Guingona vs. CA

 

CIVPRO: General Principles of Remedial Law 1. Judicial Power GR No. 125532 July 10, 1998 Panganiban, J. Grace Petitioners: Respondents: [DPJ] Sec. Teofisto Guingona, Jr .; .; State Prosecutors Prosecutors   Court of Appeals, Appeals, Rodolfo Pineda  Pineda   (alleged Jude Romano, Leah Armamento, Manuel Torrevillas, gambling lord) Joaquin Escovar, Menrado Corpus; National Bureau of Investigation; Potenciano Roque (former Roque (former chair of Task Force Ant-Gambling – Ant-Gambling – TFAG)  TFAG) Recit Ready Summary

0 1 

Guingona vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Roque, claiming to be an eyewitness and having first-hand information to alleged involvement of government officials in “jueteng” and other forms of illegal gambling, sought admission into RA 6981: Witness Protection, Security, and Benefit Program (WPP). DOJ Secretary Guingona eventually admitted him to the WPP. Roque executed a sworn statement to NBI, alleging that when he was the Chairman of the Task Force  Anti-Gambling, several politicians and gambling lords, including Respondent Pineda, would offer him bribe money for him to cease raiding their gambling operations. This T his was corroborated by a certain Sanchez and Gen. Mateo in their respective sworn statements. Pineda eventually questioned Roque’s admittance to the WPP so he filed a Petition for Reconsideration, but this was denied by Sec. Guingona. Meanwhile, State Prosecutors found probable cause against Pineda and filed 3 informations for corruption of public officials against him with Manila and Pasig Trial Courts. Pineda then filed with the CA a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus still questioning Roque’s WPP admission and to enjoin the trial courts to from hearing the criminal actions. CA granted this and issued a writ of preliminary injunction. The CA also ruled, however, that though the WPP requires that corroboration must have been a condition precedent to Roque’s admission to WPP. CA then eventually ruled in favor of the government and denied Pineda’s contentions. Issue: WON state witness’ testimony Issue:  testimony requires prior or simultaneous corroboration at the time he is admitted to the WPP? -- Inasmuch as Roque has already been admitted into the WPP and has actually finished testifying in court, the issue presented by petitioners has become moot. The Petition must fail. There are 3 requisites for Judicial Review: 1. There must be an actual case or controversy for the exercise of judicial power 2. The question must be ripe for adjudication 3. Challenger must h have ave standing, and has personal and substantial interest in the case Ppetitioners merely filed this suit fearing that the Decision would frustrate the purpose of the WPP, which is to encourage is witnesses come out testify. They aren’ t even asking to reverse the CA This apprehension neither to justified norand exemplified, and this apprehension does not giveruling! rise to a  justiciable controversy.  controversy.    After finding f inding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Prosecutors, CA allowed R oque’s admission to the WPP. Roque had even testified already in court against Pineda. Thus, the propriety of Roque’s admission to WPP is already moot and academic issue that clearly does not warrant judicial judi cial review. review.   Considering everything, petitioners failed to present an actual controversy and to show that this case is ripe for adjudication.  Also, it would be an invasion of the functions of the Executive Department if SC accedes to the government’s wishes to render an advisory opinion on what the Prosecutors Prosec utors should do – do  – when,  when, how, and whom to grant/deny admission to the WPP. The decision on whether to prosecute and whom to indict is executive in character. Only when an information, charging 2+ persons with a certain offense, has already been filed in court will Rule 119, Sec. 9 of the Rules of Court will come into play.

1

 

Facts – This Facts –  This is a petition for REVIEW IN CERTIORARI of a decision of the Court of Appeals 1. 4th  Quarter, 1995: National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an investigation on alleged involvement of government officials in “jueteng” and other forms of illegal gambling. (case was also the subject in a legislative inquiry by the congress). 2. Nov. 1995: Potenciano Roque Roque,, claiming to be an eyewitness of the interaction of politicians and gambling lords, sought admission into RA 6981: Witness Protection, Security, and Benefit Program (WPP/RA 6981) since 6981)  since he knew first-hand information inform ation due to his being Chairman of the Task Force Anti-Gambling (TFAG) under Pres. Cory Aquino. He says that he and his family are in danger of being “liquidated” (killed) due to his exposure in the “world of corruption.”  corruption.”   a. Dept. of Justice (DOJ)  (DOJ)  eventually admitted Roque to WPP, WPP, and provided him with monthly allowance, temporary shelter, and personal security during witness duty. 3.

30 Nov. that 1995: Roque a sworn statement before NBI Agents Agents, , Burgos and Bartolome, alleging during hisexecuted stint as Chairman of TFAG, TFAG, several gambling lords, including Rodolfo Pineda, and politicians would give him money to money to make him cease conducting raids on their gambling operations. a. Roque’s sworn statement, along with Sanchez’ and Gen. Mateo’s sworn statements, NBI Director Mison forwarded the investigation results to DOJ , recommending the filing of charges against Pineda and other persons. 4. WHILE ALL THAT WAS HAPPENING WITH NBI , a DOJ Task Force on Illegal Gambling, composed of petitioner Prosecutors, conducted a preliminary investigation of the case   and subpoenaed all the respondents respondents in  in LS No. 95-774 and required them to submit counter affidavits. Procedural History 1. 05 Jan. 1996: Pineda questioned Roque’s admittance in the WPP  WPP   and filed a Petition for Reconsideration. This was denied by DOJ Secretary Guingona. Guingona . 2. 23 Jan. 1996: Pineda filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the CA. 3. Feb. 1996: Prosecutors issued a resolution finding probable cause to charge Pineda   with several offenses, and subsequently filed 3 Informations for corruption of public officials against Pineda in Pineda  in Manila and Pasig City Trial Courts, and was arraigned in the same month. 4. 19 Mar. 1996: CA issue issued d a writ of preliminary in injunction junction enjoining both trial courts from hearing the criminal actions in the meantime. a. Pineda’s Contention with the CA: Roque’s admission was illegal as (1) his testimony could not be substantially corroborated in its material points; p oints; (2) he appeared to be the guilti guiltiest est than Pineda in the crimes charged. b. CA Ruling: i. RA 6981 (WPP) (WPP) contemplates 2 kinds of witnesses (a) witness who who has knowledge on the commission of a crime under Sec. 3; (b) a witness who is a participant of the crime under Sec. 10. ii. Based on Roque’s sworn statements, he participated in the crimes imputed to Pineda (corruption of public officials) by accepting the bribe money. Necessarily, his admission to the WPP is under Sec. 10, which requires that he should not appear as the guiltiest of the imputed crime. Although CA found that Pineda bribed Roque several times, this does not make Roque guiltier than Pineda. iii. Sec. 3&10 of RA 6891 expressly require corroboration as a condition precedent to admission into the WPP. But still upheld Roque’s position that his testimony was substantially corroborated by additional additional sworn testimonies by Sanchez’ and Gen. Mateo’s. In the end, CA ruled in favor of the government. Point/s of Contention Respondents (CA, Pineda): Secs. 3&10, RA 6891 expressly require that corroboration must already exist at the time of the witness’ (Roque) application as a prerequisite to admission into the WPP as a state witness. Petitioners (Prosecutors, Roque): Secs. 3&10, RA 6891 only require that the testimony of the state witness seeking admission into the WPP can be “substantially corroborated” or is “capable of corroboration” when he testifies in court. Issues Ruling 1. WON a witness’ testimony requires prior or simultaneous corroboration at the 1.  Yes BUT, this time he is admitted into the witness protection, security, and benefit program isn’t the point  point  Rationale: PETITION MUST FAIL because facts and issues raised do not warrant the exercise of  judicial power. 1. 2

No Actual Controversy, case is fundamentally defective

 

-

Constitution & Bernas: Bernas: judicial power includes duty of courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable. Requisites for Judicial Review (an Review  (an aspect of Judicial Power): !  There must be an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial power     Actual case or controversy: controversy : exists when there is a conflict of legal rights which can be resolved on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence   The question must be ripe for adjudication   !    Question ripe for adjudication: adjudication : when act challenged has a direct adverse effect on individuals challenging it.   !  Person challenging must have “standing,” he has personal and substantial interest in the case, such that he has/will sustain direct injury. ▪

▪

-

-

Doctrine of itSeparation of Powers calls Powers  calls formay each branch ofagovernment alone to discharge its duties as sees fit. Thus, before a Court intervene, prerequisite to is be thatleft something has been accomplished or performed by either branch. bra nch. Then, it may pass on the validit validity y of what has been done, but only if it was properly challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding.  IN THIS CASE: petitioners merely filed this suit fearing that the Decision would frustrate the purpose of the WPP law, which is to encourage witnesses to come out and testify. They aren’t even asking to reverse the CA ruling! This apprehension is neither justified nor exemplified, and this apprehension does not give rise to a justiciable controversy.   !   After finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Prosecutors, CA allowed Roque’s admission to the WPP. Roque had even testified already in court against Pineda. Thus, the propriety of Roque’s admission to WPP is already moot and academic issue that clearly does not warrant judicial review.  review.  !  Considering everything, petitioners failed to present an actual controversy and to show that this case is ripe for adjudication.

2. An Executive Function It would be an invasion of the functions of the Executive Department if SC accedes to the government’s wishes to render an advisory opinion on what the Prosecutors should do  –  – when,  when, how, and whom to grant/deny admission to the WPP. The decision on whether to prosecute and whom to indict is executive in character. Only when an information, charging 2+ persons with a certain offense, has already been filed in court will Rule 119, Sec. 9 of the Rules of Court will come into play. IN THIS CASE: Roque was NOT one of the accused in the Information filed by the Prosecutors. Thus, T hus, Rule 119, Sec. 9 is not applicable. Even the laws that preceded the WPP, such as PD 1731 1731 and National Emergency Memorandum Order No. 26, all gave the Prosecutor much leeway in choosing who to admit in the WPP. This inference is in harmony that this is an executive function. Unless an actual controversy arises, SC will not unnecessarily intervene in this executive function.  function.   3. Closer Scrutiny of the Assailed Decision -  Although the CA ultimately ruled that corroboration must exist prior or simultaneously with Roque’s admission into the WPP, the CA subsequently cured this defect when they further ruled that they found no abuse of discretion discretion in Petitioners’ action. Therefore, until there is a concrete violation of RA 6891, SC has no jurisdiction to rule on the issue raised by petitioners. Disposition Petition DENIED DENIED.. !"#$ &'()*+*,*+'(- ./01&23 4111 55 6,7+8+9: 6 ,7+8+9: ;*? 326* ?./01023 456,7 0 5@ ;+, 15.7;8 5@ -.8;01, ;5 8,;;3, 21;.23 15