SC junks De Lima motion to recall arrest warrant | Inquirer News

SC junks De Lima motion to recall arrest warrant

By: - Reporter / @JhoannaBINQ
/ 12:58 PM October 10, 2017

In this file photo taken on June 30, 2017, Senator Leila de Lima gives her sentiments to the media as she steps out of the Muntinlupa regional trial court room following the deferment of a court proceeding for her second drug trade charge.
PHOTO BY ERMA EDERA / PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER

(Updated 4:02 p.m., Oct. 10) Senator Leila de Lima will remain in detention as the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday dismissed her petition to recall the arrest warrant issued against her.

Under the same petition, the senator’s prayer to dismiss the illegal drug charges filed against her was also rejected.

Article continues after this advertisement

Voting 9-6, the SC en banc ruled to reject De Lima’s motion to recall her warrant of arrest issued by the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court.

FEATURED STORIES

The six justices who dissented from the main ruling are Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, Associate Justices Estela Perlas-Bernabe, Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa and Francis Jardeleza.

The decision was penned by Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., whom de Lima had asked to inhibit from the case for allegedly pushing the acquittal of a New Bilibid Prison (NBP) drug lord.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: De Lima tells SC to side with truth, justice in her drug case

Article continues after this advertisement

According to a summary of the decision sent to the press, the SC ruled that all drug cases are under the jurisdiction of the regional trial court (RTC) and not the Sandiganbayan, regardless of the official’s salary grade and whether the crime was committed in relation to his or her duties.

Article continues after this advertisement

“It also noted that the exclusive original jurisdiction of the RTC over violations of (Republic Act) 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 to have been committed in relation to the office being occupied,” the decision read.

“The Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction is limited to violations of the anti-graft laws and do not extend to violations of the drugs law,” it added.

Article continues after this advertisement

It also ruled that the judge handling the case, Judge Juanita Guerrero of the Muntinlupa RTC Branch 204, did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing an arrest warrant against her.

“The Court noted that respondent judge considered all the evidence presented at the preliminary investigation and not simply the report and the supporting evidence the prosecution proposed to present at the trial, which was based on the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation,” the decision noted.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) in February filed three criminal charges against De Lima for supposedly receiving bribes from NBP drug lords in exchange of their protection during her term as Justice secretary. The agency also accused De Lima of using the money from illegal drug trade to fund her 2016 senatorial campaign.

She was charged with three counts of violation of Section No. 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 in relation to trafficking and criminal liability of government officials.

De Lima, a staunch critic of President Rodrigo Duterte, is currently detained at the Philippine National Police Custodial Center in Camp Crame.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

The senator has maintained her innocence and claimed that her detention is the government’s way of silencing her and those who oppose Duterte’s deadly campaign against illegal drugs. /jpv

TAGS: De Lima, drug case, Senate, Supreme Court

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.