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.
:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 139 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF SUSPENSION FOR TWO (2) MONTHS WITHOUT PAY ON
BENJAMIN V. DELA CRUZ, ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR, CITY PROSECUTION
OFFICE OF QUEZON CITY
This refers to the administrative complaint
filed by Teresita Tepace-Bumolo and Zenaida S. Insilay against
respondent Assistant City Prosecutor Benjamin V. de la Cruz of the City
Prosecution Office of Quezon City for gross neglect of
duty.
The facts are undisputed.
On November 11, 1996, complainants filed criminal complaints for grave
oral defamation and grave threats (docketed as I.S. Nos. 96-24586 and
96-24587) against a certain Aida Agustin. These cases were assigned to
respondent for the conduct of preliminary investigation. After the
parties have filed their respective pleadings, the cases were submitted
for resolution.
Five (5) months later, the cases remain unresolved. This prompted
complainants to file a motion for the early resolution of the said
cases. When respondent still failed to resolve their cases,
complainants sought the assistance of then Quezon City Prosecutor
Candido Rivera to convince respondent to act on their cases. Similarly,
complainants sought the aid of the Office of the Ombudsman to
facilitate the early resolution of the cases. However, despite the
intercessions of both the City Prosecutor and the Office of the
Ombudsman, the cases remained unacted.
Aggrieved by these unreasonable delays, complainants filed with the
Department of Justice (DOJ) an administrative complaint against the
respondent. On October 30, 1997, Chief State Prosecutor (CSP) Jovencito
R. Zuño endorsed the said complaint to respondent and directed
him to submit his comment and/or answer thereon within ten (10) days
from receipt thereof. On February 6, 1998, CSP Zuño again
directed respondent to submit his answer to the administrative
complaint. To date, respondent failed to heed these
directives.
On the basis thereof, respondent was formally charged by the DOJ with
gross neglect of duty and a formal investigation was initiated relative
thereto. On the scheduled hearing, only complainants appeared while
respondent was conspicuously absent. Thus, upon motion of the
prosecuting attorney, the case was submitted for resolution. On the
basis of available records, respondent was found guilty of the said
charge and the Secretary of Justice recommended the penalty of
suspension from office for a period of two (2) months without pay.
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the DOJ. Sec. 3,
Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which outlines the
uniform procedure for conducting a preliminary investigation in accord
with Presidential Decree No. 911, provides the following, to wit:
"Sec. 3.
a)
b)
xxx
f)
While the foregoing provision only provides for a ten (10)-day period within which to resolve cases under preliminary investigation, the DOJ, thru Department Circular No. 49 dated July 14, 1993, grants more leeway to prosecutors by allowing them a reglementary period of up to sixty (60) days within which to resolve cases under preliminary investigation. Non-observance of this requirement constitutes a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting prosecutor. In certain meritorious cases, i.e., those involving difficult questions of law or comp issues, the DOJ allows the prosecutors a longer period to decide the case, but only upon proper application therefrom has been made by the concerned prosecutor.
There is no question that respondent failed to decide the cases within the prescribed reglementary period. From the time the cases were submitted for resolution up to the time he was administratively charged by the DOJ, which spans more than two (2) years, respondent has not resolved the cases filed by the complainants. The intercessions of the City Prosecutor and the Office of the Ombudsman proved to be futile. Such conduct of respondent is unreasonable, inexcusable and highly deplorable. It violates the complainants' constitutional right to due process and to speedy disposition of their cases. Prosecutors are mandated to adhere to the 60-day period within which to resolve cases under preliminary investigation. Otherwise, the public's trust on our prosecution will be jeopardized.
All prosecutors are reminded that, for the common people, justice means the fair and prompt disposition of cases. This is necessary not only to eradicate the docket congestion in our prosecution office, but also to keep the people's faith in our prosecution system.
WHEREFORE, and as recommended by the Secretary of Justice, Assistant City Prosecutor Benjamin V. Dela Cruz is hereby SUSPENDED from office for a period of two (2) months without pay.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 4th day of October, in the year of our Lord, two thousand.
chan robles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.