FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. Nos. 209627-29. December 3, 2014.]
ROMULO L. NERI, petitioner,vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 3, 2014 which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 209627-29 — ROMULO L. NERI, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
On October 23, 2007, the Office of the Ombudsman received the joint complaint-affidavit 1 of now Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., Atty. Harry L. Roque, Jr., Ma. Dominga B. Padilla, Roel Garcia, Bebu Bulchand, Fr. Jose P. Dizon and others criminally charging President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Jose Miguel Arroyo, petitioner Romulo L. Neri of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), and former Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Chairman Benjamin S. Abalos in connection with the National Broadband Network-Zhing Xing Telecommunications Equipment (NBN-ZTE) project fiasco.
On April 21, 2009, the Ombudsman issued a resolution 2 directing the filing of separate criminal informations against Neri and Abalos, Sr. ICHDca
On May 28, 2010, the information charging Neri with a violation of Section 3 (h) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, in relation to Section 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution was filed in the Sandiganbayan. 3 A slew of similar cases were also filed against President Arroyo, Jose Miguel Arroyo, former DOTC Secretary Leandro Mendoza, and Abalos, Sr., including Criminal Case Nos. SB11-CRM 0467-69 respecting the same controversy. 4
Upon the instance of the Prosecution, the Sandiganbayan issued subpoenas adtestificandum dated October 30, 2012 and May 7, 2013 to require Neri to appear and testify in the forthcoming hearings in Criminal Case Nos. SB11-CRM 0467-69. 5 Neri filed separate motions to quash the subpoenas, 6 invoking his constitutional right to remain silent because he was an accused in Criminal Case No. SB-10-CRM-0099 pending in the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan.
On April 10, 2013, the Sandiganbayan issued the assailed orders denying Neri's motions to quash. 7
Undaunted, Neri filed separate motions for reconsideration of the assailed orders. However, the Sandiganbayan denied the motions on August 27, 2013. 8
Hence, on November 12, 2013, Neri filed a joint petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.9 He reiterated his constitutional right to remain silent because he was also an accused in a related case pending in the Sandiganbayan. He averred that he was protected by the doctrine announced in Chavez v. Court of Appeals. 10 He claimed that although the Government had filed a case against him it also wanted him to be its state witness at the same time without the benefit of being called as such. 11
Before the Court could act on Neri's joint petition, he submitted, through counsel, a notice of voluntary withdrawal of the joint petition on September 18, 2014, 12 manifesting therein that he had actually testified and terminated his testimony as a Prosecution witness in Criminal Case No. SB11-CRM 0468-69 on February 24, 2014; and that such recent supervening event already rendered his joint petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus moot and academic.
The fact that Neri had already testified and terminated his testimony as a Prosecution witness in Criminal Case No. SB11-CRM 0468-69 on February 24, 2014 had indeed rendered moot and academic the resolution of the joint petition that dealt with the propriety of the issuance of the subpoenas adtestificandum by the Sandiganbayan. Insisting to resolve the joint petition would no longer serve any constructive purpose because the issuance of the subpoenas adtestificandum had already been rendered irrelevant thereby. An action is rendered 'moot' when there is no longer any justiciable controversy to be resolved inasmuch as the issues have been overtaken by supervening events. Also, judicial intervention will no longer be necessary unless the issues raised therein are capable of being raised again between the parties.
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is DISMISSED. Without pronouncement on costs of suit.
The explanation and compliance of Atty. Paul P. Lentejas, counsel for petitioner, with the Show Cause Resolution dated June 25, 2014, for failure to submit certified true copies of the assailed Sandiganbayan Resolutions dated April 10, 2013 and August 27, 2013 and submitting the attached certified true copies of said assailed Sandiganbayan resolutions with attached notice of voluntary withdrawal of the petition is NOTED and considered as SATISFACTORY.
The aforesaid notice of voluntary withdrawal of the petition, with petitioner's conformity, stating that the instant petition having been rendered moot, academic and already pointless and empty, for reasons stated therein, is NOTED. TCAScE
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 72-90.
2.Id. at 141-284.
3.Id. at 285-287.
4.Id. at 461-470.
5.Id. at 471-472.
6.Id. at 473-491, 510-528.
7.Id. at 40-47.
8.Id. at 56-69.
9.Id. at 3-36.
10. No. L-29169, August 19, 1968, 24 SCRA 663, 679.
11.Rollo, p. 8.
12.Id. at 615-616.