G.R. No. 125532 July 10, 1998
SECRETARY TEOFISTO GUINGONA, JR.; STATE PROSECUTORS JUDE ROMANO, LEAH ARMAMENTO, MANUEL TORREVILLAS, JOAQUIN ESCOVAR, MENRADO CORPUS; the NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; and POTENCIANO ROQUE, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and RODOLFO PINEDA, respondents.

FACTS

This case arose from a government investigation in late 1995 into the alleged involvement of officials in illegal gambling like “jueteng.” Potenciano A. Roque, claiming personal knowledge from his former role as Chairman of the Task Force Anti-Gambling, sought admission into the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program under Republic Act No. 6981. He executed sworn statements implicating, among others, private respondent Rodolfo Pineda. The Department of Justice, after evaluation, admitted Roque into the Program. Pineda filed a petition for reconsideration against Roque’s admittance, which was denied. Pineda then filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals upheld the justice secretary’s denial and dismissed Pineda’s petition. However, the appellate court, in its decision, opined that the requirement under R.A. 6981 that a witness’s testimony “can be substantially corroborated on its material points” is a condition precedent that must be shown at the time of the application’s evaluation. The petitioners, despite the favorable ruling, assail this specific opinion, contending that corroboration need not be demonstrated prior to or simultaneous with admission, as long as it can be shown when the witness actually testifies in court. It is noted that Roque has already been admitted into the Program and has finished testifying.

ISSUE

Whether or not a witness’ testimony requires prior or simultaneous corroboration at the time he is admitted into the witness protection, security and benefit program.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Court found the issue raised by the petitioners to be moot and academic. Since Potenciano Roque had already been admitted into the Witness Protection Program and had completed his testimony, any judgment on the propriety of the timing of the corroboration requirement would be a mere academic disquisition on a hypothetical problem. The Constitution mandates that judicial power includes the duty to settle actual controversies involving legally demandable rights. The elements for judicial review, including the existence of an actual case or controversy ripe for adjudication, were absent. The Court emphasized that until an actual controversy involving a concrete violation of R.A. 6981 arises, it has no jurisdiction to rule on the issue. The Court also noted that a closer reading of the assailed Court of Appeals Decision showed it sustained Roque’s admission based on the alternative argument that his testimony was sufficiently corroborated, and it found no manifest abuse of discretion by the petitioners.