DELIMA vs. JUDGE GUERRERO G.R. No.

229781, OCTOBER 13, 2017

De Lima is charged with violation of RA 9165: The designation, the prefatory statements
and the accusatory portions of the Information repeatedly provide that the petitioner is
charged with "Violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Section 5, in
relation to Section 3(jj), Section 26(b), and Section 28, Republic Act No. 9165." While it may
be argued that some facts may be taken as constitutive of some elements of Direct Bribery
under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), these facts taken together with the other allegations in
the Information portray a much bigger picture, Illegal Drug Trading.

Jurisdiction over drug-related cases is exclusively vested with the Regional Trial Court
and no other. 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
exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 is not transferred to the
Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or higher,
regardless of whether the violation is alleged as committed in relation to office. The
Sandiganbayan primarily sits as a special anti-graft court pursuant to a specific injunction in
the 1973 Constitution. It should occasion no surprise, therefore, that the Sandiganbayan is
without jurisdiction to hear drug-related cases.

Respondent judge did not abuse her discretion in finding probable cause to order the
petitioner's arrest. 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
Court117 required the respondent judge to evaluate the prosecutor's resolution and its
supporting evidence within a limited period of only ten (10) days.

In finding probable cause the Court cannot consider the respondent judge to have evaded her
duty or refused to perform her obligation to satisfy herself that substantial basis exists for the
petitioner's arrest when she based her findings on the evidence presented during the
preliminary investigation and not on the report and supporting documents submitted by the
prosecutor as argued by petitioner. It may perhaps even be stated that respondent judge
performed her duty in a manner that far exceeds what is required of her by the rules when she
reviewed all the evidence, not just the supporting documents.