G.R. No. 229781 , October 10, 2017
SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, Petitioner, vs. HON. JUANITA GUERRERO, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The case originated from legislative inquiries into drug trafficking at the New Bilibid Prison, leading to the filing of several complaints against Senator Leila De Lima with the Department of Justice (DOJ). A DOJ Panel conducted a preliminary investigation. De Lima filed an Omnibus Motion arguing that the Office of the Ombudsman had exclusive jurisdiction over the complaints against her, a public official, and sought the inhibition of the DOJ Panel. The Panel denied her motions and, after she opted not to submit a counter-affidavit, issued a Joint Resolution recommending the filing of Informations. De Lima filed a petition before the Court of Appeals challenging the DOJ’s jurisdiction. Pending that petition, the DOJ filed three Informations in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa. One, docketed as Criminal Case No. 17-165, was raffled to Branch 204 presided by Judge Juanita Guerrero. The Information charged De Lima with illegal drug trading under RA 9165.
The RTC judge issued an Order finding probable cause for arrest and a corresponding Warrant of Arrest against De Lima. The court also issued an Order committing her to the custody of the PNP Custodial Center. De Lima filed a Motion to Quash the Information, primarily questioning the RTC’s jurisdiction, arguing the Ombudsman had exclusive authority. The judge did not act on this motion prior to issuing the arrest warrant. De Lima then filed the instant Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition directly with the Supreme Court, assailing the RTC’s orders and warrant, and its failure to resolve her Motion to Quash.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Regional Trial Court committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the warrant of arrest and the commitment order against Senator De Lima without first resolving her Motion to Quash which challenged the court’s jurisdiction.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition. The Court held that the respondent judge did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The ruling is anchored on the distinction between jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the person of the accused, and the proper procedure for raising jurisdictional challenges. The Court explained that jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the information. The Information against De Lima alleged violations of RA 9165, a law within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC. Therefore, on its face, the RTC had jurisdiction.
The Court further ruled that a motion to quash an information based on lack of jurisdiction over the offense charged is not the proper remedy to invoke the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. The authority of the Ombudsman to investigate is not a jurisdictional issue but pertains to the authority of the investigating prosecutor. Any question regarding the Ombudsman’s exclusive investigative authority is a matter of preliminary investigation, the absence or irregularity of which does not affect the court’s jurisdiction nor constitute a ground to quash the information. Such a defect is deemed waived if not raised before arraignment, and it does not invalidate the information or render it void. Consequently, the respondent judge was not obligated to resolve the Motion to Quash before determining probable cause for the issuance of an arrest warrant. The determination of probable cause for arrest is a separate and distinct function from resolving a motion to quash. The judge personally evaluated the prosecution’s evidence and found probable cause, fulfilling her constitutional duty. No grave abuse of discretion was found in this process.