allegations and the recital of facts do not
provide the corpus delicti of the alleged cri1ne.
ii
'!
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 45
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
JI
(
trafficking of dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals using
electronic devices such as, but not limited to, text
messages, email, mobile or landlines, two-way
radios, internet, instant messengers and chat
rooms or acting as a broker in any of such
transactions whether for money or any other I
1
consideration in violation of this Act."
i
Ji
ti
11I
I'
--~-
11
11
11
11
18
' G.R. No. 150917, 27 September 2006. 11
9 11
" G.R. No. 199403, 13 June 2012. 11
i!
1
~
-t-
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 47 1!
I
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
Surr~EME COURT
I
i
I!
103. In the case of People of the Philippines vs Capalads2 , the Ii
"
r
elen1ents for the violation of Section 5 of RA 9165, n1ore specifically 1:
,ii
01
People v. Copa/ad, GJ\. No. 184174, 7 April 2009, citing People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July
2008.
r,:i: n
1 . r.i. - nL'"--'--- - n .. ..J~.,..Jr o ~1~ I '1C:7'.l1 :in l11no 1071
!
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65)
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
Page 48 I
SUPREME COURT
55
People of the Philippines vs. Layla G.R. No. 192235, 6 July 2011.
r" - I -- - "--~ .. -- r n ~1-1 OAOC:7 17 nrtf'lhcr ?nnq :rnrl PPnnle of the Philiooines vs.
---
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 49 )
preserved.59
(._.
57
G.R. No. 191730, 05 June 2013.
58
Valencia vs People of the Philippines, G.R. 198804, 22 January 2014 citing the cases of Fajardo v. People,
G.R. No. 185460, July 25, 2012, 677 SCRA 541, 548; People v. Alcuizar, G.R. No. 189980, April 6, 2011,
647 SCRA 431, 437 .. See also People v. Nacua, where the Supreme Court held:
Sale or posses~ion of a dangerous drug can never be proven without seizure and identification of
the prohibited drug. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the
corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction I
!
beyond reasonable doubt. Of paramount importance, therefore, in these cases is that the identity of II
!I
/'
11
i
I
11
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 50
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
evidence n1ust definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court
is the san1e illegal drug actually recovered fro111 the accused-
appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165 fails.
122. Fron1 the foregoing, the Inforrnation and its recital of facts
would readily reveal that the ele1nents of the predicate crii11e of
:~~,i,
1
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 51
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al. J
SUPREME COURT
11,
~I
I
selling or trading illegal drugs is absent. There is also no corpus delicti
for the offense and its integral ele1nents are deficient. I
/1
turpitude
'
123. It is one thing to disregard jurisdictional requisites. It is
quite another, and far worse to institute tnunped-up charges. For
one, and this is too obvious to ignore, the Panel of Prosecutors relied
solely on testin1onial evidence culled prilnarily fro1n convicted felons
who con1111itted crin1es involving 111oral turpitude.
(
', FROILAN TRESTIZA y Kidnapping Reclusion
LACSON Perpetua
.,,
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65)
Page 53
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and. I
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any!
offense involving moral turpitude. /
''
l
'I
.....................
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule GS) Page SS
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al. ,,1;
SUPf\EME COUf\T
-~
that have no probative value.
.,,,.
PETITION FOR PROMIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 56
Oe Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
132. The Res Inter Alios Acta Rule as set forth in Section 28 of
the Rules of Court, provides that the rights of a party caiu1ot be
prejudiced by an act, declaration, or 0111ission of another, to wit:
134. The res inter alios acta rule exceplion is found under
Rule 130, Section 30 of the Rules of Court, which provides that:
That within the period from November 2012 to March 2013, in the
'.,~~
City of Muntinlupa, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, accused, Leila M. De Lima, being then the
Secretary of the Department of Justice, and accused Rafael
Marcos Z. Ragos, being then the Officer-In-Charge of the Bureau
of Corrections, by taking advantage of their public office,
conspiring and confederating with accused Ronnie P. Dayan,
being then an employee of the Department of Justice detailed to
De Lima, all of them having morc:d ascendancy or influence over
inmates in the New Bilibid Prison, did then and there commit
illegal drug trading, in the following manner: De Lima and Ragos,
with the use of their power, position and authority, demand,
solicit and ,extort money from the high profile inmates in the New
Bilibid Prison to support the Senatorial bid of De Lima in the May
2016 election; by reason of which, the inmates, not being lawfully
authorized by law and through the use of mobile phones and
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 57
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
other electronic devices, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully
trade and traffic dangerous drugs, and thereafter give and deliver
to De Lima, Through Ragas and Dayan, the proceeds of illegal drug
trading amounting to Five Million (PS,000,000.00) Pesos on 24
November 2012, Five Million (PS,000,000.00) Pesos on 15
December 2012, and One Hundred Thousand (Pl00,000.00) Pesos
weekly "Tara" each from the high profile inmates in the New
'I
Bilibid Prison. (Emphasis supplied) 'i
1:
11
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
Al\10UNTS TO A VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGIITS OF THE
PETITIONER AS ACCUSED
111alignant but are pure hearsay, loud but en1pty on the existence of
the corpus delicti; and the propensity of the Panel of Prosecutor to
cherry pick the allegations that superficially support their finding of
probable cause, .yet blatantly ignore the glaring inconsistencies and
irreconcilable discrepancies of their convict-witnesses' testin1onies, all
serve as telltale proof of political persecution.
I
'J
; J '
65
G.R. No. 172070-72, 01 June 2007 citing Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, No. L-72335-39, 21 March 1988, 159
-!'..'
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65)
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
Page 59 t
j,
..' ..;.
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page GO
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
cause for the issuance of any arrest warrant, such warrant should
have fixed bail considering that the evidence of guilt is not strong.
ARGUMENTS
IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
URGENT PRAYER FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND STATUS Quo ANTE ORDER
I
:: See: La.d/ad v. ~elasco, supra; Gumabon .v. Dir. of Prisons [G.R. No. L-30026, January 30, 1971]. 11
In the case of D1macuha v. Han. Concepcton [G.R. No. L-60842, September 30, 1982], the Supreme
Court, in a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction, ordered the judge therein motu proprio to I
I
I
-~
I!
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65)
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
Page 61 L
SUPREME COURT
150. There are two (2) essential requisites for the issuance of a
r
TRO and/ or a prelin1inary injunction: (a) the showing of a clear and
positive right especially calling for judicial protection or a right in
esse; and (b) the violation and proof of violation of an actually
!
'i
existing right.
i
1:
151. As shown above, Petitioner has clear and positive right to 1i
personal liberty: and security, the right to bail, and the right to due 1:
I
11
11
II
1
-, 1-fernandez v. Albano, et al., 19 SCRA 95 (January 25, 1967).
72
Dimayuga, et al., v.. fernandez, 43 Phil 304; 1-fernandez v. Albano, supra; Fortun v. Labang, et al., G.R. No.
L-38383, May 27, 1981.
73
1<i
75
Planas v. Gil, 67 Phil 62.
Rustia v. Ocampo, CA-G.R. No. 4760, March 25, 1960
Paderanga v. Ori/of"/, 196 SCRA 86, April 19, 1991 citing Salonga v. Pano, et al., 134 SCRA 438, February
I
11
18, 1985.
'1t.: ... I'
,... I - n "I I ,.. ..... ..., A I\.-- '1 '1 l"'\r'">. I. ... ,... n ... ,....,..J.. ,.. ,.,.,. rrl " /11nn Drinr(.:J t=nrilP (.)1 ~1 1q? I
11
i
~I
/1
/!
I
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65)
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al. Page 62
SUPREME COURT
I
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and. CERTIORARI (Rule 65)
Page 63
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
CLOSING STATEMENT
l "The sovereign power has the inherent: right to protect itself and its
people front vicious acts which endanger the proper administration of
justice; hence, the State has every right to prosecute and punish
violators of the law. This is essential for its self preservation, nay, its
very existence. But this does not confer a license for pointless assaults
on its citizens. Tlte right of the State to prosecute is not a carte
blanche for govermnent agents to defy and disregmd the rigltt-s
of its citizeus undei- the Constitution. Coufiuemeut, 1egardless of
duratiou, iq too high a price to pay for teckless and impulsive
prosecuUau. "79
And the protector of the people is like him; /Javing a mob entirely at
llis disposal, /Je is not restrained from shedding the blood of
kinsmen; by t/Je favourite method of false accusation he brings
them into court and murders them, making the life of man to
disappear, and with unholy tongue and lips tasting the blood of
llis fellow citizen, some he kills and others he banishes, at the
same time hinting at the abolition of debts and partition of lands:
and after this, what will be his destiny? Must he not either perish at
the hands of his enemies, or from being a man become a wolf--that is,
a tyrant?
Inevitably.. .
'
18
Preys/er, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 527 Phil. 129,136 (2006), citing Cortez-Estrada v. Heirs of Domingo
Samut/Antonia sar:-iut. 491 Phil. 458, 472 (2005); Los Boos Rural Bank, Inc. v. Africa, 433 Phil. 930, 945
-i-
i
11nn?\
1'.'
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 64
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
/1
Presidential elections, has a ni.ob entirely at his disposal." For one,
/1
Ii
Petitioner still .believes in the independence and itnpartiality of this
Honorable Court, and, thus, fervently believes that the ni.erit of her 11
Petition will be discerned and the rightful reliefs shall be accorded to J!.
her. Ji
1:
1]
:1
II
PRAYER 11
I'
i
WHEREFORE, pre1nises considered, and in the interest o.f II
Ir
Respectfully subn1itted.
~ ,!
II
f,, -
, )
PETITION FOR PROHIBITION and CERTIORARI (Rule 65) Page 65
De Lima v. Judge Guerrero, et al.
SUPREME COURT
, .......,._.
:I
:1
11
![
:I
11
!I
11
II
ii
i1
1:
i
I'ii
1[
~ I
(
Law Offices ii
I
' Rm 901-902, 9th Floor, FilGarcia Tower, !II'.
140 Kalayaan Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City i 1
i1
Office Tel. Nos. 924-2396/924-8552 11
11
By:
i
... l.I..,
~I .
(
. ,,
0
~. RIGOROSO
PTR :/Y58038~;1Q.L'Q4/17; Q.C.
IBP# 105589 01/04/17; Q.C.
MCLE Compliance o. V-0005526; 01/14/15
(Valid from April 15, 2016 until April 14, 2019)
Roll# 42240 ,
1-
Copy furnished:
1
1
HON. JUANITA GUERRERO,
Branch 204, Regional Trial Court
Muntinlupa City Hall of Justice
National Road, Tunasan
Muntinlupa City
.
.,
I
I
I
ii
--,,
'
SOLICITOR GENERAL
Counsel for the People of the Philippines
No. 134 An1orsolo St.
Legaspi Village, Makati City
Director i11
PNP I-Ieadquarters Support Service
Can1p Craine, Quezon City .......i
i\
_
iII
SUPT. ARNELJAMANDRON APUD :f
!1.
'I
Chief :j
11
'I
11
11
I1[
i
EXPLANATION 11
TED~BAN F. RIGOROSO
, I
--;-~ .......-.
,I
I,
1'
1 I
11
.
L~IMA
Petitioner
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before ine this 24th day of
February 2017 in Quezon City, affiant exhibiting to ine her C0111petent
Evidence of Identification, which bears her photo and signature,
consisting of Passport No. EC6183823 issued on 10 Dece111ber 2015
by DFA Manila.
Se1ies of 2017.
II'\'['"::.
~ ~1: :'. ~ 1 I, :'
"[. \ ":\'
\' . ; :~ I
[\ i .' t '' '1: \ ', i ~:
i .
I
T I
\.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES }
QUEZON CITY } S.S.
AFFIDAVIT
- f
4. Still, during the saine hearing on ;2. Dece111ber 2016, I filed
an Omnibus Motion to l111nzediately Endorse the Cases to the Q[fice
<?l the Ombuds111m1 and for the Inhibition of the Panel qf Prosecutors
cmd the Secretary of Justice, a copy of which is attached as An.ncx
"D" to the Petition. In the 011111ibus Motion, n1y counsel entered "his
. ...,..._. .
special and lilnited appearance in these cases for the purpose of
.fi"ling the instant 0111nibus Motion, and for any possible hearing
and/01 pleading that- 111ay be required in relation to this 111otion."
. 0/
''1:1
,1l
I
(,
a. Peter Co, Vicente Sy and Jojo Baligad's request for
additional tiine to subn1it counter-affidavit was
denied;
b. Rainier Cruz was given until 27 Dece111ber 2016 to
file his counter-affidavit
'
c. Jaybee Sebastian was directed to sub111it a duly
subscribed counter-affidavit until 27 Dece111ber
2016;
d. Respondents with no counter-affidavits, including __ ....._
n1yself, will no longer be allowed to belatedly
subn1it their counter-affidavits; and
e. The case was declared subn1itted for resolution and
all pending incidents will be resolved together with
the inerits of the case in one resolution.
(
10.i. The Infonnation charges nle, Rafael Ragos and Ronnie
Dayan of illegal drug trading punishable under Section 5,
in relation to Section 3 Gj), Section 26 (b) and Section 28
of Republic Act No. 9165 (C01nprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002), con1n1itted allegedly, as follows:
4
Planas v. Gil, 67 Pllil 62.
r, Rustia v. Ocampo, CA-G.R. No. 4760, March 25, 1960.
i; Pacleranga v. Drilon, 196 SCRA 86, April 19, 1991 citing Sa/onga v. Pano, et al., 134 SCRA 438,
February 18, 1985.
Rocffir;uez v. Castelo, G.R. No. L-6374, August 1, 1953; Uno Broc/(a, et al., v. Juan Ponce Enrile, et
render ineffectual and n1oot the evaluation of the 111erits of the n1ain
petition.
LEi~A
Alfiant
~7.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before ine this J/f/-l11 day of
February 2017 in Quezon City, affiant exhibiting to 111e her Cmnpetent
Evidence of Identification, which bears her photo and signature,
consisting of Passport No. EC6183823 issued on 10 Dece111ber 2015
by DFA Manila.
U?.~
r. \i, ~ rl :~;. 1 J ... ! ... ;: 11
1.1 ::.:"
l, : .; ,
'' Preys/er, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 527 Phil. 129, 136 (2006), citing Cortez-Estrada v. Heirs of
- ---- ..... '"""' 1 n . . . 1. '-- J\t.,,.: ......... A'l"l
-~---
1
REPUBLIC OF TI-IE PHILIPPINES )
City of Manila ) S.S.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
SOLICITOR GENERAL
Co1msel for the People of the Philippines
No. 134 Amorsolo St. f2J? :r'-Y 06'1 G5\-
Legaspi Village, Makati City
Cl1ilif" ~
11
I:
ji
with return cards issued by !Qioir.i'oi-.~ i;tt1V11m fo$T offlu:
I!
under the respective Registry Receipt Nuni.bers indicated 11
1]
above, all dated 27 February 2017.
l
I~ WITNESS_ WHERE~~' I l~av.e hereun~~ se~ 111y hand this 27th
day of i:.ebruary 2017 at CJ1YOF MANILA , Ph1hpp1nes.
<
RO~ R. SIAZON
Affiant-
Doc. No.___lfk
Page No.~{__
ATT.Y. FR
NOT ARY
~~- ZARATE
PU~C~ ~1. - 2018
NOT AIHAL COMMIS~ION N0.2017 OG1/ML:A.
Book No ..f_QJ_ TIN ND. ma-2:::isJ~::f lROU N0.17574
Series of 2017. !Bf' t)Jt NO. ut{i'l"l7J-MLf,.f'l'l/1 citt6 FORYR 2017
Pl'R MO. 59~::5225/V./l.ltl LA/'l-3.. 2017
Mtu: EXEMrnm~. 1.:r..>_ v-o-OC>U!:lUHTll' 201~
GS3P-.EAURASJ.EUVjff/~ NlA.16.., 7145710
f;
!1
' : ~ ~
I:
I
__:.;_
I
I,,
!I
ii
:.1
) 11
11
II
REPUBLIC OF TI-IE PI-IILIPPINES) S.S. I:
City of Manila )
II
Ii
II
VERIFIED DECLARATION ii
11
!I
PROHIBITION With Application for a Writ of Prelirninary Injunction, nn.d II
Urgenf Prayer for Tenzporary Restraining Order and Status Quo Ante Order i
I
(and annexes) hereto sub1nitted electronically in accordance with the
Efficient Use of Paper Rule is a con1plete and hue copy of the i
PETITION FOR CERTJORARI AND PROHIBITION With ApplicaNon. for a II
11
l!Vrir of Preliminrzry Injunction, and Urgent Prayer for TenLporary Restraining 1:
Order or Status Quo Ante Order (and am1exes) filed with the Supren1e
Court. I'
III
R~R.SIAZON
~I
:1
Affiant
II
l
I
Doc. No. 3/7 ii
!,,
Page No._ft!/_ ATTY. FR Ne;""". ' . . . ,...,..,, 1,
ANNEX DESCRIPTION
I
"E" Petition For Prohibition And Certiorari filed before the
Court of Appeals on 13 January 2017 11
,.