G.R. No. 134855 ; July 2, 2002
CHIEF SUPT. ROMEO M. ACOP and SR. SUPT. FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, JR., petitioners-appellants, vs. HON. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR., in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Justice, and SENIOR STATE PROSECUTOR JUDE ROMANO, in his capacity as the Director of the Government’s Witness Protection Program; SPO2 EDUARDO DELOS REYES and SPO2 CORAZON DELA CRUZ, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

This case originated from the alleged summary execution of eleven suspected members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang in Quezon City on May 18, 1995. SPO2 Eduardo delos Reyes and SPO2 Corazon dela Cruz, both members of the PNP Criminal Investigation Command, publicly disclosed that the incident was a rubout, not a shootout. They subsequently testified before the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights investigating the matter. Based on the committee’s recommendation, then chaired by Senator Raul Roco, the two police officers were admitted into the government’s Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program (WPP).
Petitioners, Chief Supt. Romeo Acop and Sr. Supt. Francisco Zubia, Jr., who were among the PNP officers implicated in the incident, filed a petition for injunction before the Regional Trial Court. They argued that the admission of the two police officers into the WPP was illegal under Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 6981 (The Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act), which disqualifies law enforcement officers from the program even if they are testifying against other law enforcement officers. The RTC dismissed their petition, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether SPO2 delos Reyes and SPO2 dela Cruz, as law enforcement officers, were legally admitted into the Witness Protection Program despite the disqualification under Section 3(d) of R.A. No. 6981 .

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC decision and denied the petition. The Court held that the two police officers were legally admitted into the WPP. The legal logic hinges on the distinction between Sections 3 and 4 of R.A. No. 6981 . Section 3 governs admission for testimony before judicial, quasi-judicial bodies, or investigating authorities, and its proviso in paragraph (d) explicitly disqualifies law enforcement officers. However, Section 4 provides a separate and distinct rule for witnesses in legislative investigations in aid of legislation.
The Court ruled that a legislative committee investigation does not fall under the category of “any investigating authority” mentioned in Section 3. Section 4 contains its own specific requirements—recommendation by the legislative committee and approval by the Senate President or House Speaker—but it does not contain, nor does it refer to, the disqualifying proviso found in Section 3(d). Applying the statutory construction principle that “where the law does not distinguish, courts should not distinguish,” the disqualification for law enforcers under Section 3(d) does not extend to witnesses under Section 4. Since the Senate Committee recommended, and the Senate President approved, the admission of the two officers, their inclusion in the WPP was valid. The Court resolved the merits despite the mootness of some prayers, as the issue was capable of repetition yet evading review.