Why Drug Cases Stay in Regional Trial Courts Even for Small Amounts

The question of which court hears a drug case can determine how quickly it moves and which rules apply. In Morales v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 126623, December 12, 1997), the Supreme Court settled a recurring confusion: even when the penalty for a drug offense is six years or less, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) — not the Metropolitan Trial Court — has jurisdiction. The ruling clarifies how special laws like the Dangerous Drugs Act interact with the general rules on court jurisdiction.

The Case: A Small Amount of Shabu, a Big Jurisdictional Question

Ernesto Morales was charged before the RTC of Pasay City with selling 0.4587 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug, in violation of Section 15 in relation to Section 20 of the Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. No. 6425), as amended by R.A. No. 7659.

Morales moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the RTC lacked jurisdiction. His theory: under R.A. No. 7691, which expanded the jurisdiction of lower courts, offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years belong to the Metropolitan Trial Court. Since the quantity involved was small, the imposable penalty would not exceed prision correccional (six months and one day to six years), so the case should be heard by the lower court.

The RTC denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals dismissed Morales's petition for certiorari — but on a different ground. The appellate court said it had no jurisdiction over the case because the issue involved the jurisdiction of a lower court, which it believed was exclusively for the Supreme Court.

The Issues Before the Supreme Court

Two questions were presented:

1. Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to hear a petition for certiorari questioning an RTC order denying a motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds?
2. Did the RTC have jurisdiction over a drug offense where the imposable penalty did not exceed six years?

The Ruling: The Court of Appeals Had Jurisdiction, and So Did the RTC

The Supreme Court ruled for Morales on the first issue but against him on the second.

On the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals was wrong to dismiss the petition. Under Section 9(1) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction — concurrent with the Supreme Court — to issue writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, habeas corpus, and quo warranto. These are original actions, not appeals.

The constitutional provision giving the Supreme Court exclusive review over cases where the jurisdiction of a lower court is in issue refers to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, not its original jurisdiction. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is a new action, not a continuation of the original suit. Since Morales filed such an action, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear it.

On the RTC's jurisdiction over drug cases. Here, the Court applied the penalty guidelines from People v. Simon and related cases. For shabu, the rules are:

• 200 grams or more: reclusion perpetua to death
• 134 to 199 grams: reclusion temporal
• 66 to 133 grams: prision mayor
• 65 grams or below: prision correccional

Since Morales was charged with only 0.4587 grams, the maximum penalty would be prision correccional — six years or less. Under R.A. No. 7691, that would normally place the case in the Metropolitan Trial Court.

But the Court found a crucial exception. Section 32 of B.P. Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, gives lower courts jurisdiction over offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years, except in cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and of the Sandiganbayan. The exact statutory text of this exception is not available in the ASG law library, but the Supreme Court's ruling in this case confirms that such an exception exists and applies.

Section 39 of the Dangerous Drugs Act vests exclusive original jurisdiction over all violations of the Act in the RTC (formerly the Court of First Instance). That special law prevails over the general jurisdictional rules. R.A. No. 7691, being merely an amendment to the Judiciary Reorganization Act, did not repeal Section 39.

The Court also explained that the abolition of the Courts of First Instance under B.P. Blg. 129 did not eliminate their jurisdiction over drug cases — the RTC simply replaced the old courts in name.

Practical Takeaways

• Drug cases stay in RTCs. Regardless of the quantity of the illegal drug involved, violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act are heard by Regional Trial Courts, not by Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts.
• Penalty determines the applicable rules, not the court. The quantity of drugs affects the imposable penalty under R.A. No. 7659, but it does not change which court has jurisdiction.
• Special laws prevail over general jurisdictional rules. A specific grant of jurisdiction in a special law like the Dangerous Drugs Act overrides the general provisions of R.A. No. 7691.
• The Court of Appeals can hear certiorari petitions on jurisdictional questions. A petition under Rule 65 questioning an RTC's denial of a motion to dismiss is an original action within the appellate court's concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court.
• The remedy against an interlocutory order. A denial of a motion to dismiss is generally interlocutory and not appealable, but certiorari may lie if the court acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.