Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82109:56152&catid=1573&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:08:45+00:00

Document:
ROMULO L. NERI, Petitioner, v. SANDIGANBAYAN (FIFTH DIVISION) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
Assailed and sought to be nullified in this Petition for Certiorari Prohibition and Mandamus under Rule 65, With application tor preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order, are the Resolution1 dated February 3, 2012 of the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan in SB-10-CRM-0099 entitled People of the Philippines v. Romulo L. Neri, as well as its Resolution2 of April 26, 2012 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner Romulo L. Neri (Neri) served as Director General of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) during the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
In connection with what had been played up as the botched Philippine-ZTE3 National Broadband Network (NBN) Project, the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB), on May 28, 2010, tiled with the Sandiganbayan two (2) criminal Informations, the first against Benjamin Abalos, for violation of Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, docketed as SB-10-CRM-0098 (People v. Abalos), and eventually raffled to the Fourth Division of that court. The second Information against Neri, also for violation of Sec. 3(h), RA 3019, in relation to Sec. 13, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution, was docketed as SB-10-CRM-0099 (People v. Neri) and raffled to the Fifth Division of the Sandiganbayan. Vis-à-vis the same project, the Ombudsman would also later file an information against Macapagal-Arroyo and another information against her and several others4 docketed as SB-11-CRM-0467 and SB-11-CRM-0468 to 0469, respectively, all of which ended up, like SB-10-CRM-0098, in the anti-graft court’s 4th Division.
Neri opposed and argued against consolidation, and, as he would later reiterate, contended, among other things that: (a) SB-10-CRM-0099, on one hand, and the other cases, on the other, involve different issues and facts; (b) the desired consolidation is oppressive and violates his rights as an accused; (c) consolidation would unduly put him at risk as he does not actually belong to the Abalos group which had been negotiating with the ZTE officials about the NBN Project; (d) he is the principal witness and, in fact, already finished testifying, in the Abalos case; (e) the trial in the Neri and Abalos cases are both in the advanced stages already; and (f) the motion is but a ploy to further delay the prosecution of SB-10-CRM-0099, considering the prosecution’s failure to present any more witnesses during the last two (2) scheduled hearings.
To the opposition, the prosecution interposed a reply basically advancing the same practical and economic reasons why a consolidation order should issue.
According to the Fifth Division, citing Domdom v. Sandiganbayan,11 consolidation is proper inasmuch as the subject matter of the charges in both the Abalos and Neri cases revolved around the same ZTE-NBN Project. And following the movant’s line, the anti-graft court stated that consolidation would allow the government to save unnecessary expenses, avoid multiplicity of suits, prevent delay, clear congested dockets, and simplify the work of the trial court without violating the parties’ rights.
Neri sought a reconsideration, but the Fifth Division denied it in its equally assailed April 26, 2012 Resolution.
x x x in ordering a consolidation of the subject criminal cases when the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure does not allow a consolidation of criminal cases, only a consolidation of trials or joint trials in appropriate instances.
x x x in ordering the consolidation because petitioner will now be tried for a crime not charged in the information in x x x SB-10- CRM-0099 and this is violative of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Worse, conspiracy was not even charged or alleged in that criminal information.
x x x in ordering the consolidation for it would surely prejudice the rights of petitioner as an accused in x x x SB-10-CRM-0099 because he does not actually belong to the Abalos Group which had been negotiating with the ZTE Officials about the NBN Project.
x x x in ordering the consolidation for it would just delay the trial of the case against the petitioner, as well as that against Abalos, because these cases are already in the advanced stages of the trial. Worse, in the Abalos case, the prosecution has listed 50 witnesses and it has still to present 33 more witnesses while in the case against the petitioner the prosecution (after presenting six witnesses) has no more witnesses to present and is now about to terminate its evidence in chief. Clearly, a consolidation of trial of these two (2) cases would unreasonably and unduly delay the trial of the case against the petitioner in violation of his right to a speedy trial.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Fourth Division RESPECTFULLY DECLINES to accept SB-10-CRM-0099 (Neri case) for consolidation with SB-10-CRM-00998 (Abalos case) pending before it.
While it could very well write finis to this case on the ground of mootness, the actual justiciable controversy requirement for judicial review having ceased to exist with the supervening action of the Fourth Division, the Court has nonetheless opted to address the issue with its constitutional law component tendered in this recourse.
The interrelated assignment of errors converged on the propriety, under the premises, of the consolidation of SB-10-CRM-0099 with SB-10- CRM-0098.
Consolidation is a procedural device granted to the court as an aid in deciding how cases in its docket are to be tried so that the business of the court may be dispatched expeditiously while providing justice to the parties.18 Toward this end, consolidation and a single trial of several cases in the court’s docket or consolidation of issues within those cases are permitted by the rules.
Section 1. Consolidation. – When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all actions consolidated; and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.
Section 2. Consolidation of Cases. – Cases arising from the same incident or series of incidents, or involving common questions of fact and law, may be consolidated in the Division to which the case bearing the lowest docket number is raffled.
Not to be overlooked is the fact that the prosecution anchored its motion for consolidation partly on the aforequoted Sec. 22 of Rule 119 which indubitably speaks of a joint trial.
Given the above perspective, petitioner should now disabuse himself of the unfounded notion that what the Fifth Division intended was a fusion into one criminal proceedings of the Abalos and Neri cases, where one is unidentifiable from the other, or worse, where he will be tried as co-accused in the Abalos case.
This thus brings us to the question of whether a consolidation of trial, under the factual and legal milieu it was ordered, is proper.
Sending his emissary/representative, Engr. Rodolfo Noel Lozada, to meet Abalos and Jose de Venecia III, President/General Manager of Amsterdam Holdings Inc. (AHI), another proponent to implement the NBN Project and discuss matters with them.
2. Jose de Venecia Jr.
7. Speaker Jose De Venecia, Jr.
20. Vice-President Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr.
25. Mr. Renato Constantino, Jr.
The names thus listed in the pre-trial order in the Abalos case do not yet include, as aptly observed by the Fourth Division in its adverted October 19, 2012 Resolution,32 additional names allowed under a subsequent resolution. In all, a total of at least 66 warm bodies were lined up to testify for the prosecution.
It can thus be easily seen that veritably the very situation, the same mischief sought to be avoided in People v. Sandiganbayan33 which justified the non-consolidation of the cases involved therein, would virtually be present should the assailed consolidation be upheld. Applying the lessons of People v. Sandiganbayan to the instant case, a consolidation of the Neri case to that of Abalos would expose petitioner Neri to testimonies which have no relation whatsoever in the case against him and the lengthening of the legal dispute thereby delaying the resolution of his case. And as in People v. Sandiganbayan, consolidation here would force petitioner to await the conclusion of testimonies against Abalos, however irrelevant or immaterial as to him (Neri) before the case against the latter may be resolved––a needless, hence, oppressive delay in the resolution of the criminal case against him.
What is more, there is a significant difference in the number of witnesses to be presented in the two cases. In fact, the number of prosecution witnesses in the Neri case is just half of that in Abalos. Awaiting the completion in due course of the presentation of the witnesses in Abalos would doubtless stall the disposition of the case against petitioner as there are more or less thirty-five (35) prosecution witnesses listed in People v. Abalos who are not so listed in People v. Neri. In the concrete, this means, in the minimum, awaiting the completion of the testimonies of thirty-five (35) additional witnesses, whose testimonies are unrelated to the charges against him, before the case against petitioner may finally be disposed of, one way or another. Also, petitioner will be exposed to an extra thirty-five (35) irrelevant testimonies which even exceed those relating to his case, since the prosecution only has roughly about twenty-six (26) witnesses for his case. Further still, any delay in the presentation of any of the witnesses in People v. Abalos would certainly affect the speedy disposition of the case against petitioner. At the end of the day, the assailed consolidation, instead of contributing to the swift dispensation of justice and affording the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their cases, would achieve the exact opposite.
Before the Sandigabayan and this Court, petitioner has harped and rued on the possible infringement of his right to speedy trial should consolidation push through, noting in this regard that the Neri case is on its advanced stage but with the prosecution unable to continue further with its case after presenting six witnesses.
Petitioner's point is well-taken. In Dacanay, a case involving a request for separate trial instead of a joint trial, the Court upheld an accused's right to a speedy trial, guaranteed by Sec. 14 (2), Art. III of the Constitution, over the claim of the prosecution that a joint trial would make the resolution of the case less expensive.34 In Dacanay, Dacanay moved for immediate and separate trial, which the People opposed on the ground that a separate trial, if approved, would entail a repetitive presentation of the same evidence instead of having to present evidence against Dacanay and his co­accused only once at the joint trial. According to the respondent therein, th will result in inconvenience and expense on the part of the Government,35 the very same reasons given by the prosecution in the case at hand. There as later in People v. Sandiganbayan,36 We held that the rights of an accused take precedence over minimizing the cost incidental to the resolution of the controversies in question.
Clearly then, consolidation, assuming it to be proper owing to the existence of the element of commonality of the lineage of the otTenses charged contemplated in Sec. 22 of Rule 119, should be ordered to achieve all the objects and purposes underlying the rule on consolidation, foremost of which, to stress, is the swift dispensation of justice with the least expense and vexation to the parties. It should, however. be denied if it subverts any of the aims of consolidation. And Dacanay and People v. Sandiganbayan are one in saying, albeit implicitly, that ordering consolidation-likely to delay the resolution of one of the cases, expose a patty to the rigors of a lengthy litigation and in the process undermine the accused's right to speedy disposition of cases--constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Not lost on the Court of course and certainly not on the Sandiganbayan's Fourth Division is the resulting absurdity arising from the consolidation of trial where the accused (Neri) in one case would be the prosecution's main witness in the other case.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Resolution of the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division dated February 3, 2012 in Criminal Case No. SB-1 0-CRM-0099 and its Resolution dated April 26, 2012 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Let Criminal Case No. SB-1 0-CRM-0098 and Criminal Case No. SB-1 0-CRM-0099 proceed independently and be resolved with dispatch by the Divisions of the Sandiganbayan to which each was originally raffled.
1Rollo, pp. 41-43. Approved b) Associate Justices Roland B. Jurado. Alexander G. Gesmundo and Alex L. Quiroz.
3 Stands for Zhing Xing Telecommunications Equipment, Inc.
4 Abalos, Jose Miguel T. Arroyo and Leandro R. Mendoza.
5 The 6th witness, Edzel Regalado, concluded his testimony on June 23, 2011, records, Vol. 2, p. 119.
6 Records, Vol. 2, pp. 135, 140.
7 Id., Vol. 3, pp. 137-145.
11 G.R. Nos. 182382-83, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 528.
12Rollo, pp. 12-13. Original in uppercase.
13 Records, Vol. 3, pp. 182-184. Approved by Associate Justices Gregory S. Ong, Jose R. Hernandez, and Maria Cristina J. Cornejo.
15Integrated Bar of the Philipopines v. Atienza, G.R. No. 175241, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 518, 523.
16David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. Nos. 171396, etc., May 3, 2006, 489 SCRA 160, 215 (citations omitted); Acop v. Guingona, Jr., G.R. No. 134855, July 2, 2002, 383 SCRA 577.
17 No. L-71977, February 27, 1987, 148 SCRA 208, 212-213.
18Republic v. Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), G.R. No. 152375, December 13, 2011, 662 SCRA 152, 190; citing Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil 2d Sec. 2381, p. 427.
20Palanca v. Querubin, Nos. L-29510-31, November 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 738, 745.
22 201 Phil. 422, 426 (1982); cited in People v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 149495, August 21, 2003, 409 SCRA 419, 424.
23Caños v. Peralta, id. at 440.
25 Supra note 22, at 425-426.
26Santos v. Committee on Claims Settlement, G.R. No. 158071, April 2, 2009, 583 SCRA 152, 159-160.
27 G.R. No. 179061, July 13, 2009, 592 SCRA 534, 540.
30 Records, Vol. 3, p. 12.
32 Records, Vol. 3, pp. 182-184.
34 Supra note 24, at 493-494; see also Mari v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 187728, September 12, 2011, 657 SCRA 414, 423-426.
36 Supra note 22, at 425.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.