On the issue on jurisdiction we concur with the petitioner

contentions.

In the case at bar, Petitioner argues that the offense charges

the accused of committing the following acts: 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 then the Secretary of
the Department of Justice, and accused Rafael Marcos Z. Ragos
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 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; On the
basis of the Panel of Prosecutors own finding, it is clear that the
crime allegedly committed is Direct Bribery. Under Section 4 of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1606 as amended, provides that the
Sandiganbayan shall have exclusive original jurisdiction under
Sec. 4. That the Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original
jurisdiction in all cases involving Violations of Republic Act No.
3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Republic Act No. 1379, and Chapter II, Section 2,
Title VII, Book II of the Revised Penal Code, where one or more of
the accused are officials occupying the following positions in the
government, whether in a permanent, acting or interim capacity,
at the time of the commission of the offense the officials of the
executive branch occupying the positions of regional director and
higher, otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher, of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic
Act No. 6758), specifically including the other offenses or felonies
whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the
public officials and employees mentioned in subsection (a) of this
section in relation to their office.

Republic Act ("RA") No. 6758, on the other hand, provides that
the position of the Secretary of Justice is assigned the Salary
Grade of 31 viz. Under Section 8 Salaries of Constitutional
Officials and their Equivalent, the salary of the following officials
shall be in accordance with the Salary Grades indicated hereunder
GRADE 31 This Grade is assigned to Senators and Members of
the House of Representatives and those with equivalent rank as
follows, the Executive Secretary, Department Secretary,
Presidential Spokesman, Ombudsman, Press Secretary,
Presidential Assistant with Cabinet Rank, Presidential Adviser,
National Economic and Development Authority Director General,
Court of Appeals Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan Presiding
Justice, Secretary of the Senate, Secretary of the House of
Representatives, and President of the University of the Philippines .
Further petitioner contends that an offense charged by the
accused is clearly in relation to the office of the accused as it was
done in relation to her power, position, and authority as Secretary
of Justice which constitutes exclusively cognizable by the
Sandiganbayan.

The Respondent on the hand other argues that RTC has

exclusive jurisdiction over the offense charged. Jurisdiction of a
court over the subject matter is vested by law. In criminal cases,
the imposable penalty of the crime charged in the information or
the nature of the offense determines the court that has
jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, the court issued Circular
No. 20 dated August 7, 1987, the pertinent parts of which are as
follows the Designation of certain Branches of the Regional Trial
Court to handle exclusively certain Criminal Cases. The Trial judge
has the primary responsibility to minimize delay and dispense
swift justice. This is specially true in criminal cases involving
serious offenses where a strong and adequate response from the
courts by way of speedy trial and judgement can serve to deter
criminal elements. Furthermore Violations of the Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972, as amended, cognizable by Regional Trial Court under
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129. Thereafter on June 7, 2002, R.A. No.
9165 was enacted. Consistent with its precursor law, R.A. No.
9165 provides: Sec. 90 Jurisdiction that the Supreme Court shall
designate special courts from among the existing Regional Trial
Court in each judicial region to exclusively try and hear cases
involving violation of this Act. The number of court designated in
each judicial region shall be based on the population and the
number cases pending in their respective jurisdiction. Thus,
Respondent contends that RTCs have exclusive and original
jurisdiction over drug cases.

In the above mentioned contentions of the Petitioner and

Solicitor General this court strongly believes that the basic
principle of the court must first resolve the issue of lack of
jurisdiction before issuing a Warrant of Arrest. And that the very
filling of a Motion to Quash particularly puts the court on notice
that it might be about to deprive innocent person of her liberty
thus making it imperative for the court to act with judicious
deliberation. As what was decreed by in the case of Miranda v.
Tuliao which was reiterated in the case of Paul Roberts vs. Court
of Appeals (254 SCRA 307), the custody of the law and jurisdiction
over the person, stating that one can be under the custody of the
law but not yet subject to the jurisdiction of the court over his
person, such as when a person arrested by virtue of a warrant
files a motion before arraignment to quash the warrant. The
Court was ordered to hold the issuance of a warrant of arrest in
abeyance pending review by the Secretary of Justice. According
to Section 3 (b), Rule 117 of the Rules of Court provides that the
accused may move to quash the complaint or information on any
of the following grounds: That the court trying the case has no
jurisdiction over the offense charged. This is because the
Sandiganbayan has exclusive original jurisdiction over offenses or
felonies. the offense or felony is committed by one of those public
officials and employees mentioned in subsection (A) of Section 4
of PD 1606, which include, among others, officials of the
Executive Branch occupying the positions of Regional Director and
higher, otherwise classified as Grade '27' and higher of the
Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic
Act No. 6758); and Second, when the offense or felony was
committed in relation to their office.

Indisputable, the Respondent judge committed grave abuse

lack of excess jurisdiction in the issuing questioned order and
warrant of arrest, Respondent Judge ignored a pending incident
and effectively brushed aside the merits of the motion to quash,
which seriously impugns the jurisdiction of the court and that
offense is committed is in relation to the office of the accused as a
public officials and employees mentioned of Section 4 of PD 1606.