0 CIVPRO: General Principles of Remedial Law

Guingona vs. Court of Appeals 1. Judicial Power

1 GR No. 125532 July 10, 1998 Panganiban, J. Grace
Petitioners: Respondents:
[DPJ] Sec. Teofisto Guingona, Jr.; State Court of Appeals, Rodolfo Pineda (alleged
Prosecutors Jude Romano, Leah Armamento, Manuel gambling lord)
Torrevillas, Joaquin Escovar, Menrado Corpus;
National Bureau of Investigation; Potenciano Roque
(former chair of Task Force Ant-Gambling – TFAG)
Recit Ready Summary

Petitioner Roque, claiming to be an eyewitness and having first-hand information to alleged involvement
of government officials in “jueteng” and other forms of illegal gambling, sought admission into RA 6981:
Witness Protection, Security, and Benefit Program (WPP). DOJ Secretary Guingona eventually admitted
him to the WPP.

Roque executed a sworn statement to NBI, alleging that when he was the Chairman of the Task Force
Anti-Gambling, several politicians and gambling lords, including Respondent Pineda, would offer him
bribe money for him to cease raiding their gambling operations. This was corroborated by a certain
Sanchez and Gen. Mateo in their respective sworn statements. Pineda eventually questioned Roque’s
admittance to the WPP so he filed a Petition for Reconsideration, but this was denied by Sec. Guingona.

Meanwhile, State Prosecutors found probable cause against Pineda and filed 3 informations for
corruption of public officials against him with Manila and Pasig Trial Courts. Pineda then filed with the CA
a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus still questioning Roque’s WPP admission and to
enjoin the trial courts to from hearing the criminal actions. CA granted this and issued a writ of preliminary
injunction. The CA also ruled, however, that though the WPP requires that corroboration must have been
a condition precedent to Roque’s admission to WPP. CA then eventually ruled in favor of the government
and denied Pineda’s contentions.

Issue: WON state witness’ testimony requires prior or simultaneous corroboration at the time he is
admitted to the WPP? -- Inasmuch as Roque has already been admitted into the WPP and has
actually finished testifying in court, the issue presented by petitioners has become moot. The
Petition must fail.

There are 3 requisites for Judicial Review:

1. There must be an actual case or controversy for the exercise of judicial power
2. The question must be ripe for adjudication
3. Challenger must have standing, and has personal and substantial interest in the case

Ppetitioners merely filed this suit fearing that the Decision would frustrate the purpose of the WPP, which
is to encourage witnesses to come out and testify. They aren’t even asking to reverse the CA ruling! This
apprehension is neither justified nor exemplified, and this apprehension does not give rise to a
justiciable controversy.

After finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Prosecutors, CA allowed Roque’s admission
to the WPP. Roque had even testified already in court against Pineda. Thus, the propriety of Roque’s
admission to WPP is already moot and academic issue that clearly does not warrant judicial
review. Considering everything, petitioners failed to present an actual controversy and to show that this
case is ripe for adjudication.

Also, it would be an invasion of the functions of the Executive Department if SC accedes to the
government’s wishes to render an advisory opinion on what the Prosecutors should do – when, how, and
whom to grant/deny admission to the WPP. The decision on whether to prosecute and whom to
indict is executive in character. Only when an information, charging 2+ persons with a certain
offense, has already been filed in court will Rule 119, Sec. 9 of the Rules of Court will come into
play.

1
 Facts – This is a petition for REVIEW IN CERTIORARI of a decision of the Court of Appeals
1. 4th Quarter, 1995: National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an investigation on alleged
involvement of government officials in “jueteng” and other forms of illegal gambling. (case was also
the subject in a legislative inquiry by the congress).
2. Nov. 1995: Potenciano Roque, claiming to be an eyewitness of the interaction of politicians and
gambling lords, sought admission into RA 6981: Witness Protection, Security, and Benefit
Program (WPP/RA 6981) since he knew first-hand information due to his being Chairman of the
Task Force Anti-Gambling (TFAG) under Pres. Cory Aquino. He says that he and his family are in
danger of being “liquidated” (killed) due to his exposure in the “world of corruption.”
a. Dept. of Justice (DOJ) eventually admitted Roque to WPP, and provided him with monthly
allowance, temporary shelter, and personal security during witness duty.
3. 30 Nov. 1995: Roque executed a sworn statement before NBI Agents, Burgos and Bartolome,
alleging that during his stint as Chairman of TFAG, several gambling lords, including Rodolfo
Pineda, and politicians would give him money to make him cease conducting raids on their
gambling operations.
a. Roque’s sworn statement, along with Sanchez’ and Gen. Mateo’s sworn statements, NBI
Director Mison forwarded the investigation results to DOJ, recommending the filing of
charges against Pineda and other persons.
4. WHILE ALL THAT WAS HAPPENING WITH NBI, a DOJ Task Force on Illegal Gambling,
composed of petitioner Prosecutors, conducted a preliminary investigation of the case and
subpoenaed all the respondents in LS No. 95-774 and required them to submit counter affidavits.
Procedural History
1. 05 Jan. 1996: Pineda questioned Roque’s admittance in the WPP and filed a Petition for
Reconsideration. This was denied by DOJ Secretary Guingona.
2. 23 Jan. 1996: Pineda filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Mandamus with the CA.
3. Feb. 1996: Prosecutors issued a resolution finding probable cause to charge Pineda with
several offenses, and subsequently filed 3 Informations for corruption of public officials against
Pineda in Manila and Pasig City Trial Courts, and was arraigned in the same month.
4. 19 Mar. 1996: CA issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining both trial courts from hearing the
criminal actions in the meantime.
a. Pineda’s Contention with the CA: Roque’s admission was illegal as (1) his testimony could
not be substantially corroborated in its material points; (2) he appeared to be the guiltiest than
Pineda in the crimes charged.
b. CA Ruling:
i. RA 6981 (WPP) contemplates 2 kinds of witnesses (a) witness who has knowledge on the
commission of a crime under Sec. 3; (b) a witness who is a participant of the crime under
Sec. 10.
ii. Based on Roque’s sworn statements, he participated in the crimes imputed to Pineda
(corruption of public officials) by accepting the bribe money. Necessarily, his admission to
the WPP is under Sec. 10, which requires that he should not appear as the guiltiest of the
imputed crime. Although CA found that Pineda bribed Roque several times, this does not
make Roque guiltier than Pineda.
iii. Sec. 3&10 of RA 6891 expressly require corroboration as a condition precedent to
admission into the WPP. But still upheld Roque’s position that his testimony was
substantially corroborated by additional sworn testimonies by Sanchez’ and Gen. Mateo’s. In
the end, CA ruled in favor of the government.
Point/s of Contention
- Respondents (CA, Pineda): Secs. 3&10, RA 6891 expressly require that corroboration must
already exist at the time of the witness’ (Roque) application as a prerequisite to admission into the
WPP as a state witness.
- Petitioners (Prosecutors, Roque): Secs. 3&10, RA 6891 only require that the testimony of the state
witness seeking admission into the WPP can be “substantially corroborated” or is “capable of
corroboration” when he testifies in court.
Issues Ruling
1. WON a witness’ testimony requires prior or simultaneous corroboration at the 1. Yes BUT, this
time he is admitted into the witness protection, security, and benefit program isn’t the point
Rationale: PETITION MUST FAIL because facts and issues raised do not warrant the exercise of
judicial power.

1. No Actual Controversy, case is fundamentally defective

2
 - Constitution & Bernas: judicial power includes duty of courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.
- Requisites for Judicial Review (an aspect of Judicial Power):
o There must be an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial power
▪ Actual case or controversy: exists when there is a conflict of legal rights which can
be resolved on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence
o The question must be ripe for adjudication
▪ Question ripe for adjudication: when act challenged has a direct adverse effect
on individuals challenging it.
o Person challenging must have “standing,” he has personal and substantial interest in the case,
such that he has/will sustain direct injury.
- Doctrine of Separation of Powers calls for each branch of government to be left alone to
discharge its duties as it sees fit. Thus, before a Court may intervene, a prerequisite is that
something has been accomplished or performed by either branch. Then, it may pass on the validity
of what has been done, but only if it was properly challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding.
- IN THIS CASE: petitioners merely filed this suit fearing that the Decision would frustrate the
purpose of the WPP law, which is to encourage witnesses to come out and testify. They aren’t even
asking to reverse the CA ruling! This apprehension is neither justified nor exemplified, and this
apprehension does not give rise to a justiciable controversy.
o After finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Prosecutors, CA allowed Roque’s
admission to the WPP. Roque had even testified already in court against Pineda. Thus, the
propriety of Roque’s admission to WPP is already moot and academic issue that clearly
does not warrant judicial review.
o Considering everything, petitioners failed to present an actual controversy and to show that this
case is ripe for adjudication.

2. An Executive Function
- It would be an invasion of the functions of the Executive Department if SC accedes to the
government’s wishes to render an advisory opinion on what the Prosecutors should do – when, how,
and whom to grant/deny admission to the WPP.
- The decision on whether to prosecute and whom to indict is executive in character. Only
when an information, charging 2+ persons with a certain offense, has already been filed in
court will Rule 119, Sec. 9 of the Rules of Court will come into play.
- IN THIS CASE: Roque was NOT one of the accused in the Information filed by the Prosecutors.
Thus, Rule 119, Sec. 9 is not applicable.
- Even the laws that preceded the WPP, such as PD 1731 and National Emergency Memorandum
Order No. 26, all gave the Prosecutor much leeway in choosing who to admit in the WPP. This
inference is in harmony that this is an executive function. Unless an actual controversy arises, SC
will not unnecessarily intervene in this executive function.

3. Closer Scrutiny of the Assailed Decision

- Although the CA ultimately ruled that corroboration must exist prior or simultaneously with Roque’s
admission into the WPP, the CA subsequently cured this defect when they further ruled that they
found no abuse of discretion in Petitioners’ action. Therefore, until there is a concrete violation of RA
6891, SC has no jurisdiction to rule on the issue raised by petitioners.
Disposition
Petition DENIED.

1987 Constitution, ARTICLE VIII -- Judicial Department

SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by
law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Rule 119, Section 9 of the Rules of Court

SEC. 9. Discharge of one of several defendants to be witness for the prosecution. -- When two or more persons are
charged with the commission of a certain offense, the competent court, at any time before they have entered upon their
defense, may direct one or more of them to be discharged with the latter’s consent that he or they may be witnesses for
the government when in the judgment of the court:
3
 . (a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the defendant whose discharge is requested;
. (b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the
testimony of said defendant;
. (c) The testimony of said defendant can be substantially corroborated in its material points;
. (d) Said defendant does not appear to be the most guilty;
. (e) Said defendant has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude