G.R. No. 125532 - Guingona, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals

In late 1995, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) investigated alleged involvement of national and local officials in jueteng and other forms of illegal gambling.
The investigation was concurrently the subject of legislative inquiries by both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Potenciano Roque, former Chairman of the Task Force Anti-Gambling (TFAG) during former President Corazon Aquino’s term until his resignation in 1989, applied for admission into the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program (WPSBP) in November 1995.
Roque claimed personal knowledge of the jueteng network involving politicians and gambling lords and alleged that his life and that of his family were threatened due to his anti-gambling crusade.
After evaluation and finding compliance with Republic Act No. 6981 (Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act), the Department of Justice (DOJ) admitted Roque to the Program, granting monthly allowance, temporary shelter, and protection.

On November 30, 1995, Roque executed a sworn statement implicating gambling lords, including respondent Rodolfo Pineda, and politicians in bribery and corruption incidents related to illegal gambling operations.
The NBI submitted its investigation findings recommending filing charges against Pineda and others.
The DOJ Task Force on Illegal Gambling conducted a preliminary investigation, subpoenaing respondents to submit counter-affidavits by December 22, 1995.
Roque issued a supplemental affidavit on December 21, 1995, clarifying his earlier statements.
Pineda filed a Petition for Reconsideration questioning Roque’s admission to the WPSBP, which the DOJ Secretary denied on January 11, 1996.
Pineda subsequently filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which issued a preliminary injunction restraining the trial courts from hearing the criminal cases against him.

The Court of Appeals upheld the DOJ Secretary’s discretion to admit Roque into the WPSBP.
The Court interpreted Sections 3 and 10 of RA 6981 as requiring corroboration of the witness’s testimony as a condition precedent for admission, but ruled that sufficient corroboration was present.
The Court found Roque not to be the most guilty among the accused despite his participation in corruption, since his role was passive and he had been bribed by Pineda several times.
The Court lifted the injunction prohibiting the trial courts from hearing the cases.

Petitioners (Secretary of Justice, State Prosecutors, NBI and Roque) filed a petition for review on certiorari, challenging the Court of Appeals’ side opinion that corroboration must be shown prior to or simultaneous with admission into the WPSBP.
The petitioners argued that corroboration need only be capable or possible, and may be demonstrated later during trial.
By the time of the petition’s resolution, Roque had already been admitted and testified in court, rendering the issue moot.

Whether the testimony of a witness must be substantially corroborated prior to or simultaneous with his admission into the Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program as a condition precedent under RA 6981.
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to rule on the issue raised given that Roque had already been admitted and testified, rendering the controversy academic or moot.