G.R. No. 192976, July 27, 2015

THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 192976, July 27, 2015 ] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ATTY. JOSE CHRISTOPHER Y. BELMONTE) AND G.R. NO. 193026 (ATTY. JOSE CHRISTOPHER Y. BELMONTE V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ARMANDO SANCHEZ, OLIVIA ICARO, FLORIDA LANDICHO, DIRECTOR GENERAL JESUS VERZOSA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE; DIRECTOR LEON NILO DELA CRUZ, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND DETECTION GROUP; AND DIRECTOR MAGTANGGOL GATDULA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; AND ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER THEIR CONTROL, SUPERVISION, INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION IN RELATION TO THE ORDERS THAT MAY BE ISSUED BY THIS COURT.

It appearing that the copy of the Resolution dated December 1, 2014, noting Atty. Jose Christopher Y. Belmonte's Manifestation and Motion of October 22, 2014, praying, among others, that the motions for extension filed by the Office of the Solicitor General be denied and stricken off the record, addressed to Atty. Marie Francesca Yuvienco of the Santiago Cruz & Saete Law Offices, co-counsel for Atty. Belmonte, was returned unserved, with postal carrier's notation "RTS, unknown" on the envelope, the Court resolves to DEEM the said resolution as SERVED on the addressee.

Before the Court are two consolidated petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision[1] and Resolution,[2] dated November 23, 2009 and July 19, 2010, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 109262.

The present petitions trace their origin from a criminal complaint for double murder, frustrated murder and destruction of property, which was filed with the City Prosecutor of Batangas City, when an explosive device, which was planted near the vehicle of then Batangas Governor Armando Sanchez on June 1, 2006, exploded resulting in the destruction of the said vehicle, serious physical injuries on the part of the latter, and death of his security escort and driver. Parallel investigations conducted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) pointed to petitioner Belmonte, then Batangas Vice-Governor Richard "Ricky" Recto, former military officers who belong to the "Magdalo" group and several other persons, as responsible for the attack.

A panel of state prosecutors from the Department of Justice (DOJ) took over the preliminary investigation. Subsequently, then Secretary of Justice Raul Gonzales designated City Prosecutor Fidel Macauyag of Cagayan de Oro City as Acting City Prosecutor of Batangas City for the specific purpose of resolving the preliminary investigation of the case filed against Belmonte and the other respondents.[3]On June 1, 2009, Macauyag issued a Resolution[4] finding probable cause against Belmonte, Recto and several others for the complex crime of double murder with frustrated murder. The following day, an Information[5] was filed against the above persons with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 16037.

On June 3, 2009, Belmonte filed a Petition for Review[6] with the DOJ assailing the Resolution of Macauyag.

On even date, the case was raffled to Branch 3 of the RTC of Batangas City. That same day, Belmonte filed an Urgent Motion to Suspend Proceedings Including the Issuance and/or Implementation of a Warrant of Arrest.[7]

On June 4, 2009, the RTC issued an Order[8] holding that it cannot act on Belmonte's Urgent Motion because it has no jurisdiction over his person. In the same Order, the RTC directed the issuance of a warrant of arrest without bail against Belmonte.

On June 5, 2009, Belmonte filed a Manifestation with Urgent Motion Ex Abundante Ad Cautelam to Recall and/or Quash the Arrest Warrant.[9]

On June 8, 2009, the RTC issued another Order[10] reiterating that it could not act on Belmonte's Manifestation with Urgent Motion pending his arrest or surrender. Belmonte filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC Order dated June 4, 2009 but the RTC denied it on the same ground of lack of jurisdiction.[12]

Aggrieved, petitioner Belmonte filed a Petition for Prohibition and Certiorari[13]with the CA essentially asking that the proceedings in the criminal case be annulled and the implementation of the subject warrant of arrest be enjoined.

On November 23, 2009, the CA promulgated its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is GRANTED:
1) The assailed Orders of public respondent Regional Trial Court, Branch 3 of Batangas City dated 04 June 2009, 08 June 2009 and 15 June 2009 in Criminal Case No. 16037 are SET ASIDE.

2) The Warrant of Arrest issued by respondent Judge Ruben A. Galvez against herein petitioner Atty. Jose Christopher Y. Belmonte is hereby declared NULL and VOID and is SET ASIDE;

3) Respondent court is DIRECTED to forward certified true copies of the entire records of the Preliminary Investigation that had earlier been made, to the Department of Justice, which in turn is hereby DIRECTED to conduct a complete Preliminary Investigation on petitioner; and

4) Respondent court is ENJOINED from proceeding further against herein petitioner in Criminal Case No. 16037 pending completion of the Preliminary Investigation.
SO ORDERED.[14]
Belmonte, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and herein private respondent Armando Sanchez filed their respective Motions for Partial Reconsideration, but these were denied by the CA in its July 19,2010 Resolution.[15]

Hence, the instant petitions.

In G.R. No. 192976, the OSG relies upon the following grounds to support its petition, to wit:
I.

With due respect, the nullification of the warrant of arrest by the Honorable Court of Appeals based solely on its finding that the lower court did not conduct an independent evaluation of evidence has no basis in law and jurisprudence.

II.

The ruling by the Honorable Court of Appeals that the preliminary investigation is rendered defective by the failure of a respondent to submit his counter-affidavit is, with due respect, bereft of legal basis.[16]
The petitioner prays that the questioned Decision and Resolution of the CA be modified by: (a) sustaining the validity and enforcement of the wan-ant of arrest issued against therein respondent Belmonte; (b) upholding the validity of the preliminary investigation, and; (c) ordering the continuation in due course of the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 16037.

In G.R. No. 193026, Belmonte posits the following arguments in support of his petition:
I.

The Honorable Court of Appeals has decided a question of substance in a way not in accord with the applicable decisions of this Honorable Court. Specifically, given the undisputed findings of fact, the Honorable Court of Appeals should have applied the doctrines laid down in Ladlad, Salonga and Allado cases which called for the permanent injunction of the proceedings and the dismissal of a criminal case in view of the gross violations of the substantive rights of Atty. Belmonte and the glaring irregularities of the proceedings in the preliminary investigation; and

II.

The Honorable Court of Appeals has departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings as to call for this Honorable Court's exercise of the power of supervision. Specifically, the Honorable Court of Appeals should not have ordered the remand of the case to the DOJ for completion of preliminary investigation considering that the DQJ was not a party to the petition and that the subject matter of the petition was not the acts of the DOJ and/or its prosecutors, but the grave abuses of discretion committed by respondent trial court judge when he issued the assailed orders. Likewise, reopening the preliminary investigation, assuming without admitting that it can be ordered done by the Court of Appeals in that petition, should have been preceded or accompanied by the nullification of the prosecutor's resolution of the preliminary investigation and the withdrawal of the Information against Atty. Belmonte, the resolution and the Information being by-products of the defective preliminary investigation.[17]
Petitioner Belmonte likewise seeks the modification of the disputed CA Decision and Resolution, but with a different prayer, to wit: (a) by ordering the permanent injunction on the court proceedings and the dismissal of the case against him, and (b) by reversing and setting aside the CA Resolution which denied his Motion for Partial Reconsideration.

In the meantime, on January 25, 2010, the Second Division of this Court issued a Resolution[18] granting Belmonte's petition for change of venue on the ground that his life would be put in danger if the case would be tried in Batangas. Accordingly, the case was transferred from the RTC of Batangas City, Branch 3, to the RTC of Makati City. The case was later raffled to Branch 148, of the latter court and was docketed as Criminal Case No. 10-861.

On April 12, 2012, the Secretary of Justice, through Undersecretary Jose Vicente B. Salazar, issued a Resolution[19] reversing and setting aside the June 1, 2009 Resolution of Acting Batangas City Prosecutor Macauyag insofar as it found probable cause to indict Belmonte for the complex crime of double murder with frustrated murder and destruction of property. The dispositive portion of the said Resolution reads, thus:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the assailed resolution is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE in so far as it found probable cause against Respondent Atty. Christopher Belmonte. Accordingly, the Acting City Prosecutor of Batangas City is directed to file the appropriate motion to exclude respondent Atty. Christopher Belmonte from the charges of murder (2 counts), frustrated murder and destruction of properties, and to report the action taken thereon within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED.[20]
On February 15, 2013, the DOJ filed with the RTC of Makati City an Ex Parte Motion to Exclude Atty. Christopher Belmonte From the Information[21] on the strength of the April 12, 2012 Resolution of the DOJ Secretary.

On February 4, 2014, the RTC of Makati City, Branch 148, issued an Order,[22] pertinent parts of the dispositive portion are as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered:

1) x x x

2) The Ex-parte Motion to exclude accused Christopher Belmonte from the Information is GRANTED. The case against accused Belmonte is hereby DISMISSED; and his name is hereby EXCLUDED from the Information herein.

3) x x x

SO ORDERED.[23]
On March 5, 2014, Belmonte filed a Manifestation[24] informing this Court of the April 12, 2012 Resolution of the DOJ Secretary and the February 4, 2014 Order of the RTC of Makati City and praying that the said Manifestation be made part of the records of the case and be duly considered in evaluating the merits of the instant petitions. Belmonte likewise prays for other reliefs as are just and equitable in the premises.[25]

On June 25,2014, this Court required the OSG to comment on Belmonte's Manifestation and to inform the Court if there are other pending cases arising from the RTC Order dated February 4, 2014 involving Belmonte.

On December 1, 2014, the OSG filed a Manifestation and Motion (in Lieu of Comment) stating therein that it "opts to dispense with the filing of a comment on Atty. Belmonte's Manifestation and adopts the Comment date May 10, 2011 as the People's comment on Atty. Belmonte's Manifestation."

The OSG further informed this Court that it has not commenced any other action or filed any claim arising from the RTC Order dated 4 February 2014 involving Atty. Belmonte.

In view of the above developments in the main case, the Court finds that the instant petitions have been rendered moot and academic. No practical relief can be granted to petitioners by resolving the present petitions as the main issues raised revolve around the validity of the preliminary investigation as well as the warrant of arrest issued against Belmonte, which are mere incidents of the main case against him. Considering that the case against Belmonte was already dismissed, there is no point in resolving the above issues. Settled is the rule that it is unnecessary to indulge in academic discussion of a case presenting a moot question, as a judgment thereon cannot have any practical legal effect, or in the nature of things, cannot be enforced.[26] The Court will refrain from expressing its opinion in a case where no practical relief may be granted in view of a supervening event.[27]

WHEREFORE, the instant petitions are DISMISSED for being MOOT. (Jardeleza, J., no part; Brion, J., Additional Member, per Raffle dated July 27, 2015. Reyes, J., on leave; Perez, J., designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 2084 dated June 29, 2015.)

SO ORDERED.

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Arturo G. Tayag, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Michael P. Elbinias, concurring; Annex "A" to Petition, rollo (G.R. No. 192976), pp. 48-93, Annex "A" to Petition, rollo (G.R. No. 193026), pp. 45-91.

[2] Penned by Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Michael P. Elbinias, concurring; Annex "B" to Petition, rollo (G.R. No. 192976), pp. 94-97, Annex "A" to Petition, rollo (G.R. No. 193026), pp. 92-95.

[3] Rollo (G.R. No. 193026), p. 181.

[4] Id. at 161-179.

[5] Id. at 183-185.

[6] Id. at 186-198.

[7] Id. at 199-202.

[8] Id. at 156.

[9] Id. at 211-228.

[10] Id. at 159-160.

[11] Id. at 230-239.

[12] Id. at 158.

[13] Annex "C" to petition, id., at 96-139,

[14] Annex "A" to petition, id. at 89-90. Annex "B" to petition,

[15] Id. at 93-95.

[16] Rollo (G.R. No. 192976), p. 29.

[17] Rollo (G.R. No. L93026), p. 28. (Underscoring in the original)

[18] A.M. No. 09-12-536-RTC.

[19] Rollo (GR.No. 192976), pp. 414-421.

[20] Id, at 419.

[21] Id. at 422-424.

[22] Id. at 425-433.

[23] Id, at 433.

[24] Id. at 407-410.

[25] Id. at 409.

[26] Secretary of the Department of Finance v. Court of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. 168137, August 7, 2013, 703 SCRA 187, 194; Baldo v. Commission on Elections, 607 Phil. 281, 286 (2009).

[27] Sarmiento v. Magsino, G.R. No. 193000, October 16, 2013, 707 SCRA 532, 543; Oania v. People 553 Phil. 369, 373-374 (2007).