THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 179959. September 18, 2013.]
DENNIS T. GABIONZA, petitioner, vs. HON. MERCEDITAS T. GUTIERREZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, respondent.
[G.R. No. 179964. September 18, 2013.]
VICTORIANO R. CALAYCAY, petitioner,vs. OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND JOCELYN J. ENRIQUEZ, respondents.
[G.R. No. 180419. September 18, 2013.]
AUGUSTUS A. HIDALGO, petitioner,vs. HON. MERCEDITAS T. GUTIERREZ [OMBUDSMAN], PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES [BOTH REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR] AND HON. SANDIGANBAYAN [5TH DIVISION], respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 18, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 179959 (Dennis T. Gabionza vs. Hon. Merceditas T. Gutierrez, in her capacity as Ombudsman); G.R. No. 179964 (Victoriano R. Calaycay vs. Office of the Special Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman and Jocelyn J. Enriquez); G.R. No. 180419 (Augustus A. Hidalgo vs. Hon. Merceditas T. Gutierrez [Ombudsman], People of the Philippines [both represented by the Special Prosecutor] and Hon. Sandiganbayan [5th Division]). — Before the Court are three (3) Rule 65 Petitions 1 the assail the June 18, 2007 Memorandum of the Office of the Ombudsman in Criminal Case SB-06-CRM-0513, or People of the Philippines v. Victoriano R. Calaycay, Zomer A. Ochavillo, Augustus A. Hidalgo, and Dennis T. Gabionza, which found probable cause against petitioners for violation of Section 3 (c) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 2 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and its August 24, 2007 Memorandum, which denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. Two of the Petitions 3 include a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to restrain respondents from proceeding with SB-06-CRM-0513.
The Court consolidated the Petitions as they arise from the same criminal case before the Sandiganbayan. 4
On February 13, 2012, the Court received a Manifestation 5 from petitioner Dennis T. Gabionza that the Sandiganbayan promulgated a decision granting demurrer to evidence and acquitting him of the offense charged. In a Manifestation and Motion 6 dated March 8, 2012, petitioner Victoriano R. Calaycay stated that the Sandiganbayan acquitted all accused in SB-06-CRM-0513. He moved to dismiss his Petition on the ground that it had become moot and academic.
The antecedents follow.
It appears that an entrapment operation conducted by operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation on December 1, 2006 at a hotel in Manila led to the arrest of petitioners and one Zomer A. Ochavillo. 7 The arrestees allegedly received money from one Jocelyn J. Enriquez in exchange for the facilitation of her license to operate a recruitment agency from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA).
After inquest, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila recommended to the Office of the Ombudsman that Gabionza, Calaycay, petitioner Augustus A. Hidalgo, and Ochavillo be charged with violating Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 3019. 8 Later, Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando C. Casimiro directed the filing before the Sandiganbayan of an Information 9 dated December 4, 2006 and prepared by Assistant City Prosecutor Winnie M. Edad. At the time material to the allegations in the Information, 10 Calaycay was an incumbent commissioner of the National Labor Relations Commission, 11 and Hidalgo was a member of the Operations and Surveillance Division of the POEA Anti-Illegal Recruitment Branch. 12
After the December 4, 2006 Information was filed, petitioners and their co-accused Ochavillo filed a Motion for Preliminary Investigation, which the Sandiganbayan granted in a Resolution dated March 15, 2007. 13 The Office of the Special Prosecutor commenced preliminary investigation 14 and solicited counter-affidavits and other evidence from the accused. 15 Private complainant Enriquez did not appear or participate in the preliminary investigation, and did not affirm the sworn statements attributed to her and which were used as basis for the December 4, 2006 Information. 16
In the first assailed Memorandum, the Office of the Ombudsman through the Office of the Special Prosecutor affirmed the finding of probable cause. 17 The Special Prosecutor also recommended amending the December 4, 2006 Information. 18 Thus, on July 25, 2007, the prosecution filed a Motion to Admit Amended Information dated June 21, 2007.
In the meantime, Ochavillo, Hidalgo, and Calaycay were arraigned on March 27, 2009. They entered a "Not Guilty" plea. 19
The result of the June 18, 2007 Memorandum prompted petitioners to file separate Motions for Reconsideration. 20 In the second assailed Memorandum, the Office of the Ombudsman denied the motions "for utter lack of merit." 21
Hence, the present Petitions for Certiorari, respectively dated October 18, 2007 (G.R. No. 179959), October 19, 2007 (G.R. No. 179964), and November 23, 2007 (G.R. No. 180419).
In essence, the Petitions raise one issue, summarized by petitioner Hidalgo as "whether or not grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction was committed by the Honorable Ombudsman, when she found probable cause against petitioner, aside from his co-respondents Victoriano R. Calaycay, Zomer A. Ochavillo and Dennis T. Gabionza . . . ." 22
Without necessarily giving due course to the Petitions, the Court resolved to require respondents to file their respective comments, 23 after which petitioners Gabionza and Calaycay filed their respective replies to the comments. 24 Incidentally, in the July 9, 2008 Resolution, the Court denied the prayer for temporary restraining order for lack of merit. 25
It bears noting at this point that Enriquez, the private complainant in SB-06-CRM-0513, failed to comment, prompting the Court to require her to show cause why she should not be held in contempt. 26 In the February 25, 2009 Resolution, the Court imposed on her a P1,000.00 fine payable within ten (10) days from notice, as her comment had remained unfiled. 27 On July 6, 2009, an additional P1,000.00 was imposed on respondent Enriquez in view of her failure to comply with the previous resolution. Finally, in the April 12, 2010 Resolution, the Court dispensed with Enriquez's comment on the Petition in G.R. No. 179964 in view of her continuous failure to comply with the February 25, 2009 and July 6, 2009 Resolutions. 28
Meanwhile, the Sandiganbayan proceeded with SB-06-CRM-0513. It granted the Motion to Admit Amended Information on May 8, 2009. 29 The accusatory portion of the June 21, 2007 Amended Information reads:
xxx xxx xxx
That on or about December 1, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused VICTORIANO CALAYCAY Y REYES, being then a Commissioner of National Labor Relations Commission (Salary Grade 30), a presidential appointee, ZOMER OCHAVILLO Y ABAO and AUGUSTUS HIDALGO Y ABALOS, both employees of the Philippine Overseas Employment [Administration] (Salary Grades 25 and 18, respectively), and therefore public officers, committing the offense herein charged in relation to their office, conspiring and confederating together with DENNIS GABIONZA Y TEJADA, a private individual, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly request and receive, directly or indirectly, the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00) for themselves from JOCELYN ENRIQUEZ Y JARA, a Filipino-Canadian citizen, in consideration for the help that the accused will give to said JOCELYN ENRIQUEZ Y JARA in securing or obtaining in favor of the latter, in any manner or capacity, a license from the Philippine Overseas Employment [Administration] (POEA) to operate a recruitment agency in the Philippines.
Contrary to law."
On January 22, 2010, Gabionza, the last accused to be arraigned, pleaded "Not Guilty," 30 and pre-trial and trial ensued. Upon completion of the prosecution's testimonial 31 and documentary evidence, the accused filed separate demurrers to evidence.
In its Comment, 32 the Office of the Special Prosecutor stated that it no longer moved for the reconsideration of the Decision in SB-06-CRM-0513 and would not elevate it to the Supreme Court. 33 The Office of the Special Prosecutor effectively interposed no objection to Calaycay's motion to dismiss his petition.
We directed Calaycay to furnish the Court within ten (10) days from notice (1) a certified true copy of the subject decision and (2) proof that it had been entered in the Book of Entries of Judgment. 34 We received Calaycay's Compliance on April 16, 2013. 35
The record shows that on February 6, 2012, the Sandiganbayan 36 rendered a thirty-six (36) page decision in SB-06-CRM-0513, dated January 30, 2012, 37 granting the demurrers 38 to evidence filed by accused Gabionza, Calaycay, Hidalgo, and Ochavillo, dismissing the case, and acquitting the accused of offense charged. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: 39
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the separate Demurrers to Evidence filed by accused Dennis T. Gabionza, Victoriano R. Calaycay, Augustus Hidalgo and Zomer A. Ochavillo are all GRANTED. Criminal Case No. SB-06-CRM-0513 is hereby ACQUITTED and accused are ACQUITTED of the offense charged against them.
The respective cash bonds posted by the accused to obtain their provisional liberty are hereby ordered returned to them, subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures. The Hold Departure Order dated 22 December 2006 is likewise ordered lifted.
SO ORDERED.
Per the Entry of Judgment certified by Atty. Ma. Teresa S. Pabulayan, Executive Clerk of Court III of the Sandiganbayan, the Decision has been recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgments. 40
In view of the disposal by the Sandiganbayan of SB-06-CRM-0513, the issue raised in the present consolidated Petitions has become moot and academic. An issue is said to have become moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value. 41 Essentially, these Petitions assail, and seek the reversal of, the Office of the Ombudsman's Memoranda finding probable cause to prosecute SB-06-CRM-0513.
Corollarily, we are mindful of our long-standing and well-entrenched policy of non-interference in the exercise by the Office of the Ombudsman of its investigatory and prosecutorial powers 42 except in a clear case of grave abuse of discretion. 43 In Ocampo IV v. Ombudsman, 44 the Supreme Court En Banc states the reason behind this policy:
The rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it, in much the same way that the courts would be extremely swamped if they could be compelled to review the exercise of discretion on the part of the fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time they decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant. 45
We are also mindful of decisions where the Court declared that an accused is deemed to have foregone the right to preliminary investigation and to have abandoned the right to question any irregularity that surrounds it after entering a plea to the information. 46 Ochavillo, Hidalgo, and Calaycay were arraigned on March 27, 2009 47 and Gabionza was arraigned on January 22, 2010. 48
With the supervening dismissal of SB-06-CRM-0513 by the Sandiganbayan, the Court's opinion on whether the case should proceed would serve no useful purpose. In Go v. Sandiganbayan, we further held that:
Courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions where no actual interests are involved. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over moot cases because there is no substantial relief to which petitioner will be entitled and which WILL anyway be negated by the dismissal of the petition. This Court, therefore, ought to abstain from expressing its opinion in the case at bar where no legal relief is needed or called for. 49
WHEREFORE, we resolve to DISMISS the present Petitions on the ground of mootness.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
*Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo was designated as Acting Member of the Third Division, vice Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, per Special Order No. 1541 dated September 9, 2013.
1.Rollo (G.R. No. 179959), pp. 3-150; Rollo (G.R. No. 179964), pp. 3-139; Rollo (G.R. No. 180419), pp. 3-119.
2.Republic Act No. 3019, Sec. 3.
Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift, present, or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in consideration for the help given or to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
3.Namely, the petitions filed in G.R. Nos. 179959 and 180419.
4.Rollo (G.R. No. 179964), p. 141; Rollo (G.R. No. 180419), p. 120.
5.Rollo (G.R. No. 179959), pp. 272-274.
6.Rollo (G.R. No. 179964), pp. 276-277.
7.Rollo (G.R. No. 179959), p. 8.
8.Rollo (G.R. No. 179964), p. 7.
9.Rollo (G.R. No. 180419), p. 9.
10.The accusatory portion of the December 4, 2006 Information reads:
That on or about December 1, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused VICTORIANO CALAYCAY Y REYES @ "VIC," being then the Commissioner of National Labor Relations (NLRC) [sic], a presidential appointee, ZOMER OCHAVILLO Y [ABAO] @ "ZOM" and AUGUSTUS HIDALGO Y ABALOS, both officials of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), and therefore public officers, committing the offense in relation to their office, conspiring and confederating together with DENNIS GABIONZA Y TEJADA, a private individual, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly and with evident bad faith, ask, demand and receive the amount of TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00) for themselves from JOCELYN ENRIQUEZ Y JARA, a Filipino-Canadian citizen [sic], in consideration for the help that the accused will give to said JOCELYN ENRIQUEZ Y JARA in securing or obtaining in favor of the latter a license from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) to operate a recruitment agency in the Philippines.
Contrary to law.
11.Rollo (G.R. No. 179964), p. 4.
12.Rollo (G.R. No. 180419), pp. 7-8.
13.Id. at 11-12.
14.Rollo (G.R. No. 179959), p. 10.
15.Id. at 118.
16.Id. at 11.
17.Rollo (G.R. No. 179964), p. 8.
18.Rollo (G.R. No. 179959), p. 58.
19.Rollo (G.R. No. 179964), p. 283.
20.Rollo (G.R. No. 179959), pp. 128-138; Rollo (G.R. No. 179964), pp. 133-139; Rollo (G.R. No. 180419), pp. 105-109.
21.Rollo (G.R. No. 179964), p. 56.
22.Rollo (G.R. No. 180419), p. 4.
23.Rollo (G.R. No. 179959), p. 151; Rollo (G.R. No. 179964), p. 140; Rollo (G.R. No. 180419), pp. 122-123.
24.Rollo (G.R. No. 179959), pp. 209-210; Rollo (G.R. No. 179964), pp. 188-189.
25.Rollo (G.R. No. 179959), pp. 244-245.
26.Rollo (G.R. No. 179964), pp. 192-193.
27.Id. at 194.
28.Id. at 200.
29.Id. at 283.
30.Id. at 283-284.
31.Id. at 345-357.
The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely: (a) Nestor Gutierrez, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Special Investigator III; (b) Rubie B. Calalo, NBI Forensic Toxicologist III; (c) Isaac Carpeso, Jr., Special Investigator IV assigned at the NBI Anti-Fraud and Action Division; and (d) Julie Ann Joson-Aguila, supervising Administrative Officer of the HR Department of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.
32.Received on August 3, 2012, Id. at 332-A.
In the February 18, 2013 Resolution, the Court excused respondent Office of the Solicitor General from participating in this proceedings, pursuant to Republic Act No. 8249 ("An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, Amending P.D. No. 1606").
33.Id. at 327.
34.Id. at 332A-332B.
35.Id. at 335.
36.Id. at 371.
Through the Fifth Division, then composed of Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado, who wrote the ponencia, and Alexander G. Gesmundo and Alex L. Quiroz, who both concurred.
37.Id. at 337-372.
38.Id. at 370-371.
In fine, the Sandiganbayan ruled that the prosecution had no sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The anti-graft court noted that private complainant Enriquez and her assistant, one Cherubyn See, were not presented on the witness stand to testify on the narrations of facts contained in their respective affidavits, on which the prosecution had relied heavily. The Sandiganbayan ruled that their non-appearance gave the affidavits the character of inadmissible hearsay, which is to be excluded from judicial proceedings. This left the prosecution with little evidence to prove all the elements of the offense charged. Thus the Sandiganbayan stated the following:
The foregoing considered, the accused should be spared from the unnecessary burden, expense and anxiety of having to defend themselves in a public trial. Considering that we have already passed upon the sufficiency of the prosecution's case and we have found the same to be wanting, there remains no further reason to hold all the accused for trial under the present indictment. The purpose of a demurrer to evidence is to challenge the sufficiency of the whole evidence presented to sustain a verdict. When the evidence crumbles in the face of the challenge against it, the Court is left without any choice but to sustain such a challenge.
In Katigbak v. Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 140183, July 10, 2003, 405 SCRA 558], the Supreme Court, in reversing the Sandiganbayan's denial of the demurrer to evidence filed therein, reiterated the fundamental right of the accused to be protected against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution.
The Supreme Court likewise emphasized that the State is similarly situated as it "must be shielded at all times from useless and expensive litigations that only contribute to the clogging of court dockets and take a heavy toll on its limited time and meager resources.
39.Id. at 371.
40.Id. at 373.
41.Go v. Sandiganbayan, 559 Phil. 338, 346 (2007).
42.Judge Adoracion G. Angeles v. Hon. Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, etc., et al., G.R. Nos. 189161 and 189173, March 21, 2012.
43.Casing v. Hon. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 192334, June 13, 2012.
44.G.R. Nos. 103446-47, August 30, 1993, 225 SCRA 725.
45.Ocampo IV v. Ombudsman, supra note 22, at 730.
46.See Kuizon v. Hon. Desierto, 406 Phil. 611, 630 (2001), citing Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95523, August 18, 1997, 277 SCRA 518 and Pecho vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 111399, November 14, 1994, 238 SCRA 116; Benedicto vs. Court of Appeals, 416 Phil. 722, 743 (2001), citing People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116623, March 23, 1995, 242 SCRA 645, 653 and People v. Hubilo, G.R. No. 101741, March 23, 1993, 220 SCRA 389, 397-398.
47.Supra note 19.
48.Supra note 30.
49.Go v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 43, at 347.