MOTION TO INTERVENE

EXPRESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO., INC., (EXTELCOM) v. AZ

COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
G.R. No. 196902 | July 13, 2020 | Third Division | Leonen, J.

DOCTRINE:

A case is moot when a supervening event has terminated the legal issue
between the parties, such that this Court is left with nothing to resolve. It can
no longer grant any relief or enforce any right, and anything it says on the
matter will have no practical use or value.

FACTS:

The National Telecommunications Commission opened applications for

the assignment of five 3G radio frequency bands to qualified public
telecommunications entities. AZ Comm's application was denied thus, it sought
reconsideration,which was again denied. Thus, they filed separate petitions to
question the denial of their claims. For its part, AZ Comm went to the Court of
Appeals, filing a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

In the meantime, the National Telecommunications Commission declared

the 2005 Memorandum as functus officio, or expired. In its stead, 2010
Memorandum was issued on March 12, 2010, outlining the new rules on the
assignment of the last allocated 3G radio frequency band. On account of its
application, Extelcom sought to intervene in the separate petitions of AZ Comm,
BayanTel, Next Mobile, and Multi-Media. Extelcom was allowed to intervene in
the petitions of BayanTel, Next Mobile, and Multi-Media. However, as to AZ
Comm's petition, Extelcom's motion was denied.

In its November 8, 2010 Resolution, the Court of Appeals ruled that

Extelcom had no standing to intervene because it did not apply for a 3G radio
frequency band under the 2005 Memorandum. It further noted that Extelcom
failed to intervene in the proceedings before judgment has become final and
executory. Thus, it found that allowing the motion for intervention would only
delay the proceedings. Extelcom sought reconsideration but the Court of
Appeals denied its motion.

ISSUE:

Did the Court’s denial with finality of respondent AZ Communications,

Inc.'s Petition renders moot petitioner Express Telecommunications Company,
Inc’s motion to intervene?

RULING:

Yes. The Court holds that this case is moot. Without any legal relief that
may be granted, courts generally decline to resolve moot cases, lest the ruling

1
result in a mere advisory opinion. A case becomes moot and academic when, by
virtue of supervening events, the conflicting issue that may be resolved by the
court ceases to exist.

Respondent's Manifestation stating its withdrawal of its application for

registration has erased the conflicting interests that used to be present in this
case. Respondent's Manifestation was an expression of its intent not to act on
whatever claim or right it has to the property involved. Thus, the controversy
ended when respondent filed that Manifestation. A ruling on the issue of
respondent's right to registration would be nothing but an advisory opinion.
"[T]he power of judicial review does not repose upon the courts a "self-starting
capacity." This court cannot, through affirmation or denial, rule on the issue of
respondent's right to registration because respondent no longer asserts this
right. Courts have no power to act on a matter if there is no actual case or
justiciable controversy. This Court shall not render advisory opinions or resolve
theoretical issues.

2
SEC. 21 of RA 9165
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. EDUARDO MANANSALA Y PABALAN
GR No. 228825 | July 28, 2020 | First Division | Reyes, J.
DOCTRINE:
The law commands that the seized drugs must be inventoried and
photographed immediately after seizure and that the same must be conducted
in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, and three other
witnesses, namely: (a) a representative from the media; (b) a representative of
the DOJ; and (c) an elected public official. Non-compliance is tantamount to
failure in establishing the identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the
offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, thus, engendering the acquittal of an
accused.
FACTS:
Accused-appellant was charged before the RTC for violating Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for selling and/or delivering to poseur buyer Two (2)
pcs of paper each containing small cubes of Marijuana Fruiting Tops. The team
brought accused-appellant and the seized plastic sachets to the police station.
There, the seized items were inventoried in the presence of accused-appellant.
SPO1 Nachor submitted the seized items to the Philippine National Police
Regional Crime Laboratory for examination. Uponexamination of Forensic
Chemist Ma. Luisa Gundran-David, the items tested positive for marijuana.
The RTC rendered a Decision finding the accused-appellant guilty for the
illegal sale of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165. On Appeal, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC. It also agreed with
the lower court that non-compliance by the police officers with the procedure
laid down in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was not fatal to the
prosecution's cause considering that it was able to sufficiently prove the
unbroken chain of custody of the two plastic sachets containing marijuana.
ISSUE:
Is the entrapment operation legal, in relation to Section 21, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165?
RULING:
No. In the present case, it is undisputed that the police officers failed to
comply with the three-witness rule under Section 21 mentioned above. The
prosecution never hid this fact nor made any attempt to deny the absence of the
insulating witnesses during the inventory of the confiscated items. The
prosecution claimed that since the it had been able to show that the drugs sold
by the accused-appellant were the very same drugs seized by the police officers,
marked, inventoried and subjected to laboratory examination which tested
positive for marijuana and ultimately presented before the court as evidence

3
against them, the proper chain of custody of the drugs was sufficiently
established. Such assertion has no merit.
To be sure, non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section
21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR does not in itself render the
confiscated drugs inadmissible. Stated otherwise, before a deviation from the
mandatory procedural requirements under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 may be allowed, the following requisites must be satisfied: (1) justifiable
grounds must be shown to exist warranting a departure from the rule on strict
compliance; and (2) the apprehending team must prove that the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items had been properly preserved.
However, in order for such saving mechanism to apply, the prosecution
must first recognize the lapse or lapses in the prescribed procedures and then
explain the lapse or lapses. Also, the justifiable ground for non-compliance
must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these
grounds are or that they even exist. Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to do
so. In fact, it offered no explanation as to why no representative from the media
and the DOJ, and an elected public official were present during the inventory of
the seized items. Considering that the saving clause was not complied with, any
and all evidence tending to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs
become immaterial. Even the identification of the seized evidence in court
during the trial became ambiguous and unreliable, rendering the proof of the
links in the chain of custody of the corpus delicti unworthy of belief.