EN BANC
[G.R. No. 181067. September 20, 2016.]
CECILIA OREÑA-DRILON, MAYJAY CABALIT, MELANIE MASECAMPO, RUPERTO AMBIL II, MARK CADAMPOG, EMELITO HAO, NORBERT CALUPITAN, ALEXIS ACUIN, BERNIE LITO MALLARI, RANDY VILLAN, and NOEL ALAMAR, petitioners, vs. HON. RONALDO V. PUNO, HON. RAUL GONZALEZ, POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL AVELINO RAZON, POLICE DIRECTOR GEARY BARIAS, POLICE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT ASHER DOLINA, JOHN DOES, THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT and THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, respondents.
[G.R. No. 181159. September 20, 2016.]
RAOUL ESPERAS, JESUS LLANTO, MARIA A. RESSA, CECILIA L. LAZARO, GLENDA M. GLORIA, MARITES VITUG, CONRADO DE QUIROS, MANUEL MOGATO, MANUEL L. QUEZON III, CARLOS CONDE, JOANNE MAG-LIPON, RINA JIMENEZ-DAVID, ROSARIO S. VILLA, LUISITA C. VALDES, TINA MONZON-PALMA, ANGELO CASTRO, JR., RIA TANJUATCO-TRILLO, THOMAS MANOTOC, JR., RAMON A. CARANDANG, JOANNA WEBB, MARIE-NETTE NGO, JORGE V. CARIÑO, JOY T. GRUTA, MA. CONCEPCION T. DUMO, CARMINA REYES, MA. ROSARIO LOGARTA LAGAMON, ISRAEL MALASA, HENRY OMAGA-DIAZ, VINCE RODRIGUEZ, RAYMUND GERARD LANGIT, FRITZY ANN AMBROSIO, ADRIAN AYALIN, INA REFORMINA, CHERYL COSIM, JOEY VILLARAMA, DANILO P. LUCAS, JOSE A. CABURNIDA, FEDERICO E. FERNANDEZ, CLAUDE M. VITUG, MIRANDA DE QUIROS, ANNA LIZA EUGENIO, MIKAELA ORETA, CATHERINE C. CORNELL, PETER MUSNGI, ROEANNE MARIE A. ANTONIO, ANTONETTE AGUILAR, JOAN G. TUSI, ELLEN B. SAPA, JONAS LIWAG, ROSAMY CASTANEDA-VELASCO, JOSELITO A. AGUSTIN, BERT APOSTOL, MARIELLE G. CATBAGAN, DOLAND CASTRO, NIKOLO BAUA, MARGIE DE VERA AND THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES APPEAR IN THE ATTACHED LIST OF PETITIONERS [ANNEX "A"], petitioners, vs. HON. EDUARDO ERMITA as Executive Secretary, HON. RAUL GONZALEZ as Secretary of Justice, HON. RONALDO V. PUNO as Secretary of Interior and Local Government, HON. GILBERTO C. TEODORO, JR. as Secretary of National Defense, GENERAL HERMOGENES ESPERON as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, DIRECTOR GENERAL AVELINO RAZON as Chief of the Philippine National Police, DIRECTOR GEARY L. BARIAS as Head of the PNP National Capital Region Police Office, and CHIEF SUPT. ASHER DOLINA as Head of the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedSEPTEMBER 20, 2016, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 181067 —CECILIA OREÑA-DRILON, MAYJAY CABALIT, MELANIE MASECAMPO, RUPERTO AMBIL II, MARK CADAMPOG, EMELITO HAO, NORBERT CALUPITAN, ALEXIS ACUIN, BERNIE LITO MALLARI, RANDY VILLAN, and NOEL ALAMAR, petitioners, versus HON. RONALDO V. PUNO, HON. RAUL GONZALEZ, POLICE DIRECTOR GENERAL AVELINO RAZON, POLICE DIRECTOR GEARY BARIAS, POLICE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT ASHER DOLINA, JOHN DOES, THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT and THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, respondents.
G.R. No. 181159 — RAOUL ESPERAS, JESUS LLANTO, MARIA A. RESSA, CECILIA L. LAZARO, GLENDA M. GLORIA, MARITES VITUG, CONRADO DE QUIROS, MANUEL MOGATO, MANUEL L. QUEZON III, CARLOS CONDE, JOANNE MAG-LIPON, RINA JIMENEZ-DAVID, ROSARIO S. VILLA, LUISITA C. VALDES, TINA MONZON-PALMA, ANGELO CASTRO, JR., RIA TANJUATCO-TRILLO, THOMAS MANOTOC, JR., RAMON A. CARANDANG, JOANNA WEBB, MARIE-NETTE NGO, JORGE V. CARIÑO, JOY T. GRUTA, MA. CONCEPCION T. DUMO, CARMINA REYES, MA. ROSARIO LOGARTA LAGAMON, ISRAEL MALASA, HENRY OMAGA-DIAZ, VINCE RODRIGUEZ, RAYMUND GERARD LANGIT, FRITZY ANN AMBROSIO, ADRIAN AYALIN, INA REFORMINA, CHERYL COSIM, JOEY VILLARAMA, DANILO P. LUCAS, JOSE A. CABURNIDA, FEDERICO E. FERNANDEZ, CLAUDE M. VITUG, MIRANDA DE QUIROS, ANNA LIZA EUGENIO, MIKAELA ORETA, CATHERINE C. CORNELL, PETER MUSNGI, ROEANNE MARIE A. ANTONIO, ANTONETTE AGUILAR, JOAN G. TUSI, ELLEN B. SAPA, JONAS LIWAG, ROSAMY CASTANEDA-VELASCO, JOSELITO A. AGUSTIN, BERT APOSTOL, MARIELLE G. CATBAGAN, DOLAND CASTRO, NIKOLO BAUA, MARGIE DE VERA AND THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES APPEAR IN THE ATTACHED LIST OF PETITIONERS [ANNEX "A"], petitioners, versusHON. EDUARDO ERMITA as Executive Secretary, HON. RAUL GONZALEZ as Secretary of Justice, HON. RONALDO V. PUNO as Secretary of Interior and Local Government, HON. GILBERTO C. TEODORO, JR. as Secretary of National Defense, GENERAL HERMOGENES ESPERON as Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, DIRECTOR GENERAL AVELINO RAZON as Chief of the Philippine National Police, DIRECTOR GEARY L. BARIAS as Head of the PNP National Capital Region Police Office, and CHIEF SUPT. ASHER DOLINA as Head of the PNP Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, respondents.
RESOLUTION
Before us are petitions for the issuance of a writ of amparo and/or prohibition arising from similar factual circumstances, as follows: (i) a petition for the issuance of a writ of Amparo1 and/or a writ of prohibition, 2 entitled "Cecilia Oreña-Drilon, et al. v. Hon. Ronaldo V. Puno, et al.," docketed as G.R. No. 181067; and (ii) a petition for issuance of writs of prohibition and injunction with an application for a temporary restraining order, entitled "Raoul Esperas, et al. v. Hon. Eduardo Ermita," docketed as G.R. No. 181159 (collectively, the Petitions). The Petitions were consolidated pursuant to our Resolution dated January 29, 2008. 3
The following narrates what has been termed as the "Manila Peninsula incident". CAIHTE
Version of the Petitioners
G.R. No. 181067
Petitioners in this case are journalists occupying various positions in the News and Current Affairs Group of ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (Petitioners). On the other hand, the public respondents are government officials impleaded in their official capacities along with several John Does 4 (Respondents).
On November 29, 2007, some of the Petitioners, led by petitioner Cecilia "Ces" Oreña-Drilon (Drilon), were assigned to cover proceedings in Criminal Case No. 03-2784 involving Magdalo soldiers at the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 148. 5 Allegedly, several Magdalo soldiers, led by former Brig. General Danilo Lim (BGEN Lim) and then Senator Antonio Trillanes (Senator Trillanes) (collectively, the "Magdalo Group"), walked out of the courtroom and marched all the way to the Manila Peninsula Hotel in Makati City (the Peninsula). 6 During such time, the rest of the Petitioners followed, along with other members of the media, and kept alongside the Magdalo Group. The Petitioners then ended up stationing themselves along the second floor hallway of the Peninsula, all the while covering the event and feeding live radio and television broadcasts. 7
Negotiations between the Magdalo Group and the PNP thereafter ensued, which culminated into displays of force. 8 Warning shots were fired and tear gas was released inside the Peninsula. 9 When the tear gas fumes reached the second floor, the Petitioners were forced to evacuate to the "Rizal function room" and were soon followed by the Magdalo Group. 10 In the meantime, Petitioners continued their live coverage from inside the said room. 11
Eventually, the Magdalo Group decided to surrender peacefully to the PNP and were arrested by the SAF troops. 12 However, to their surprise and shock, the Petitioners were likewise arrested along with other civilians hiding in the Rizal function room, despite their objections to the same. 13
During their arrest, Petitioners allegedly asked the authorities for the reason of their arrests and were told that the same was done "for processing and identification as witnesses or suspects". 14 Thereafter, the Petitioners were brought to Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, where they were eventually released. 15
Subsequently, on November 30, 2007, during a press conference, respondent Razon made the following statements:
[A]nd, meron kaming naririnig na balita na some networks will file charges against us. Eh kami naman eh, libreng bansa po 'to. . . kung gusto nila di kami naman po ay mag fa-file rin ng charge against them kung talagang, gusto nilang dumating po tayo dun sa parteng iyon. . . No . . . Eh kaya nga po tinitingnan din natin yung area ng obstruction of justice. . . no. . . Eh kung gusto nilang paratingin sa ganong punto, eh sabihin na lang po. . . eh . . . pero kami naman po ayaw namin, at tayo nga ay magkakaibigan. 16
On December 5, 2007, at the "PNP-Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster sa Pilipinas dialogue," respondent Puno likewise made the following statements:
Ah, honestly, kung may scene of, may crime scene, at hiniling ng pulis doon sa mga nandoon sa crime scene, na likasin ang mga nandoon dahil mag-uumpisa na yong enforcement operations at malalagay sa peligro yung mga nandoon at hindi nila sinunod yung hiling ng ating kapulisan, walang ibang puedeng gawin yung police on the ground except arestuhin yung mga hindi sumusunod, no. So, malamang sa posasan talaga. 17
On January 11, 2008, respondent Gonzalez issued an "Advisory" addressed to all Chief Executive Officers of media networks, media companies, press groups and other entities (DOJ Advisory), which stated in full:
Please be reminded that your respective companies, networks or organizations may incur criminal liabilities under the law, if anyone of your field reporters, news gatherers, photographers, cameramen, and other media practitioners will disobey lawful orders from duly authorized government officers and personnel during emergencies which may lead to collateral damage to properties and civilian casualties in case of authorized police or military operations. 18
Thus, Petitioners filed the instant Petition, 19 seeking for the issuance of a writ of amparo on the following grounds: (i) that their arrests were illegal, and (ii) that the statements/actions of the Respondents had a "chilling effect" on journalists, which amounted to threats against their Constitutional rights to free speech, free press, and information.
In the alternative, with respect to the prayer for a writ of prohibition, Petitioners prayed that the Respondents be enjoined from charging and prosecuting Petitioners in relation to their arrests on November 29, 2007, and from issuing threats of future warrantless arrests and other acts of harassment of the Petitioners in the course of their work. DETACa
G.R. No. 181159
This Petition20 proceeds from the same factual circumstances detailed above.
In this case, Petitioners are an assortment of journalists and media personnel (Petitioners), while public respondents are government officials sued in their official capacities (Respondents). In addition to the acts previously described, Petitioners alleged the following acts by the Respondents in support of their prayer for the issuance of a writ of prohibition:
On January 14, 2008, respondent Razon issued a public statement to the effect that anyone who defies police instructions to leave an area during a police operation is committing the crime of obstruction of justice, stating that: ". . . [a]fter all, anong freedom of the press pa ang pag-uusapan natin, kung yung member[s] ng press ay patay na?" 21
Thereafter, on January 16, 2008, respondent Razon accused an unnamed reporter of helping a member of the Magdalo Group escape from the Peninsula and warned that the reporter may soon be facing charges of rebellion and aiding and abetting a criminal. 22
In their Petition, Petitioners prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order in order to restrain the Respondents from: (i) enforcing the DOJ Advisory, (ii) issuing or making any further warnings, threats, or "reminders" to the press, and (iii) imposing any form of prior restraint on the press. 23 As indicated by the records, no action on the said application has been taken by the Court.
Meanwhile, on May 6, 2008, a Petition-in-Intervention dated February 18, 2008 (Petition-in-Intervention) was filed by Petitioners-in-Intervention (Intervenors). 24 In their Petition-in-Intervention, the Intervenors alleged that while they were not physically present during the Peninsula incident, they had a "specific pressing legal and substantial interest" in the instant Petition considering that they were media practitioners likewise covered by the alleged threats and public advisories of the Respondents. 25 In a Resolution dated June 10, 2008, the Court granted the Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by the Intervenors and noted the Petition-in-Intervention. 26
Version of the Respondents
On the other hand, Respondents averred that, in the morning of November 29, 2007, during the hearing of Criminal Case No. 03-2784, while BGEN Lim was on the witness stand, Lieutenant Senior Grade James Layug, one of the accused in the said criminal case, took BGEN Lim by the arm and brought him out of the court room. 27 The Magdalo Group soon followed along with Senator Trillanes despite objections by Hon. Oscar B. Pimentel (Judge Pimentel), the Presiding Judge of Branch 148. Soon after, before noon of the same day, the Magdalo Group took over the Peninsula and held a press conference, during which BGEN Lim read out a prepared statement calling for the people's support. 28
Meanwhile, despite the sudden departure of the Magdalo Group, Judge Pimentel continued the court proceedings with twelve (12) other accused present. 29 That same afternoon, Judge Pimentel issued a Bench Warrant for the arrest of the Magdalo Group for direct contempt of court. 30 However, the presence of civilians, including members of the media, inside the Peninsula prevented the service of the said warrant. 31
Notably, the PNP designated a spot within the peripheral area of the Peninsula for the coverage of the incident where the members of the media would be safe during the conduct of police operations. 32 Thus, to prevent collateral casualties and injures, the PNP asked the members of the media to isolate themselves from the Magdalo Group and not to report from inside the Peninsula's premises. 33
Subsequently, the PNP issued a directive which called for the surrender of the Magdalo Group before 3:00 PM, while at the same time asking all persons inside the Peninsula to vacate the premises before the said deadline. 34 Respondent P/Dir. Geary L. Barias appealed to all the civilians inside the Peninsula to leave the area, considering that their continued presence seriously compromised and obstructed the service of the Bench Warrant earlier issued by Judge Pimentel. 35
Further, in order to ensure the dissemination of the 3:00 PM deadline, the PNP had the same announced over national television. 36 Likewise, the DILG contacted the respective news desks of the different media networks to advise their personnel to leave the premises of the Peninsula before the deadline. 37
However, despite the lapse of the said deadline, the Magdalo Group, together with the Petitioners and other members of the media, failed to heed the directive to vacate. 38 At around 3:15 PM, all civilians inside the Peninsula were again asked to leave. 39 Still, the Petitioners refused to vacate the premises. 40
At around 4:40 PM of the same day, assault operations began during the course of which some members of the media found their way out of the Peninsula while others remained in the Rizal function room with the Magdalo Group. 41
Sometime thereafter, the Magdalo Group eventually surrendered while the Petitioners and other civilians found within the premises were arrested and brought to Camp Bagong Diwa, Bicutan, Taguig City for further investigation. 42 Allegedly, their detention amounted to valid warrantless arrests based on probable cause of "obstruction of justice" and "resistance to lawful orders of persons or agents of persons in authority". 43 aDSIHc
Before this Court, the Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Consolidated Comment on March 19, 2008 44 and a Comment [Re: Petition-in-Intervention dated February 18, 2008] on October 3, 2008. 45
In the main, Respondents posited that the Petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs prayed for as they merely seek to prevent future acts, i.e., there is no actual case or controversy that would warrant judicial intervention. 46 Likewise, Respondents argued that the Petitioners were validly arrested without warrant for resistance of lawful orders under Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code and obstruction of justice under Section 1 (e) 47 of Presidential Decree No. 1829. 48 Finally, with respect to the assailed DOJ Advisory, Respondents argued that the claim of "prior restraint" by the Petitioners is purely speculative as the same is merely a restatement of "what journalists or ordinary citizens . . . are presumed to know". 49
On May 12, 2008, Petitioners in G.R. No. 181067 filed a Motion for Leave to File Reply, 50 which was granted by the Court in a Resolution dated June 17, 2008. 51 Likewise, Petitioners in G.R. No. 181159 filed a Motion to Admit Reply dated July 7, 2008, 52 which was granted by the Court in a Resolution dated July 15, 2008. 53
In sum, the Petitions seek to: (i) declare the illegality of Petitioners' arrest during the Manila Peninsula incident on November 29, 2007; (ii) enjoin Respondents from enforcing the DOJ Advisory issued by then Secretary of Justice, Hon. Raul Gonzales; and (iii) restrain Respondents from effecting and threatening future warrantless arrests against Petitioners and other members of the media.
Issue
Whether or not Petitioners are entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
Discussion
This case is moot and academic.
It is settled that when an issue has become moot and academic, there is no longer a justiciable controversy, and adjudication thereof would be of no practical use or value as courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging. 54
We note the following developments during the pendency of the instant case:
On November 15, 2011, in a Resolution of even date, the Court required the parties to "move in the premises" by manifesting pertinent and subsequent developments that could help the Court in disposing of the case or which may have rendered the same moot and academic, as follows:
In this regard, petitioners are required to inform this Court of subsequent developments relevant to their Petitions since the filing of their respective Replies on 14 May 2008 in G.R. No. 181067 and on 07 July 2008 in G.R. No. 181159. Also, they must inform this Court whether cases arising from the 29 November 2007 Manila Peninsula incident were filed against them by respondents, and the status of the said cases.
Respondent DOJ Secretary is required to inform this Court whether the undated DOJ Advisory issued by then Sec. Gonzales is still in effect. The Advisory is addressed to all Chief Executive Officers of media networks, media companies, press groups and other entities, reminding them of the possibility of incurring criminal liabilities in case of authorized police or military operations. She is also required to inform this Court whether the DOJ has filed cases against the said entities by virtue of the Advisory and what the latest status of those cases is.
The other public respondents are likewise required to inform this Court of whatever case/s they have filed against petitioners arising from the 29 November 2007 incident and their latest status, as well as of any subsequent events relevant to these cases since the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment on the Petition-in-Intervention dated 06 October 2008. 55
Significantly, in their Compliance and Manifestation dated December 22, 2011, 56 Petitioners in G.R. No. 181067 manifested that no criminal cases arising from the Manila Peninsula incident had been filed against any of them and that no developments relevant to their Petition had taken place since the filing of their Reply on May 14, 2008. Similarly, Petitioners in G.R. No. 181159 filed their Manifestation dated January 4, 2012, 57 stating as well that no cases arising from the Manila Peninsula incident had been filed against them. ETHIDa
On February 3, 2012, in their Manifestation and Motion of even date, 58 the public respondents DILG, AFP, and PNP, through the OSG, manifested that their respective offices had not filed any case against the Petitioners in both Petitions in connection with the Manila Peninsula incident, which was noted by the Court in a Resolution dated March 13, 2012. 59
On March 9, 2012, the DOJ, through the OSG, filed its Compliance 60 of even date, stating therein that the DOJ Advisory issued by then Secretary Raul Gonzales remained in effect, insofar as it served to remind journalists not to unduly interfere in police operations. It was also disclosed by the DOJ that no cases had been filed against the Petitioners arising from the Manila Peninsula incident nor had there been any developments in connection therewith.
Finally, in a Resolution dated March 20, 2012, 61 the Court resolved to consider as satisfactory the Compliance dated March 9, 2012 filed by the OSG.
It is a settled rule that this Court's power of review operates only when there is an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of its judicial power. An "actual case or controversy" has been jurisprudentially defined as "one which involves a conflict of legal rights . . . susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute". 62 Meanwhile, closely related to such requirement is the requisite of "ripeness", which requires that the act being challenged must have had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it and that the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened injury to himself as a result of the challenged action. 63
Thus, this Court may only adjudicate actual, ongoing controversies and is without authority to decide moot questions or declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the result as to the thing in issue before it. 64
Proceeding from the foregoing, it is clear that the instant case presents a non-justiciable controversy.
The records bear no indication that any of the Petitioners were re-arrested or detained after being released back in November of 2007. In fact, the Petitioners admitted through their respective Manifestations that no cases had been filed against them in connection with the Manila Peninsula incident. Hence, there is nothing to restrain or prohibit.
To be sure, Petitioners cannot bypass the requisite of an actual case or controversy by seeking as well the prevention of future prosecutions pursuant to the DOJ Advisory and alleged threats issued by the Respondent, as suggested in the Manifestation dated January 4, 2012:
3. . . . If this case is dismissed for being moot and academic, there is nothing to stop the government forces from doing the same thing they did at the Manila Peninsula Hotel on 29 November 2007.
xxx xxx xxx
5. Journalists cannot report from inside a prison cell. If they can be rounded up and put behind bars at the whim of the police, they will not be able to report information of public concern to the people. This issue, which is central to the petition, must be resolved to ensure the people's right to information on matters of public concern, and so that the conduct of government forces in future incidents will be duly regulated. 65 (Emphasis supplied)
Based on the very language used above, the relief prayed for would in fact be premature as the violation of Petitioners' rights is based on speculation of future arrests in cases of similar events. cSEDTC
More importantly, quite notable is the fact that the Manifestations dated December 22, 2011 and January 4, 2012 came four (4) years after the material events subject of the Petitions had transpired. Since then, all of the Respondents have long vacated their respective positions held in the DILG, AFP, and PNP at the time the Petitions were filed. Truly, had there been any true intention to file criminal charges against the Petitioners, as claimed by them, such cases should have been filed already. Certainly, the extended lapse of time [i.e., nine (9) years] since the Manila Peninsula incident without any cases having been initiated by either of the parties is sufficient to dispel any alleged "chilling effect" arising from "illegal arrests, threats, and harassment" on the part of the Petitioners.
In this regard, the Court is fully convinced that this case has been rendered moot and academic. Thus, having already disposed of this case on the foregoing grounds, a discussion on the substantive matters raised in the Petitions is not necessary or called for.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we DISMISS the Petition for being moot and academic." Carpio, J., on official leave. Jardeleza, J., no part. (adv46) AIDSTE
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rule on the Writ of Amparo, A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, September 25, 2007.
2. Section 2, Rule 65, Rules of Court.
3. Rollo (G.R. No. 181159), pp. 111-112.
4. The ground and on-site personnel of the PNP's Special Action Force (SAF) and Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) present during the Manila Peninsula incident.
5. Rollo (G.R. No. 181067), pp. 12, 150.
6. Id. at 12.
7. Id. at 13.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 13-14.
11. Id. at 14.
12. Id.
13. Id. at 14-15.
14. Id. at 15.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 15-16.
17. Id. at 16.
18. Id.; rollo (G.R. No. 181159), p. 95.
19. Id. at 3-38.
20. Rollo (G.R. No. 181159), pp. 3-94.
21. Id. at 8.
22. Id.
23. Id. at 42-45.
24. Pablito V. Sanidad, Arthur L. Allad-iw, Renato Samuel D. Bautista, Desiree Caluza, Franklin Y. Cimatu, Brenda Subido Dacpano, Artemio Dumlao, Dhobie De Guzman, Kathleen T. Okubo, Ernesto N. Olson, Jr., Rimaliza A. Opina, Thomas Forteza-Picana, Elina M. Velasco-Ramo, Cyrene O. Reyes, Martina S. Sales, Fernando Zapata, and the persons named in the Attached List of Additional Petitioners-in-Intervention (Annex "A" of the Petition-in-Intervention).
25. Rollo (G.R. No. 181159), p. 193.
26. Id. at 271-A to 271-B.
27. Id. at 130-131.
28. Id. at 132.
29. Id.
30. Id. at 133.
31. Id.
32. Id. at 319.
33. Id.
34. Id. at 133.
35. Id. at 134.
36. Id. at 133.
37. Id. at 133-134.
38. Id. at 134.
39. Id.
40. Id.
41. Id. at 135.
42. Id.
43. Rollo (G.R. No. 181067), p. 160.
44. Id. at 149-199.
45. Id. at 258-291.
46. Id. at 164.
47. (e) Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by obstructing the service of process or court orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's offices, . . . .
48. Rollo (G.R. No. 181067), pp. 169-170.
49. Id. at 194.
50. Id. at 201-203.
51. Id. at 222-D.
52. Id. at 223 to 233-A.
53. Id. at 238-A.
54. See Abdul v. Sandiganbayan, 722 Phil. 485, 486 & 491 (2013).
55. Rollo (G.R. No. 181067), pp. 300-301.
56. Id. at 304-306.
57. Id. at 310-312.
58. Id. at 358-361.
59. Id. at 389-390.
60. Id. at 395-398.
61. Id. at 408-409.
62. Belgica v. Ochoa, 721 Phil. 416, 519 (2013).
63. Id. at 519-520.
64. Pormento v. Estrada, 643 Phil. 735, 738 (2010).
65. Rollo (G.R. No. 181067), pp. 310-311.