REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESS;1!NWI(].7l!MB)fty)fNQuezon City

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff,

SB-17-CRM-0743For: Violations of Section

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

RODOLFO MONZON GUIEB., ETAL.,

Accused.Present:CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,Chairperson,FERNANDEZ, SJ., 1 J. andFERNANDEZ, B., J.

f\€rt~ ~,z2PJ:::rx==============================================

1. Accused Rodolfo M. Guieb and Dennis B. Araullo'sMotion for Reconsideration dated August 30,2017;2 and

2. The prosecution's Motion to Withdraw Information datedSeptember27,2017.3 ~

1 Per Administrative Order No. 316-2017 dated Se mber 1 ,2lO172 p. 515, Record~p. 609, id

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Guieb. et at.SB-17-CRM-0743

I.ACCUSED GUIEB AND ARAULLO'S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERA TION

Accused-movants pray for the reversal of the Court'sResolution promulgated on August 10, 2017,4 which deniedaccused Guieb's Motion to Dismiss the Case and accusedAraullo's Urgent Motion to Adopt Guieb's Motion to Dismiss theCase. The subject motion for reconsideration is anchored on thefollowingarguments:

1. This Honorable Court, through its variousDivisions, have dismissed similar Fertilizer FundCases for inordinate delay;

2. Any seeming conflict of decisions rendered byCourts of equal rank must be avoided; and

3. It is not the obligation of the accused-movants to followup the resolution of the complaintsagainst them.5

In its Comment/ Opposition dated September 8, 2017,6 theprosecution claims that the arguments raised by the accused-movants in their motion for reconsideration are bereft of merit;hence, its outright denial is in order.

II.THE PROSECUTION'S MOTION TO WITHDRAW

INFORMA TION

The prosecution claims that on September 26, 2017,Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales approved their

S p. 1, Motion for Reconsideration; p. 515, id

'p.560,id ~

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Guieb, et at.SB-17-CRM-0743x--------- -- ---------- ---- ------ --------- --------- x

withdrawal of the subject Information.7 They are seeking thewithdrawal of the Information on the ground that the accusedprivate individual, Marina C. Sula, the purported President andone of the Incorporators of Masaganang Ani Para sa MagsasakaFoundation, Inc. (MAMFI),and the other incorporators of thesaid non-governmental organization (NGO),"do not appear to beinvolved in the offense charged in the Information, but rathersome other individual."8 The pertinent portions of the saidMemorandum read:

With respect to accused Sula, it must be recalled thatshe is one of the vital witnesses in the various PDAF plunderand graft cases against several legislators in theSandiganbayan. She has been granted immunity in thesecases.

She was indicted under the above Information on thebasis of her counter-affidavit submitted to the Office waybefore the PDAF scam became publicized. In her testimony inthe PDAF trials, she consistently declared that the non-governmental organization (NGO) MAMFI, is actuallycontrolled by Janet Lim Napoles and Sula appears aspresident of the NGO on paper only.

On 13 June 2017 Sula executed an affidavit before theField Investigation Office affirming that Napoles controlsMAMFIand Sula merely acts upon orders of Napoles. Withrespect to the incorporators of MAMFI, they were madeincorporators without their consent and had no knowledge ofthe NGO's operations.

In view of the declarations of Sula, there is no probablecause to support her indictment in the Fertilizer Fund Scamcases involving MAMFI.The same can be said with respect tothe other accused individuals associated with the said NGO.9

For orderly procedure, the Court shall firstprosecution's Motion to Withdraw Information./7

47 p. 613, idK p. 2, Memorandum dated September 25, 2017; p.613, id9 pp. 1-2, id; pp. 612-613, id

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Guieb, et at.SB-17-CRM-0743x----- -- ---- ------ -------- ------------- ---- ---- ---x

In resolving the aforesaid motion, the Court is guided bythe teachings of the Supreme Court in the landmark case ofCrespo vs. Mogul,lO to wit:

[O]nce a complaint or information is filed in Court, anydisposition of the case as its dismissal or the conviction oracquittal of the accused rests in the sound discretion of theCourt. Although the fiscal retains the direction and control ofthe prosecution of criminal cases even while the case isalready in Court, he cannot impose his opinion on the trialcourt. The Court is the best and sole judge on what to dowith the case before it. The determination of the case iswithin its exclusive jurisdiction and competence. Amotionto dismiss the case filed by the fiscal should be addressed tothe Court who has the option to grant or deny the same. Itdoes not matter if this is done before or after the arraignmentof the accused or that the motion was filed after areinvestigation or upon instructions of the Secretary ofJusticewho reviewed the records of the investigation. II

However, the court, in the exercise of its judicialdiscretion, court cannot ignore the recommendation of theprosecution. Hence, where the prosecution is convinced that theevidence is insufficient to establish the guilt of an accused, itcannot be faulted for moving for the withdrawal of theInformation. However, in granting or denYing the motion towithdraw, the court must judiciously evaluate the evidence inthe hands of the prosecution. 12

Applying the aforesaid precepts as guide, the Court, aftera judicious evaluation of the record of the case, finds merit inthe prosecution's motion to withdraw subject Information.Indeed, the Court cannot simply ignore the recommendation ofthe prosecution that there is no probable cause to indict theherein accused private individuals in this case. Since the saidaccused private individuals were indicted in conspiracy with theaccused public officials, there is an imperative need to conducta thorough investigation to determine who are the responsibleindividuals for the questionable purchase by the CityGovernment of Puerto Princesa of 3,240 bottles of FertigrowLiquid Fertiliz~

'" 235 Phil 465,476 (1987) ~ \ ~11 Emphasis supplied ~ ~12 Fuentes vs. Sandiganbayan, 494 SeRA 478 (2006)

RESOLUTIONPeople vs. Guieb, et al.SB-17-CRM-0743x --- --- --- ----- ------- ---- ----- ------------ ------- x

Since the withdrawal of the subject Information is in order,accused Guieb and Araullo's motion for reconsideration of theCourt's Resolution promulgated on August 10, 2017, is therebyrendered moot.

WHEREFORE, the prosecution's Motion to WithdrawInformation dated September 27, 2017, is hereby GRANTED.

The bail bond posted by the herein accused are ORDEREDreleased subject to the usual accounting and auditing rules.

Accused Rodolfo M. Guieb and Dennis B. Araullo's Motionfor Reconsideration dated August 30, 2017 is NOTED.

JANE T. Fssociate Justice

ITO R. FERNANDEZs ociate Justice