Resolution^ dated April 30, 2019 attached thereto ...sb.judiciary.gov.ph/RESOLUTIONS/2019/I_Crim_SB-18... · 8. Comment (Re: OSP's Motion to Withdraw Informations)^ dated August 29,

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

SANDIGANBAYAN

QUEZON CITY

FOURTH DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff,

- versus -

SB-18-CRM-0065 to 0090

For: Violation of Section 3(e) of

R.A. No. 3019, as amended

Present:

QUIROZ, J., Chairperson,

JACINTO, 7., and

*PAHIIVINA,J.

VADM. RODOLFO DIWATA

ISORENA, ET AL,

Accused.

Promulgated:

nR 7m

QUIR0Z,7.:

RESOLUTION

Before the Court are the following incidents:

1. Compliance with Motion to Withdraw Informations^ datedAugust 1, 2019 filed by the prosecution with Consolidated

Resolution^ dated April 30, 2019 attached thereto;■{Supplement (to Plaintiffs Compliance with Motion to

Withdraw Informationsf dated August 13, 2019 filed bythe prosecution;

3. Comment^ dated August 15, 2019 filed by accused Cdr.JudeThaddeus Mandin Besinga;

* Sitting as Special Member per Administrative Order No. 225-2018 dated April 19, 2018.1 Records Volume 5, pp. 117-192. /2 Id. at 128-192. V3 Id. at 196-211." Id. at 212-215.

4. Manifestation^ dated August 14, 2019 filed by accused Cdr.Ivan E. Roldan;

5. Comment (to: Motion to Withdraw Informations and

Supplement thereto^ dated August 23, 2019 filed byaccused VAdm. Rodolfo D. Isorena, Capt. Joeven L Fabul,

Commo. Enrico Efren A. Evangelista, Capt. Angelito G. Gil,

and Capt. Ramon S. Lopez;

6. Comment' dated August 28, 2019 filed by accused Cdr.Joselito B. Quintas;

7. Manifestation^ dated August 14, 2019 filed by accused Cdr.John B. Esplana; and

8. Comment (Re: OSP's Motion to Withdraw Informations)^dated August 29, 2019 filed by accused Cdr. William O.

Arquero and Cdr. Wilfred A. Burgos.

In its motion and supplement, the prosecution prays for the

withdra\A/al of all the Informations dated December 14, 2017 and Amended

Informations dated June 22, 2018 in SB-18-CRM-0065 to 0090 pursuant to

the Consolidated Resolution approved on May 20, 2019 by the

Ombudsman, wherein it was declared that the exoneration of some of the

accused herein in the administrative cases filed before the Court of Appeals

upon which the present criminal cases were filed necessitated a

reconsideration of its earlier determination of probable cause and that

after a reexamination of the facts and evidence, it came to the conclusion

that it cannot effectively prosecute the said cases in the absence of

sufficient evidence on record to convict the accused for Violation of Section

3(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019.

In their respective comments, accused VAdm. Rodolfo D. Isorena,Capt. Joeven L. Fabul, Commo. Enrico Efren A. Evangelista, Capt. Angelito G.Gil, Capt. Ramon S. Lopez, Cdr. Jude Thaddeus Mandin Besinga, Cdr. Ivan E.Roldan, Cdr. Joselito B. Quintas, Cdr. John B. Esplana, Cdr. William 0.Arquero, and Cdr. Wilfred A. Burgos stated that they have no objection tothe withdrawal of the charges against them.

The withdrawal of the Informations and Amended Informations findssupport in the case of People v. Sandiganbayan,^° wherein the SupremeCourt declared the futility of proceeding with a criminal case that will be

5 Id. at 218-219.

6 Id. at 220-221.

'Id. at222-223.

8 Id. at 226-227.

9 Id. at 229-231.

1° G.R. No. 164577, July 5, 2010.

RESOLUTION

People V. Isorena, et al.SB-18-CRM-0065 to 0090

Page 3 of 4

prosecuted based on the same facts and evidence as that in theadministrative case which was dismissed for lack of evidence, as follows:

Petitioner would also make much of the principle in law that the

dismissal of the administrative case does not necessarily prevent a

criminal prosecution from proceeding. Indeed, the dismissal of anadministrative case does not bar the filing of a criminal prosecution for

the same or similar acts subject of the administrative complaint. Neitherdoes the disposition in one case inevitably govern the resolution of theother case/s and vice versa. Administrative liability is one thing; criminal

liability for the same act is another. The distinct and independent nature

of one proceeding from the other can be attributed to the following: first,the difference in the quantum of evidence required and, correlatively,the procedure observed and sanctions imposed; and second, theprinciple that a single act may offend against two or more distinct andrelated provisions of law, or that the same act may give rise to criminal aswell as administrative liability.

Although the dismissal of the criminal case cannot be pleaded to

abate the administrative proceedings primarily on the ground that the

quantum of proof required to sustain administrative charges is

significantly lower than that necessary for criminal actions, the same

does not hoid true if it were the other way around, that is, the dismissal

of the administrative case is being invoked to abate the criminal case.

The reason is that the evidence presented in the administrative case may

not necessarily be the same evidence to be presented in the criminal

case. The prosecution is certainly not precluded from adducing

additional evidence to discharge the burden of proof required in the

criminal cases. However, if the criminal case will be prosecuted based

on the same facts and evidence as that in the administrative case, and

the court trying the latter already squarely ruled on the absence of facts

and/or circumstances sufficient to negate the basis of the criminalindictment, then to still burden the accused to present controvertingevidence despite the failure of the prosecution to present sufficient andcompetent evidence, will be a futile and useless exercise. (Emphasis

supplied.)

Applying the foregoing jurisprudence to the present criminal caseswhich were founded on the same set of facts and evidence as in the! dismissed administrative cases and considering the Court's finding ofaflsence of sufficient evidence on record that would engender a well-founded belief that the accused are probably guilty of violating Section 3(e)of R.A. No. 3019, the Court resolves to grant the withdrawal of the

Informations and Amended Informations prayed for by the prosecution.

WHEREFORE, the prosecution's Compliance and Consolidated

Resolution are NOTED and the Motion to Withdraw Informations is

1

RESOLUTION

People V. Isorena, et al.

SB-18-CRM-0065 to 0090

Page 3 of 4

prosecuted based on the same facts and evidence as that In theadministrative case which was dismissed for lack of evidence, as follows:

Petitioner would also make much of the principle in law that the

dismissal of the administrative case does not necessarily prevent a

criminal prosecution from proceeding. Indeed, the dismissal of an

administrative case does not bar the filing of a criminal prosecution for

the same or similar acts subject of the administrative complaint. Neither

does the disposition in one case inevitably govern the resolution of the

other case/s and vice versa. Administrative liability is one thing; criminal

liability for the same act is another. The distinct and independent nature

of one proceeding from the other can be attributed to the following: first,

the difference in the quantum of evidence required and, correlatively,

the procedure observed and sanctions imposed; and second, the

principle that a single act may offend against two or more distinct and

related provisions of law, or that the same act may give rise to criminal as

well as administrative liability.

Although the dismissal of the criminal case cannot be pleaded to

abate the administrative proceedings primarily on the ground that the

quantum of proof required to sustain administrative charges is

significantly lower than that necessary for criminal actions, the same

does not hold true if it were the other way around, that is, the dismissal

of the administrative case is being invoked to abate the criminal case.

The reason is that the evidence presented in the administrative case maynot necessarily be the same evidence to be presented in the criminal

case. The prosecution is certainly not precluded from adducingadditional evidence to discharge the burden of proof required in thecriminal cases. However, if the criminal case will be prosecuted basedon the same facts and evidence as that in the administrative case, andthe court trying the latter already squarely ruled on the absence of factsand/or circumstances sufficient to negate the basis of the criminalindictment, then to still burden the accused to present controvertingevidence despite the failure of the prosecution to present sufficient andcompetent evidence, will be a futile and useless exercise. (Emphasissupplied.)

Applying the foregoing jurisprudence to the present criminal caseswhich were founded on the same set of facts and evidence as in theI di^ssed administrative cases and considering the Court's finding ofaf5sence of sufficient evidence on record that would engender a well-founded belief that the accused are probably guilty of violating Section 3(e)of R.A. No. 3019, the Court resolves to grant the withdrawal of theInformations and Amended Informations prayed for by the prosecution.

WHEREFORE, the prosecution's Compliance and Consolidated

Resolution are NOTED and the Motion to Withdraw Informations is

i

RESOLUTION

People V. Isorena, et al.

SB-18-CRM-0065 to 0090

Page 4 of 4

GRANTED. The Informations and Amended Informations in SB-18-CRM-

0065 to 0090 are WITHDRAWN. Accordingly, the said cases against

accused VADM. RODOLFO DIWATA ISORENA, CDR. JOHN BADONG

ESPLANA, CAPT. JOEVEN LIBREJA FABUL, ROGELIO FERRER CAGUlOA, CDR.

WILFRED A. BURGOS, RADM. CECIL R. CHEN, CDR. FERDINAND M.

VELASCO, CDR. GEORGE VILLAREAL URSABIA, JR., CDR. WILLIAM OCULAR

ARQUERO, CDR. JUDE THADDEUS MANDIN BESINGA, CDR. ROBEN

NAVARRO DE GUZMAN, CDR. ENRICO EFREN ACASIO EVANGELISTA, JR.,

CAPT. ANGELITO G. GIL, ENSIGN MARK FRANKLIN ALDEA LIM II, CAPT.

ANGEL F. LOBATON IV, CAPT. RAMON S. LOPEZ, LT. MARK LARSEN N.

MARIANO, COMMO. WILLIAM MASINLOC MELAD, CDR. ROMMEL A.

SUPANGAN, CDR. IVAN ENDIQUE ROLDAN, CDR. ALLEN J. DALANGIN,

CAPT. CHRISTOPHER T. VILLACORTE, CDR. FERDINAND TALLERA

PANGANIBAN, COMMO. AARON TENSUAN RECONQUISTA, and CDR.

JOSELITO BALAYANTO QUINTAS are DISMISSED.

The respective cash bonds of the accused are hereby ordered

RELEASED, subject to the usual accounting procedures.

The Hold Departure Orders issued against the accused by reason of

these cases are LIFTED. Furnish a copy of this Resolution to the Bureau of

Immigration, which is hereby ordered to report its compliance herewith

within ten (10) days from notice.

SO ORDERED.

BAVA JACINTO

Justice

. QUII^'Chairperson

«• f

LORIFELl.PAHIMNA

AssocidfLe Justice

RESOLUTION

People V. Isorena, et ai.

SB-18-CRM-0065 to 0090

Page 4 of 4

GRANTED. The Informations and Amended Informations in SB-18-CRM-0065 to 0090 are WITHDRAWN. Accordingly, the said cases againstaccused VADM. RODOLFO DIWATA ISORENA, CDR. JOHN BADONGESPLANA, CART. JOEVEN LIBREJA FABUL, ROGELIO FERRER CAGUlOA, CDR.WILFRED A. BURGOS, RADM. CECIL R. CHEN, CDR. FERDINAND M.VELASCO, CDR. GEORGE VILLAREAL URSABIA, JR., CDR. WILLIAM OCULARARQUERO, CDR. JUDE THADDEUS MANDIN BESINGA, CDR. ROBENNAVARRO DE GUZMAN, CDR. ENRICO EFREN ACASIO EVANGELISTA, JR.,CART. ANGELITO G. GIL, ENSIGN MARK FRANKLIN ALDEA LIM II, CART.ANGEL F. LOBATON IV, CART. RAMON S. LOPEZ, LT. MARK LARSEN N.MARIANO, COMMO. WILLIAM MASINLOC MELAD, CDR. ROMMEL A.SURANGAN, CDR. IVAN ENDIQUE ROLDAN, CDR. ALLEN J. DALANGIN,CART. CHRISTOPHER T. VILLACORTE, CDR. FERDINAND TALLERARANGANIBAN, COMMO. AARON TENSUAN RECONQUISTA, and CDR.JOSELITO BALAYANTO QUINTAS are DISMISSED.

The respective cash bonds of the accused are hereby orderedRELEASED, subject to the usual accounting procedures.

The Hold Departure Orders issued against the accused by reason ofthese cases are LIFTED. Furnish a copy of this Resolution to the Bureau ofImmigration, which is hereby ordered to report its compliance herewithwithin ten (10) days from notice.

SO ORDERED.

BAYA

'AlEK L. QOII^'Chairperson

JACINTO

Justicer r

LORIFELI

Associc td JusLice