FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 197474. January 10, 2019.]
MA. AGNES T. HUIBONHOA, petitioner, vs.MA. ELENA SO GUISANDE, A.K.A. MA. ELENA A. SO, JOHN ANTHONY SO, VALERIO LEBOSANA, A.K.A. VAL LEBOSANA, MARIA MELITONA SANCHEZ, JOSE SANCHEZ, JOANNE VILLENA, AND DANILO B. DAYGO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 10, 2019which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 197474 (Ma. Agnes T. Huibonhoa v. Ma. Elena So Guisande, a.k.a. Ma. Elena A. So, John Anthony So, Valerio Lebosana, a.k.a. Val Lebosana, Maria Melitona Sanchez, Jose Sanchez, Joanne Villena, and Danilo B. Daygo). — This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 assailing the Decision dated February 16, 2011 2 and Resolution dated June 27, 2011 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 114668. The CA set aside the Order dated June 1, 2010 4 of Branch 142 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City in Criminal Case No. 10-864 insofar as it directed the issuance of warrants of arrest against respondents with no bail recommended.
On May 26, 2010, an Information 5 was filed against respondents Ma. Elena So Guisande, John Anthony So, Valerio Lebosana, Maria Melitona Sanchez, Jose Sanchez, Joanne Villena, and Danilo B. Daygo. The Information charged respondents with estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b), of the Revised Penal Code:
That sometime between April to December 2008, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, MA. ELENA SO GUISANDE, a.k.a. "MA. ELENA A. SO" received and held in trust thirty five (35) pieces of jewelry owned by Agnes Huibonhua, with an obligation to sell the same involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same, if unsold, but accused far from complying with her obligation, willfully, knowingly and unlawfully misappropriate or convert the thirty five (35) pieces of jewelry as if it were her own, and with the indispensable participation of accused JOHN ANTHONY SO, VALERIO LEBOSANA a.k.a. "VAL LEBOSANA," MARIA MELITONA SANCHEZ, JOSE SANCHEZ, JOANNE VILLENA, and DANILO B. DAYGO conspiring and confederating with one another, pawned the thirty five (35) pieces of jewelry to several pawnshops, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
made it appear that they own the pieces of jewelry and misappropriated the proceeds thereof for their personal use, to the damage and prejudice of Agnes Huibonhua in the amount of Fifteen Million Eight Hundred Seventy Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (Php15,870,500.00). 6
The state prosecutors recommended no bail for respondents. 7
On June 1, 2010, Judge Dina Pestaño Teves (Judge Teves) issued an Order finding probable cause and directing the issuance of arrest warrants against respondents, with no bail recommended for their provisional liberty. 8 Warrants of arrest were issued on the same day in accordance with the RTC Order. 9
On June 2, 2010, respondents moved for a judicial determination of probable cause for the issuance of the warrants of arrest on the ground that the evidence does not support the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors' finding of probable cause. They prayed that the June 1, 2010 Order be set aside and the Information be dismissed. Respondents also prayed that the implementation of the warrants of arrest be suspended pending resolution of their motion. In the alternative, assuming that the finding of probable cause was correct, respondents prayed that the no bail recommendation against them be held to be without basis. 10 CAIHTE
On June 8, 2010, the RTC issued an Order for the issuance of alias warrants of arrest after the original warrants were returned unserved. The case was also archived there being allegedly no certainty when will respondents be apprehended. 11 On the same date, respondents filed a manifestation and urgent omnibus motion for the court to: (1) reconsider the June 1, 2010 Order; (2) recall the warrants of arrest; (3) dismiss the Information; and (4) hold in abeyance the implementation of the warrants of arrest pending resolution of the motion. 12
On June 10, 2010, 13 respondents filed with the DOJ a petition for review of the resolution of the investigating prosecutor, praying that the Information against them be withdrawn. 14 They likewise filed a motion before the RTC to defer the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 10-864 until the resolution of their petition by the DOJ. 15
On July 1, 2010, 16 respondents filed with the CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus to annul the issuance of the original and alias warrants of arrest, and dismiss the Information against them. 17
Pending resolution of the CA petition, the RTC issued an Order dated July 27, 2010, 18 denying the following motions filed by respondents: (1) motion for judicial determination of probable cause for the issuance of the warrants of arrest; (2) manifestation and urgent omnibus motion to reconsider the June 1, 2010 Order, recall the warrants of arrest, and dismiss the Information; and (3) motion to defer the proceedings until the resolution of the DOJ petition.
In a Decision dated February 16, 2011, the CA nullified the warrants of arrest issued against respondents:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Order of the trial court dated June 1, 2010 is set aside insofar as it directs the issuance of warrants of arrest with no bail recommended. The warrants original or alias issued pursuant to the aforesaid Order are declared null and void. The trial court is directed to fix the amount of the bail of the petitioners preparatory to the issuance of new warrants of arrest.
SO ORDERED. 19
The CA denied petitioner Ma. Agnes T. Huibonhoa's (Huibonhoa) motion for reconsideration in a Resolution dated June 27, 2011. 20
Hence, Huibonhoa filed this petition. She argues that: (1) respondents' petition for certiorari before the CA should have been denied outright as they failed to avail of plain, speedy, and adequate remedies available in the ordinary course of law; 21 and (2) respondents committed forum shopping as they filed parallel actions before the CA and the DOJ which ultimately deal with the same facts and issues. 22
In a Resolution dated August 17, 2011, 23 we denied the petition for Huibonhoa's failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in the challenged Decision and Resolution.
On December 2, 2011, Huibonhoa filed a motion for reconsideration 24 of our August 17, 2011 Resolution. We granted the motion and reinstated the petition in a Resolution dated December 14, 2011. 25
Meanwhile, on June 29, 2011, respondent Joanne Villena was arrested. 26 In an Order dated January 12, 2012, the RTC granted the motion to fix bail filed by respondent Joanne Villena and allowed her to post bail in the amount of P80,000.00. 27 On the same date, the RTC approved the bail bond filed by Villena and recalled the warrant of arrest issued against her. 28
Subsequently, respondents Ma. Elena So Guisande, Maria Melitona Sanchez, Jose Sanchez, and John Anthony So voluntarily appeared and surrendered before the RTC. Thus, on February 2, 2012, the RTC approved their bail bonds amounting to P80,000.00 each. The RTC also recalled and set aside the warrants of arrest issued against them. 29 On May 24, 2012, respondents filed a manifestation 30 informing the Court that all of them were already arraigned by the RTC after they were allowed to post their bail. DETACa
We dismiss the petition for being moot and academic.
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. This is because the judgment will not serve any useful purpose or have any practical legal effect because, in the nature of things, it cannot be enforced. 31
Here, the supervening arrest and voluntary surrender of the respondents, the grant of their bail, and the recall of the warrants of arrest issued against them have mooted the main issue in this case, that is, the validity of the RTC Orders dated June 1, 2010 and June 8, 2010 directing the issuance of warrants of arrest against respondents with no bail recommended. Since respondents have been permitted to post bail, there is no justiciable controversy in this case anymore.
It is true that the petition raises the issues of whether the petition for certiorari respondents filed before the CA should have been dismissed as plain, speedy, and adequate remedies were still available to respondents, and whether respondents are guilty of forum shopping. These issues, however, are merely incidental and do not constitute the main cause of action in this petition. With the recall of the assailed RTC Orders, it is no longer necessary for the Court to resolve whether the CA was correct in entertaining the petition assailing them and reversing them. 32
Hence, this Court finds it appropriate to refrain from passing upon the merits of this case where legal relief is no longer needed nor called for.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for being moot and academic.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-27.
2.Id. at 28-40. Penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guariña III, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. and Rodil V. Zalameda.
3.Id. at 41.
4. Records, Vol. I, p. 96. Rendered by Presiding Judge Dina Pestaño Teves.
5.Id. at 1-3.
6.Id. at 1-2.
7.Id. at 3.
8.Supra note 4.
9. Records, Vol. I., pp. 98-103.
10.Id. at 111-124.
11.Id. at 104.
12.Id. at 392-401.
13. Records, Vol. II, p. 1.
14.Id. at 4-34.
15.Id. at 1-3.
16. CA rollo, p. 3.
17.Rollo, p. 34.
18. Records, Vol. III, p. 162.
19.Rollo, p. 40.
20.Supra note 3.
21.Rollo, pp. 14-18.
22.Id. at 18-23.
23.Id. at 42.
24.Id. at 51-55.
25.Id. at 60-61.
26. Records, Vol. III, pp. 12-17.
27. Records, Vol. VI, p. 43.
28.Id. at 44.
29.Id. at 207-208.
30.Rollo, pp. 87-88.
31.Peñafrancia Sugar Mill, Inc. v. Sugar Regulatory Administration, G.R. No. 208660, March 05, 2014, 718 SCRA 212, 217-218.
32. See Huibonhoa v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 153785, August 3, 2006, 497 SCRA 562, 571-572.