Delima vs Guerrero

Facts: Petitioner was charged for the crime of Illegal Drug Trading under Section 5, Section 26, and 28 of
R.A 9165. Complaints against petitioner was first filed to the DOJ which created for such purpose the
DOJ Panel. DOJ Panel ruled against the petitioner disregarding her argument that the Ombudsman, not
the DOJ has jurisdiction over her case. Petitioner filed in the CA motion for prohibition assailing the
jurisdiction of DOJ over the complaints.

DOJ proceeded with the preliminary investigation and rendered its resolution recommending the filing
of information against petitioner. The case was then filed in RTC presided by the respondent.

Petitioner once again raised the issue of jurisdiction, this time against RTC by filing a motion to quash.
Respondent found probable cause to issue warrant of arrest against petitioner.

While her motion to quash is pending in RTC, Petitioner filed a petition to the Supreme Court praying
that the respondent judge to enjoin from deciding the case until her motion to quash has been resolved.

The OSG on the other hand commented that the petitioner violated the hierarchy of courts.

Issue#1 W/N Petitioner violated the hierarchy of courts?

Ruling: Yes. The principle of hierarchy of courts is designed to shield the Court from having to deal with
causes that is well within the competence of lower courts in order for the Court to focus on more
pressing and fundamental tasks assigned to it by the Constitution.

Jurisprudence laid few exceptions to this rule where immediate resort to the SC will be entertained.
(1) when genuine issues of constitutionality are raised that must be addressed immediately;

(2) when the case involves transcendental importance;

(3) when the case is novel;

(4) when the constitutional issues raised are better decided by this Court;

(5) when time is of the essence;

(6) when the subject of review involves acts of a constitutional organ;

(7) when there is no other plain, speedy, adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law;

(8) when the petition includes questions that may affect public welfare, public policy, or demanded
by the broader interest of justice;

(9) when the order complained of was a patent nullity; and

(10) when the appeal was considered as an inappropriate remedy.

None of the above instances are present in the petition to convince the court t. To brush aside the
rules on hierarchy of courts. The Court will not relax its rules because of the fact that petitioner
belongs to a political party.

The hallmark of independent judiciary is political neutrality.

Issue#2 W/N the petition is premature

Ruling: Yes.

The prayer of petitioner specifically prayer (b) specifically stated that her motion to quash is yet to be
resolved in the lower court.

“b. Granting a writ of prohibition enjoining and prohibiting respondent judge from conducting
further proceedings until and unless the Motion to Quash is resolved with finality”

The Supreme Court need an existent and actual order to be reviewed not a non-existent one since her
case under the RTC is yet to be decided.

present petition is immediately dismissible for this Court lacks jurisdiction to review a non-existent court
action. It can only act to protect a party from a real and actual ruling by a lower tribunal.

Issue# 3 Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the case.

Ruling: Yes.

Petitioner argues that under the information she is charged with direct bribery a crime cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan, not by Illegal Drug Trading.

Settled is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter of criminal case is given only by law in the
manner and form prescribed by law. I is determined by the statute in force at the time of the
commencement of the action.

 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. no other trial court was mentioned in
RA 9165 as having the authority to take cognizance of drug-related cases.

The Sandiganbayan was created to hear graft and corruption cases not drug related cases.