G.R. No. 152258 . November 30, 2006.
ROGELIO P. ANTALAN, Petitioner, vs. HON. ANIANO DESIERTO, In his capacity as Ombudsman, Respondent.

FACTS

Rogelio Antalan, Mayor of the Island Garden City of Samal, was charged before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao with various offenses including graft. The Graft Investigator recommended dismissal, which the Ombudsman approved. The complainant filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Investigator in an Order dated September 11, 2001, also approved by the Ombudsman. However, the Ombudsman verbally directed his Legal Counsel, Sylvia Bismonte-Beltran, to review the Order. Bismonte-Beltran issued a Memorandum dated October 1, 2001, recommending the disapproval of the dismissal concerning the charge for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 and the filing of an Information. An Information was subsequently filed with the Sandiganbayan on January 7, 2002.
Antalan filed a Motion for Reconsideration/Reinvestigation with the Sandiganbayan, arguing he was denied his right to file a motion for reconsideration under R.A. 6770. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion and ordered a reinvestigation. Antalan then filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration with the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP). While this was pending, he also filed the instant Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court on March 11, 2002, seeking to annul the October 1, 2001 Memorandum and October 4, 2001 Information for violating his right to due process.

ISSUE

Whether the Petition for Certiorari has been rendered moot and academic by subsequent events.

RULING

Yes, the petition is moot and academic. The legal principle of mootness dictates that courts will not determine cases where no actual controversy exists or where the issues have ceased to be justiciable. The records show that after the Sandiganbayan ordered a reinvestigation, the OSP, acting on Antalan’s Supplemental Motion, issued a Resolution on August 12, 2002, recommending the setting aside of the assailed Memorandum and the withdrawal of the Information for lack of factual and legal basis. This was approved by the Acting Ombudsman.
Consequently, a Motion to Withdraw Information was filed with the Sandiganbayan, which granted the motion in a Resolution dated January 7, 2003, ordering the Information withdrawn, the bail bond returned, and the hold departure order lifted. This Resolution attained finality as no motion for reconsideration was filed. These supervening events granted Antalan the very relief he sought from the Supreme Court—the nullification of the proceedings leading to the filing of the Information. Therefore, the present petition no longer presents a live, concrete dispute requiring judicial resolution. The Court denied the petition on the ground of mootness, as any ruling would be merely advisory and hypothetical.