Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!
2) Yes. Under the prayer, petitioner asks for a writ of certiorari annulling petition and the Motion to Quash: the nulli fication of the Information and her
the Order dated February 23, 2017 finding probable cause, the warrant of restoration to liberty and freedom.
arrest and the Order dated February 24, 2017 committing petitioner to the
To restate for emphasis, the RTC has yet to rule o n the Motion to Quash. Thus,
custody of the PNP Custodial Center. Clearly petitioner seeks the recall of said
the present petition and the motion to quash before the R TC are
orders to effectuate her release from detention and restore her liberty. She
simultaneous actions that do not exempt petitions for certiorari from the rule
did not ask for the dismissal of the subject criminal case. Nowhere in the
against forum shopping.
prayer did petitioner explicitly ask for the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 17-
165. What is clear is she merely asked the respondent judge to rule on her Substantive Procedure:
Motion to Quash before issuing the warrant of arrest.
1) The Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction. The prefatory statements
In view of the foregoing, there is no other course of action to take than to and the accusatory portions of the Information repeatedly provide that the
dismiss the petition on the ground of prematurity and allow respondent petitioner is charged with "Viol ation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Judge to rule on the Motion to Quash according to the desire of petitioner. Act of 2002, Section 5, in relation to Section 3(jj), Section 26(b), and Section
28, Republic Act No. 9165." From the very designation of the crime in the
3) Yes. Forum shopping exists when the following elements are present:
Information itself, it should be plain that the crime with which the petitioner
(a) identity of parties, or at least such parties representing the same interests
is charged is a violation of RA 9165. As this Court clarified in Quimvel vs.
in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and rel iefs prayed for, the relief
People, the designation of the offense in the Information is a critical element
being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding
required under Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court in apprising the
particulars, such that any judgment rendered in the other action will,
accused of the offense being charged.
regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action
under consideration. 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
All these requisites are present in this case.
Direct Bribery under Article 210 of the RPC. As Justice Martires articulately
Trusted by over 1 million members
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions!
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)."
2) No. 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 the prosecutor's resolution and its supporting
evidence within a limited period of only ten (10) days.