CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1

CASTILLO, E.G.

GR NO. 125532 JUL 10 1998

PETITIONER: SECRETARY TEOFISTO GUINGONA, JR

STATE PROSECUTORS JUDE ROMANO, LEAH ARMAMENTO, MANUEL TORREVILLAS,
JOAQUIN ESCOVAR, MENRADO CORPUS
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND POTENCIANO ROQUE
RESPONDENT: COURT OF APPEALS
RODOLFO PINEDA
PANGANIBAN, J.:

I. FACTS
 Last QTR of 1995 – NBI conducted investigation on the alleged participation and involvement of national and
local government officials in jueteng and other forms of illegal gambling which was also subject of legislative
investigation by the Congress,
 NOV 1995 – Potenciano Roque, claiming to be an eyewitness to the network of illegal gambling applied for
admission in the Government’s Witness Protection Program. He allegedly gained first-hand information in his
capacity as Chairman of the Task Force Anti-Gambling from the time of President Corazon Aquino until his
resignation in 1989.
 He was eventually admitted into the program by the DOJ after complying with the requirements of RA 6981 or
the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act
 Roque executed a sworn statement before NBI agents alleging that certain politicians, including Pineda,
offered him bribes which he accepted upon agreeing to cease raids conducted on the said politicians gambling
operations.
 On the basis of Roque’s sworn statement which was corroborated by Angelito Sanchez and Gen. Lorenzo
Mateo, the NBI recommended the filing of charges against Pineda and others involved.
 JAN 5 1996 - Pineda filed a Petition for Reconsideration of Admittance of Roque to the Witness Protection
Program which the DOJ Secretary denied. This prompted Pineda to file a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition
and Mandamus with Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction with the
Court of Appeals.
 The Court of Appeals ruled that Roque participated in the commission of the crimes imputed to Pineda by
accepting bribe money. Thus, his admission to the Program fell under Section 10, which requires that he
should not appear to be the most guilty of the imputed crimes.

II. 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
III. RULING - WHEREFORE , the petition is hereby DENIED
 Court of Appeals is assailed by petitioners for opining that admission to the Program requires prior or
simultaneous corroboration of the material points in the witness’ testimony.
 Without going into the merits of the case, the Court finds the petition fundamentally defective. The
Constitution provides that judicial power “includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable.” According to Fr. Joaquin
Bernas, a noted constitutionalist, courts are mandated to settle disputes between real conflicting parties
through the application of the law. Judicial review, which is merely an aspect of judicial power, demands the
following:
(1) there must be an actual case calling for the exercise of judicial power; (2) the question must be ripe for
adjudication; and (3) the person challenging must have “standing”; that is, he has personal and substantial
interest in the case, such that he has sustained or will sustain direct injury.