ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

G.R. 131460. August 23, 2006]

REYNALDO REYES v. HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, STATE PROSECUTOR II MENRADO Y. CORPUZ, POTENCIANO ROQUE, ANGELITO SANCHEZ, AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (REPRESENTED BY THE HONORABLE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 23, 2006 .

G.R. No. 131460 (Reynaldo Reyes v. Hon. Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., In his Capacity as Secretary of Justice, State Prosecutor II Menrado Y. Corpuz, Potenciano Roque, Angelito Sanchez, and The People of the Philippines (Represented by the Honorable Office of the Solicitor General),

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

RESOLUTION

Petitioner, Reynaldo Reyes, was indicted before the Manila Regional Trial Court (RTC) by Information filed on February 5, 1996 by the Department of Justice (DOJ), for corruption of public official defined and penalized under Article 212 vis a vis Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.

The case arose from the execution on November 30, 1995 by respondent Potenciano Roque (Roque), Chairman/Director of the Task Force on Anti-Gambling from April 1986 up to October 1989, of a sworn statement before agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) declaring that, inter alia, he had received bribe money from petitioner and other gambling lords, hence, he tolerated petitioner's operations. In an earlier move, respondent Angelito Sanchez (Sanchez), who claimed to be a former asset-informer of the task force, executed before the NBI on November 29, 1995 a sworn statement alleging that, inter alia, he was asked by one of the operating officers of the task force to bring bribe money, which allegedly came from petitioner and other gambling lords, to Roque.

The DOJ which conducted the preliminary investigation of the case admitted respondents Roque and Sanchez as state witnesses under R.A. No. 6981, the "Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program."

Petitioner moved before the DOJ for the disqualification of Roque and Sanchez but the same was denied by respondent-then Secretary of Justice Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr.

After pleading not guilty on arraignment, petitioner filed with the trial court a motion [1] cralaw again to disqualify Roque and Sanchez as state witnesses on two (2) grounds: (1) respondents Roque and Sanchez - but more particularly Roque - appeared to be the most guilty, and (2) their testimonies are not substantially corroborated in their material points.

Petitioner's motion was opposed by the prosecution which contended that the admission by the Secretary of Justice of Roque and Sanchez into the witness protection program may not be collaterally attacked by a mere petition and that petitioner was engaged in forum shopping.

The trial court, by Order of August 6, 1996, [2] cralaw denied petitioner's motion in this wise:

In the Court's view, Republic Act 6981 has vested in the Department of Justice quasi-judicial power and/or sound discretion to determine whether or not an applicant qualifies as a witness under the witness protection program.

In the case at bench, as observed and noted by the Court, the Department of Justice has admitted Potenciano A. Roque and Angelito A. Sanchez as witnesses after conducting an examination of said applicants and other relevant facts as well as the execution of sworn statements detailing their knowledge or information on the commission of the separate crime charged in the two cases at bench. The Department of Justice having exercised its quasi-judicial power and/or sound discretion under the law, it would be improper and erroneous for the Court to interfere with such exercise of power and/or sound discretion. (Underscoring supplied)

Petitioner assailed the trial court's order via petition for certiorari [3] cralaw before the Court of Appeals, contending that

I.

PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ROQUE, ET AL.'S ADMISSION INTO THE WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM VIOLATES SEC. 3 (b) AND/OR SEC. 10 (d) OF REPUBLIC ACT 6981 SINCE THEIR TESTIMONIES ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY CORROBORATED IN THEIR MATERIAL POINTS.

II.

PRIVATE RESPONDENTS [sic] ROQUE'S ADMISSION INTO THE WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM VIOLATED SEC. 10 (e) OF REPUBLIC ACT 6981 SINCE ROQUE, THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS, APPEARS TO BE THE MOST GUILTY [4] cralaw (Underscoring supplied)

By Decision of November 11, 1997, [5] cralaw the appellate court denied petitioner's petition and accordingly dismissed it.

In so denying, the appellate court held:

Under the law (RA 6981), two types of prospective witnesses may seek admission into the witness protection program. First, when a person has witnessed or has knowledge or information on the commission of the crime. This is governed by section 3 of the Act. Second, when a person has participated in the commission of a crime. This is provided in section 10 thereof which reads:

"Sec. 10. State Witness. Any person who has participated in the commission of a crime and desires to be a witness for the State, can apply and, if qualified as determined in this Act and by the Department, shall be admitted into the Program whenever the following circumstances are present.

a) the offense in which his testimony will be used is a grave felony as defined under the Revised Penal Code or its equivalent under special laws;

b) there is absolute necessity for his testimony;

c) there is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed;

d) his testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material points;

e) he does not appear to be the most guilty; and

f) he has not at any time been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude."

Being a participes criminis under the information for violation of Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code, respondent Roque evidently falls within the scope of the aforequoted provision.

Two of the legal requirements are at issue in this case: first, whether or not private respondent Roque's testimony can be substantially corroborated in its material points and, second, whether or not he does not appear to be the most guilty.

x x x x

. . . [I]t is significant to note that the statements made by respondent Sanchez sufficiently dovetail respondent Roque's testimony in its material points.

x x x x

As regards the second point, petitioner argues that respondent Roque is the most guilty. However, petitioner proceeds from the false assumption that Roque, being a public officer, is ipso facto the most guilty in the offense of corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code. This is more imagined than real.

x x x x

In this case, it appears that respondent Roque was specifically sought by the petitioner after his initial campaign against illegal gambling. In point of fact, it was petitioner who approached and insistently offered bribe to Roque in exchange for the protection for the former's illegal gambling activities. x x x

x x x x

WE HOLD THAT THE ADMISSION OF A POTENTIAL WITNESS UNDER RA 6981 IS A MATTER ADDRESSED TO THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE.

x x x x [6] cralaw (Underscoring in the original; emphasis and capitalization of last paragraph quoted supplied)

Hence, the present petition for review, petitioner faulting the appellate court to have, in the main, decided his petition for certiorari

a.) . . . IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE CLEAR PROVISIONS OF THE WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM ON THE NON-ADMISSIBILITY OF POTENCIANO ROQUE AS A WITNESS CONSIDERING THAT HE IS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND HIS TESTIMONY COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY CORROBORATED IN ITS MATERIAL POINTS WITH ANGELITO SANCHEZ (SECTION 3 (d) AND (b), RA No. 6981);

b.) . . . IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE CLEAR PROVISION OF THE WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM ON THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WITNESS ROQUE APPEARS TO BE THE MOST GUILTY (SECTION 10 (e), RA 6981);

x x x x [7] cralaw

The petition fails.

In Sec. Guingona, Jr. v. Court of Appeals [8] cralaw which cited the following ruling in Webb v. Hon. de Leon: [9] cralaw

[T]he prosecution of crimes appertains to the executive department of government whose principal power and responsibility is to see that our laws are faithfully executed. A necessary component of this power to execute our laws is the right to prosecute their violators. The right to prosecute vests the prosecutor with a wide range of discretion-the discretion of whether, what and whom to charge, the exercise of which depends on a smorgasbord of factors which are best appreciated by prosecutors. We thus hold that it is not constitutionally impermissible for Congress to enact R.A. No. 6981 vesting in the Department of Justice the power to determine who can qualify as a witness in the program and who shall be granted immunity from prosecution. [10] cralaw (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),

this Court held that it should "leave to the executive branch the decision on how best to administer the Witness Protection Program."

The dismissal of petitioner's petition for certiorari by the appellate court, which echoed the trial court's raison d' etre in denying petitioner's motion to disqualify Roque and Sanchez similar to that in Guingona, Jr., is thus in order.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

Costs against petitioner.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Records, pp. 220-224.

[2] cralaw Id. at 255.

[3] cralaw CA rollo, pp. 2-18.

[4] cralaw Id. at 8.

[5] cralaw Penned by Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili with the concurrence of Justices Antonio M. Martinez and Corona Ibay-Somera; Loose copy of the Court of Appeals Decision, pp. 1-11, attached to the CA rollo.

[6] cralaw Id. at 4-9.

[7] cralaw Petition, p. 2; Rollo, p. 4.

[8] cralaw 354 Phil. 415 (1998).

[9] cralaw 317 Phil. 758 (1995).

[10] cralaw Id. at 800.


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