SENATOR LEILA M.
DE LIMA, Petitioner
vs.
HON. JUANITA GUERRERO, in her capacity as Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, P/DIR.
GEN. RONALD M. DELA ROSA, in his capacity as Chief of the Philippine National
Police, PSUPT. PHILIP GIL M. PHILIPPS, in his capacity as Director,
Headquarters Support Service, SUPT. ARNEL JAMANDRON APUD, in his
capacity as Chief, PNP Custodial Service Unit, and ALL PERSONS ACTING
UNDER THEIR CONTROL, SUPERVISION, INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION IN
RELATION TO THE ORDERS THAT MAY BE ISSUED BY THE COURT,
Respondents, Securities and Exchange Commission), Respondents.
G.R. No. 229781 October 10, 2017
ILLEGAL DRUG TRADING
BILIBID HIGH PROFILE INMATES
SENATOR DE LIMA - 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 (lllegal Drug Trading) – as Conspirator – a Broker or the
middleman
Nature of the Case: For consideration is the PETITION FOR CERTIORARI AND
PROHIBITION WITH APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND
URGENT PRAYER FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND STATUS QUO ANTE
ORDER1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner Senator Leila De Lima.
In it, petitioner assails the following orders and warrant issued by respondent judge
Hon. Juanita Guerrero of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204,
in Criminal Case No. 17-165, entitled "People vs. Leila De Lima, et al.:" (1) the Order
dated February 23, 2017 finding probable cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest
against petitioner De Lima; (2) the Warrant of Arrest against De Lima also dated
February 23, 2017; (3) the Order dated February 24, 2017 committing the petitioner to
the custody of the PNP Custodial Center; and finally, (4) the supposed omission of the
respondent judge to act on petitioner's Motion to Quash, through which she questioned
the jurisdiction of the RTC
SC Decision:
With the foregoing disquisitions, the provisional reliefs prayed for, as a consequence,
have to be rejected.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for prohibition and certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of
merit. The Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204 is ordered to proceed
with dispatch with Criminal Case N6.17-165.
Facts:
That within the period from November 2012 to March 2013, in the City of
Muntinlupa, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
accused Leila M. De Lima, being then the Secretary of the Department of Justice,
and accused Rafael Marcos Z. Rages, being then the Officer-in-Charge of the
Bureau of Corrections, by taking advantage of their public office, conspiring and
confederating with accused Ronnie P. Dayan, being then an employee of the
Department of Justice detailed to De Lima, all of them having moral ascendancy
or influence over inmates in the New Bilibid Prison, did then and there commit
illegal drug trading, in the following manner: De Lima and Ragos, with the use of
their power, position, and authority, demand, solicit and extort money from the
high profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison to support the senatorial bid of De
Lima in the May 2016 election; by reason of which, the inmates, not being
lawfully authorized by law and through the use of mobile phones and other
electronic devices, did then and there willfully and unlawfully trade and traffic
dangerous drugs, and thereafter give and deliver to De Lima, through Ragos and
Dayan, the proceeds of illegal drug trading amounting to Five Million
(₱5,000,000.00) Pesos on 24 November 2012, Five Million (₱5,000,000.00)
Pesos on 15 December 2012, and One Hundred Thousand (₱100,000.00) Pesos
weekly "tara" each from the high profile inmates in the New Bilibid Prison.
Issue: WON the petitioner is guilty of the crime charged to her. (YES)
Ruling: YES. On this score, that it has not been alleged that petitioner actually
participated in the actual trafficking of dangerous drugs and had simply allowed the
NBP inmates to do so is non sequitur given that the allegation of conspiracy makes her
liable for the acts of her co-conspirators. As this Court elucidated, it is not indispensable
for a co-conspirator to take a direct part in every act of the crime. A conspirator need
not even know of all the parts which the others have to perform,81 as conspiracy is the
common design to commit a felony; it is not participation in all the details of the
execution of the crime. 82 As long as the accused, in one way or another, helped and
cooperated in the consummation of a felony, she is liable as a co-principal.83 As the
Information provides, De Lima's participation and cooperation was instrumental in the
trading of dangerous drugs by the NBP inmates. The minute details of this participation
and cooperation are matters of evidence that need not be specified in the Information
but presented and threshed out during trial.
The same may be said of the second mode for committing Illegal Trading, or
trading by "acting as a broker" in transactions involved in Illegal Trafficking. In this
instance, the accused may neither have physical possession of the drugs nor meet the
buyer and seller and yet violate RA 9165. As pointed out by Justice Perlas-Bernabe, as
early as 1916, jurisprudence has defined a broker as one who is simply a middleman,
negotiating contracts relative to property with which he has no custody, viz.:
A broker is generally defined as one who is engaged, for others, on a commission,
negotiating contracts relative to property with the custody of which he has no concern;
the negotiator between other parties, never acting in his own name, but in the name of
those who employed him; he is strictly a middleman and for some purposes the agent
of both parties.84 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
In some cases, this Court even acknowledged persons as brokers even "where they
actually took no part in the negotiations, never saw the customer."85 For the Court, the
primary occupation of a broker is simply bringing "the buyer and the seller together,
even if no sale is eventually made. "
