ChanRobles Virtual law Library
PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
A collection of Philippine laws, statutes and codes not included or cited in the main indices of the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library.
Search for
www.chanrobles.com:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 128 -
IMPOSING THE FINE OF SUSPENSION OF PROSECUTOR CRISPULO R. TRUYA FOR ONE
YEAR WITHOUT PAY AND THE FORFEITURE OF HIS SALARIES/BENEFITS DURING
SAID PERIOD
This refers to the administrative complaint
filed motu propio by the Department of Justice against Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor Crispulo Truya of Cebu for grave misconduct.
Records disclose that sometime during the last week of September 1993,
an informal investigation was conducted by Cebu Provincial Prosecutor
Oliveros E. Kintanar on the report that Prosecutor Truya extorted from
Marilyn Benting the amount of P300.00 to be used as grease money for
Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar, and another P200.00 to be given to
Prosecutor Truya's clerk ostensibly to expedite the release of Mrs.
Benting's son from detention. When confronted, Prosecutor Truya
reportedly admitted the accusation, and as a consequence thereof, he
was reassigned to prosecute Islands and the Municipality of Camotes
Islands. He was likewise directed to desist from handling the
reinvestigation of any case and his reimbursement for travel was
limited to those incurred when attending to cases in the Municipal
Trial Courts.
In exculpation, Prosecutor Truya denied the claim that he admitted
before Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar and in the presence of other
people the accusation of Mrs. Benjamin. He proffers the view that the
occasion during which these people witnessed a confrontation between
him and Prosecutor's Kintanar was in connection with his late
submission of his performance report and not about the complaint of
Mrs. Benting whom he called a perjurer a "double dealing" woman of
dubious character. Prosecutor Truya further maintains that his
acceptance of the penalty imposed by Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar
cannot be deemed as an admission of guilt but should be construed as a
gesture of obedience to a superior's order to buy peace and avoid
insubordination.
The recommendation of the Secretary of Justice in imposing the penalty
of one year and the forfeiture of all salaries/benefits is based on his
findings which reads:
"Respondent's act of extortion is the kind of gross and flaunting
misconduct, no matter how nominal the amount involved, that so quickly
and surely corrodes the respect for law without which government cannot
continue and that tears apart the very bonds of our policy. The
prosecutor should be the last person to be perceived as a corrupt
bureaucrat out to take money at every turn.
All told, respondent prosecutor's mere denials cannot prevail over the
positive assertion of Mrs. Benting and Prosecutor Kintanar as
corroborated from different vantage points, by the testimonies of
Prosecutor Mamerta Paradiang, Candelaria Gadrinab, Rosario Trocio,
Lydio Tanato and Ben Ocampo.
On this point, respondent has failed to show any ill-motive on the part
of Mrs. Benting and Prosecutor Kintanar to falsely accuse him. On the
contrary, Mrs. Benting bears no animosity towards respondent prosecutor
as evidenced by the fact that she even pleaded for his forgiveness. The
same is true with Provincial Prosecutor Kintanar who has shown
understanding and magnanimity, judging by the light punitive action
inflicted upon respondent prosecutor for the serious offense he
committed.
Anent the affidavit of desistance filed by Mrs. Benting, she must
realize that this administrative proceeding was commenced against
respondent prosecutor motu propio by the Department. Mrs. Benting is
but a witness against respondent prosecutor and her subsequent stand
for or against him is not material to his chastisement."
I concur with the findings of the Secretary of Justice which I find to
be in accord with law and the evidence.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Prosecutor Crispulo R. Truya is hereby
found liable for gross misconduct. Accordingly, the penalty of
suspension for one year and the forfeiture of his salaries and benefits
during his period of suspension is hereby imposed.
Done in the City of Manila,
this 2nd day of May in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and
Ninety-Four.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.
