CASE 2017-0033: SENATOR LEILA M. DE LIMA, PETITIONER, -VERSUS – 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 VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PERALTA, 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. (G.R. NO. 229781, 10 OCTOBER 20017, VELASCO, JR., J.) (SUBJECT/S: PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION; JURAT; FORUM SHOPPING; HEIRARCHY OF COURTS; PREMATURE FILING OF CERTIORARI PETITION; HEARSAY EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE IN PRELIM INVESTIGATION) (BRIEF TITLE: SEN. DE LIMA VS. JUDGE GUERRERO ET AL.)

  

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the instant petition for prohibition and certiorari is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Regional Trial Court of Muntin~a City, Branch 204 is ordered to proceed with dispatch with Criminal Case N6. 17-165.

 

SO ORDERED.”

  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

  

“Petitioner would later confine herself to the contention that the prosecution’s evidence is inadmissible, provided as they were by petitioner’s co-accused who are convicted felons and whose testimonies are but hearsay evidence.

 

Nowhere in Ramos v. Sandiganbayan 137 -the case relied upon by petitioner -did this Court rule that testimonies given by a co-accused are of no value. The Court simply held that said testimonies should be received with great caution, but not that they would not be considered. The testimony of Ramos’ co-accused was, in fact, admitted in the cited case. Furthermore, this Court explicitly ruled in Estrada v. Office of the Ombudsman138 that hearsay evidence is admissible during preliminary investigation. The Court held thusly:

 

Thus, probable cause can be established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the hearsay. Hearsay evidence is admissible in determining probable cause in a preliminary investigation because such investigation is merely preliminary, and does not finally adjudicate rights and obligations of parties.139 (Emphasis supplied.)

 

Verily, the admissibility of evidence, 140 their evidentiary weight, probative value, and the credibility of the witness are matters that are best left to be resolved in a full-blown trial, 141 not during a preliminary investigation where the technical rules of evidence are not applied 142 nor at the stage of the determination of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Thus, the better alternative is to proceed to the conduct of trial on the merits for the petitioner and the prosecution to present their respective evidence in support of their allegations.”

 

 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2017-0033-Senator Leila M. De Lima Vs. Hon. Juanita Guerrero, et al. 

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.