ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. Nos. 139308-09.� May 10, 2005]

SOCRATES vs. YAP-HERNANDEZ

EN BANC

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 10 2005.

G.R. Nos. 139308-09 (Gov. Salvador Socrates vs. Hon. Nelia Yap-Hernandez, in her capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 50 of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, and Douglas Hagedorn.)

This is a petition for certiorari [1] cralaw (petition) under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, filed by petitioner Governor Salvador Socrates (Gov. Socrates), seeking to nullify the orders dated 23 March 1999 and 31 May 1999 of public respondent Hon. Nelia Yap-Fernandez (Judge Yap-Fernandez) in "People of the Philippines v. Gov. Salvador P. Socrates," docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 14890-91 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Palawan, Branch 50, for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The assailed orders granted the intervention and participation of private respondent Douglas S. Hagedorn (Hagedorn) in the said criminal cases.

These criminal cases arose out of a complaint [2] cralaw filed against Gov. Socrates for alleged violations of Section 261 (q) of the Omnibus Election Code, [3] cralaw in relation to Section 32 of Republic Act No. 7166 [4] cralaw and of Section 261 (t) of the same Code, in relation to Section 33 of Republic Act No. 7166, by P/Supt. Feliciano Dimayuga, the Chief of Police of the City of Puerto Princesa, before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

Gov. Socrates and Hagedorn were both candidates for Governor of Palawan during the May 1998 elections, where the former emerged the winner by a wide margin. [5] cralaw

Hagedorn filed a complaint-in-intervention which the COMELEC granted in an order dated 9 July 1998. [6] cralaw

On 27 January 1999, the COMELEC filed two informations against Gov. Socrates involving the alleged violation of Section 261(m) [7] cralaw of the Omnibus Election Code, penalizing the appointment or use of special policemen, special agents, confidential agents or the like during the campaign period, on the day before and on election day. [8] cralaw

Upon motion of petitioner, Judge Yap-Fernandez issued an order requiring Hagedorn to submit a memorandum supporting his motion for intervention. Gov. Socrates was also required to submit a reply thereto. [9] cralaw

On 23 March 1999, Judge Yap-Fernandez issued the first assailed order, [10] cralaw authorizing Hagedorn's intervention and participation in the prosecution of the alleged election offenses of Gov. Socrates. On 31 May 1999, Judge Yap-Fernandez issued the second assailed order, [11] cralaw denying Gov. Socrates's motion for reconsideration.

Hence, the filing of the instant petition in which Gov. Socrates imputes grave abuse of discretion on the part of Judge Yap-Fernandez in the issuance of the two assailed orders. Gov. Socrates insists that the public respondent should not have authorized Hagedorn's intervention as the latter is not an offended party who can claim a tangible, actual or prospective injury and neither does he have legal interest in the outcome of the cases. [12] cralaw Thus, the issue is the legal right to intervene of a losing candidate in the prosecution of election offenses committed during the election period by the winning candidate.

The need for passing upon the issue is obviated by the fact that Gov. Socrates has not been heard of to date since the crash of the airplane he was aboard as a passenger on 2 July 2000. [13] cralaw Applying Article 391 of the Civil Code, Gov. Socrates is considered dead for all purposes after the lapse of four (4) years from the time of the plane crash, which period expired on 2 July 2004. The provision reads as follows:

Art 391. The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the heirs:

(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is missing, who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft:

.

(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four years.

This Civil Code provision is restated in Section 3 (w), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court which reads in part:

SEC.� 3. Disputable presumptions. - The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:

(w)��

The following shall be considered dead for all purposes including the division of the estate among the heirs:

(1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aircraft which is missing, who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aircraft:

.

(3) A person who has been in danger of death under other circumstances and whose existence has not been known for four years.

Moreover, the Court was duly apprised [14] cralaw by Judge Yap-Fernandez that she ordered the archiving of the subject criminal cases on 20 September 2001.

Perforce, the instant petition should be dismissed for having been rendered moot and academic by the previously mentioned events. A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits. [15] cralaw With the foregoing circumstances, the criminal cases at the center of the controversy could no longer be pursued, as in fact they had been archived, on account of the death of the defendant.

Well-entrenched is the rule that courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions in which no actual interests are involved; they decline jurisdiction of moot cases. And where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controvery, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. There is no actual substantial relief to which petitioner would be entitled. [16] cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DISMISSES the petition for having become moot and academic, without costs.

Puno, J., on sick leave. Panganiban and Gutierrez, JJ., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court



Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Dated 30 July 1999; Rollo, pp. 3-114 with annexes.

[2] cralaw Dated 3 June 1998; Id. at 56-68; In light of COMELEC Resolution No. 2965.

[3] cralaw The pertinent provisions of the Omnibus Election Code read as follows:

ARTICLE XXII

ELECTION OFFENSES

Sec. 261. Prohibited Acts . - The following shall be guilty of an election offense:

.

(q) Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business. - Any person who, although possessing a permit to carry firearms, carries any firearms outside his residence or place of business during the election period, unless authorized in writing by the Commission: Provided, That a motor vehicle water or air craft shall not be considered a residence or place of business or extension hereof. This prohibition shall not apply to cashiers and disbursing officers while in the performance of their duties or to persons who by nature of their official duties, profession, business or occupation habitually carry large sums of money or valuables.

.

(t) Policemen and provincial guards acting as bodyguards or security guards. - During the campaign period, on the day before and on election day, any member of the city or municipal police force, any provincial or sub-provincial guard, any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, special forces, home defense forces, barangay self-defense units and all other para-military units that now exist or which may hereafter be organized who acts as bodyguard or security guard of any public official, candidate or any other person, and any of the latter who utilizes the services of the former� as bodyguard or security guard: Provided, That, after due notice and hearing, when the life and security of a candidate is in jeopardy, the Commission is empowered to assign at the candidate's choice, any member of the Philippine Constabulary or the police force of any municipality within the province to act as his bodyguard or security guard in a number to be determined by the Commission but not to exceed three per candidate: Provided, however, That when the circumstances require immediate action, the Commission may issue a temporary order allowing the assignment of any member of the Philippine Constabulary or the local police force to act as bodyguard or security guard of the candidate, subject to confirmation or revocation.

[4] cralaw Entitled "An Act Providing for Synchronized National and Local Elections and for Electoral Reforms, Authorizing Appropriations Therefor, and for Other Purposes;" Sections 32 and 33 of R.A. 7166 provide:

SEC. 32. Who May Bear Firearms. - During the election period, no person shall bear, carry or transport firearms or other deadly weapons in public places, including any building, street, park, private vehicle or public conveyance, even if licensed to possess or carry the same, unless authorized in writing by the Commission. The issuance of firearm licenses shall be suspended during the election period.

Only regular members or officers of the Philippine National Police, the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other law enforcement agencies of the Government who are duly deputized in writing by the Commission for election duty may be authorized to carry and possess firearms during the election period: Provided, That, when in the possession of firearms, the deputized law enforcement officer must be: (a) in full uniform showing clearly and legibly his name, rank and serial number which shall remain visible at all times; and (b) in the actual performance of his election duty in the specific area designated by the Commission.

SEC. 33. Security Personnel and Bodyguards. - During the election period, no candidate for public office, including incumbent public officers seeking election to any public office, shall employ, avail himself of or engage the services of security personnel or bodyguards, whether or not such bodyguards are regular members or officers of the Philippine National Police, the Armed Forces of the Philippines or other law enforcement agency of the Government: Provided, That, when circumstances warrant, including but not limited to threats to life and security of a candidate, he may be assigned by the Commission, upon due application, regular members of the Philippine National Police, the Armed Forces Of the Philippines or other law enforcement agency who shall provide him security for the duration of the election period. The officer assigned for security duty to a candidate shall be subject to the same requirement as to wearing of uniforms prescribed in the immediately preceding section unless exempted in writing by the Commission.

If at any time during the election period, the ground for which the authority to engage the services of security personnel has been granted shall cease to exist or for any other valid cause, the Commission shall revoke the said authority.

[5] cralaw Rollo, p. 8.

[6] cralaw Id. at 9.

[7] cralaw Section 261(m) reads as follows:

Sec. 261. Prohibited Acts. - The following shall be guilty of an election offense:

.

(m) Appointment or use of special policemen, special agents, confidential agents or the like. - During the campaign period, on the day before and on election day, any appointing authority who appoints or any person who utilizes the services of special policemen, special agents, confidential agents or persons performing similar functions; persons previously appointed as special policemen, special agents, confidential agents or persons performing similar functions who continue acting as such, and those who fail to turn over their firearms, uniforms, insignias and other badges of authority to the proper officer who issued the same. At the start of the aforementioned period, the barangay chairman, municipal mayor, city mayor, provincial governor, or any appointing authority shall submit to the Commission a complete list of all special policemen, special agents, confidential agents or persons performing similar functions in the employ of their respective political subdivisions, with such particulars as the Commission may require.

[8] cralaw Rollo, p. 9.

[9] cralaw Ibid at 9.

[10] cralaw Id. at 26-29.

[11] cralaw Id. at 30-31.

[12] cralaw Id. at 10-13.

[13] cralaw Id. at 218-A.

[14] cralaw Through a letter dated 10 October 2001, Rollo p. 223; Pursuant to the Court's Resolution dated 18 September 2001.

[15] cralaw PNB v. Court of Appeals, 353 Phil. 473, 479 (1998).

[16] cralaw Garcia v. COMELEC, 328 Phil. 288, 292 (1996); Gancho-on v. Sec. of Labor and Employment, 337 Phil. 654, 658 (1997)


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com