FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 236002-03. May 3, 2021.]
GREGORIO B. HONASAN II, petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN SECOND DIVISION AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated May 3, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 236002-03 (Gregorio B. Honasan II v. Sandiganbayan Second Division and the People of the Philippines). — This Petition for Certiorari1 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court assails the Order 2 dated September 22, 2017 and the Resolution 3 dated October 27, 2017 issued by the Sandiganbayan Second Division in Criminal Case Nos. SB-17-CRM-1507 and 1508 which denied petitioner Gregorio Honasan (Honasan) II's Omnibus Motion to Quash Warrant of Arrest, To Dismiss the Case or to Order its Reinvestigation, and to Defer Arraignment.
Facts of the Case
As culled from the records, the cases trace their origin from the alleged utilization of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) allocated for the Office of then Senator Honasan through the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF). On April 23, 2012, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) No. BMB-G-12-T000000851 covering the amount of P30,000,000.00, under the PDAF allocation of Honasan, to NCMF purportedly to "finance small and medium enterprise/livelihood projects for the benefit of Muslim Filipinos in various Muslim communities in the National Capital Region and Zambales." 4
On June 5, 2012, Honasan indorsed Focus on Development Goals Foundation, Inc. (FDGFI) as partner in the implementation of the livelihood projects and allowed NCMF to release the fund to the said Foundation. NCMF, FDGFI, and the Office of Senator Honasan entered into a memorandum of agreement indicating that the Office of Senator Honasan identified FDGFI as the implementing non-government organization while NCMF certified that the Foundation is legitimate and capable of undertaking the project. Out of the P30,000,000.00 budget, NCMF released a total of P29,100,000.00 to FDGFI. 5
In an audit examination conducted by the Commission on Audit (COA), it was found that the transaction involving the Office of Senator Honasan, NCMF and FDGFI was entered into in violation of COA circular and that the selection of FDGFI was not undertaken through competitive bidding or negotiated procurement required under the law. 6
On the strength of the COA findings, the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Field Investigation Office (FIO), initiated a fact-finding investigation against Honasan and his co-accused for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 3019. 7
In a Joint Resolution dated August 9, 2016, 8 the Office of the Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Honasan and his co-accused for violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019. As a result thereof, two separate Informations were filed against Honasan and his co-accused covering two separate disbursements from Honasan's PDAF. 9
The accusatory portion of the first information docketed as SB-17-CRM-1507 reads:
That in 2012, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within this Honorable Court's jurisdiction, accused public officers GREGORIO B. HONASAN II (Honasan), being then a Senator the (sic) Philippines, MICHAEL L. BENJAMIN(Benjamin), being then the Chief, Political Affairs/Project Coordinator, Office of Senator Honasan, Senate of the Philippines, MEHOL K. SADAIN (Sadain), Secretary, FEDELINA A. ALDANESE (Aldanese), Acting Chief Accountant, OLGA S. GALIDO (Galido), Cashier III, all of the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) (sic), while in the performance of their administrative and/or official functions, conspiring with one another and with private individuals GIOVANNI MANUEL C. GAERLAN (G. Gaerlan), Former President and SALVADOR J. GAERLAN (S. Gaerlan), President and Former Secretary, both of the Focus on Development Goals Foundation, Inc. (Focus), acting with manifest partiality, evident bad faith and/or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally cause undue injury to the government and/or give unwarranted benefits and advantage to said private individuals in the amount of at least TWENTY SEVEN MILLION PESOS (PhP27,000,000.00), through the following acts:
xxx xxx xxx
CONTRARY TO LAW. 10
On the other hand, the second Information docketed as SB-17-CRM-1508 reads as follows:
That in 2012, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Quezon City, Philippines, and within this Honorable Court's jurisdiction, accused public officers GREGORIO B. HONASAN II (Honasan), being then a Senator the (sic) Philippines, MICHAEL L. BENJAMIN (Benjamin), being then the Chief, Political Affairs/Project Coordinator, Office of Senator Honasan, Senate of the Philippines, MEHOL K. SADAIN (Sadain), Secretary, FEDELINA A. ALDANESE (Aldanese), Acting Chief Accountant, GALAY M. MAKALINGGAN (Makalinggan), Director III, AURORA O. ARAGON-MABANG (Mabang), Acting Chief, Management Audit Division, OLGA S. GALIDO (Galido), Cashier III, all of the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF) (sic), while in the performance of their administrative and/or official functions, conspiring with one another and with private individuals GIOVANNI MANUEL C. GAERLAN (G. Gaerlan), Former President and SALVADOR J. GAERLAN (S. Gaerlan), President and Former Secretary, both of the Focus on Development Goals Foundation, Inc. (Focus), acting with manifest partiality, evident bad faith and/or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and criminally cause undue injury to the government and/or give unwarranted benefits and advantage to said private individuals in the amount of at least TWO MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PhP2,100,000.00), through the following acts:
xxx xxx xxx
CONTRARY TO LAW. 11
In a Resolution dated August 7, 2017, the Sandiganbayan issued a Warrant of Arrest against Honasan. Honasan then posted bail for his temporary liberty. However, prior to Honasan's arraignment, he filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash Warrants of Arrest, to Dismiss Case or to Order its Reinvestigation, and to Defer Arraignment. 12
In an Order 13 dated September 22, 2017, the Sandiganbayan denied Honasan's omnibus motion for being a prohibited pleading under the Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases. The Sandiganbayan explained that the Motion to Quash Warrant of Arrest and to Dismiss the Case was, in reality, a motion for judicial determination or re-determination of probable cause, which is prohibited. The Motion for Reinvestigation, on the other hand, was filed without prior leave of court and beyond the five-day period from notice of the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman. 14
Aggrieved, Honasan moved for reconsideration. However, in a Resolution 15 dated October 27, 2017, the Sandiganbayan reiterated that the omnibus motion filed by Honasan is a prohibited pleading under the Guidelines for Continuous Trial of Criminal Cases. 16
Insisting that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying his Omnibus Motion, Honasan filed this Petition for Certiorari17 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. According to Honasan, his omnibus motion is meritorious and is not a prohibited pleading. 18 Honasan, likewise, moves for the quashal of the warrant of arrest issued against him because the facts on record negate his participation in the crime charged. He also cites the Ombudsman's extreme political prejudice against him. 19
In its Comment, 20 the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP), countered that Honasan failed to show that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, in denying his omnibus motion. 21 The OSP argues that the issues raised by Honasan are evidentiary in nature which must be best threshed out in a full-blown trial. 22
Ruling of the Court
After a perusal of the records of the case, this Court resolves to dismiss the petition for certiorari for being moot.
On December 16, 2020, the Sandiganbayan issued a Resolution which granted the demurrers to evidence filed by Honasan and his co-accused and dismissed the two Informations filed against them for insufficiency of evidence.
The dispositive portion of the Resolution is as follows:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Demurrers to Evidence filed by accused GREGORIO B. HONASAN II, MICHAEL L. BENJAMIN, MEHOL KIRAM SADAIN, FEDELINA D. ALDANESE, OLGA SAJISE GALIDO, and GIOVANNI MANUEL C. GAERLAN for Criminal Case Nos. SB-17-CRM-1507 and SB-17-CRM-1508, and by accused GALAY M. MAKALINGGAN and AURORA O. ARAGON-MABANG for Criminal Case No. SB-17-CRM-1508, as the evidence of the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish the essential elements of the crime charged and to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Accordingly, the cases against the accused are hereby DISMISSED.
The Hold Departure Orders issued by the Court against all the above-named accused are hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE, and the bail bonds they posted, if any, are ordered RELEASED, subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures.
SO ORDERED.
The dismissal of the two Informations against Honasan and his co-accused in Criminal Case Nos. SB-17-CRM-1507 and 1508 resulted in making this petition for certiorari moot and academic.
In Osmeña III v. SSS, 23 the Court defined a moot and academic case, to wit:
A case or issue is considered moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that an adjudication of the case or a declaration on the issue would be of no practical value or use. In such instance, there is no actual substantial relief which a petitioner would be entitled to, and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on the ground of mootness — save when, among others, a compelling constitutional issue raised requires the formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar and the public; or when the case is capable of repetition yet evading judicial review. 24 (Citations omitted)
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo25 earlier gave the two other exceptions to the moot and academic principle: (a) if there is grave violation of the Constitution; and (b) the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public interest is involved. 26
In this case, while the Certiorari petition filed by Honasan questioning the interlocutory orders issued by the Sandiganbayan was pending, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Resolution on the main criminal case. Given this development, any action on the certiorari petition on mere incidental matters would not accord any practical relief to Honasan. Hence, this case has become moot and academic. The OSP's remedy is to file a petition for certiorari to question the dismissal of the case for insufficiency of evidence.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for being MOOT and ACADEMIC.
The petitioner's motion to withdraw the instant petition for certiorari dated December 28, 2017 for being moot since the cases docketed as SB-17-CRM-1507 and SB-17-CRM-1508 have already been dismissed by the Sandiganbayan, is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 8-36.
2.Id. at 41-43.
3.Id. at 44-49.
4.Id. at 491.
5.Id. at 491-492.
6.Id. at 492.
7.Id. at 493.
8.Id. at 117-139.
9.Id. at 493-494.
10.Id. at 10-12.
11.Id. at 12-13.
12.Id. at 494.
13.Id. at 41-43.
14.Id. at 41-42.
15.Id. at 44-49.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 8-36.
18.Id. at 18.
19.Id. at 21.
20.Id. at 490-503.
21.Id. at 497.
22.Id. at 501.
23. 559 Phil. 723 (2007).
24.Id. at 735.
25. 522 Phil. 705 (2006).
26.Id. at 754.