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. 22 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF SUSPENSION FOR SIX MONTHS WITHOUT PAY ON
ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR MANUEL BATAO OF THE CITY PROSECUTOR OFFICE OF
DAVAO CITY
This refers to the two (2) administrative
complaints of James H. Padilla II against Assistant City Prosecutor
Manuel Batao of the Davao City Prosecutor Office (formerly connected
with the Provincial Prosecution Office of Davao Oriental) for
misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a public officer (Adm. Case No.
95-001) and for violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officers and Employees (Adm. Case No. 95-002).
In Adm. Case No. 95-0017
complainant alleges that at about midnight of November 2, 1994, while
he was seated on a bench after having dispatched a bus bound for Davao
City, respondent prosecutor unnoticed, suddenly struck his back with a
revolver. He told respondent, "Ayaw sir, pinangga ta kaw" (Don't sir, I
love you). Thereafter, upon answering respondent prosecutor's
accusation that he cheated him of his share in the dispatching
proceeds, respondent prosecutor again struck his right cheek with a
revolver. He then ran towards his friend, namely, Leonilo Escosora,
Aldong Cubero, and Roger Nazareno, but respondent prosecutor chased him
and tried to shoot him three (3) times although the gun misfired.
Heeding Nazareno's plea not to fire his gun, respondent prosecutor
challenged him to a fistfight which he refused and instead, he reported
the incident to the police. The following day he had himself examined
by the municipal health doctor who issued a medical
certificate.
In answer, respondent prosecutor
avers that sometime in the month of February 1994, complainant, along
with Cubero and Escosora, asked his permission to utilize the open
space adjacent to his residence as a bus terminal. In consideration
thereof, they (complainant and his friends) offered to equally share
the dispatch collections with him, to which he agreed. At first
collections were religiously remitted, but when complainant took over
the dispatch of buses, the remittances became irregular due to
complainant's drinking and gambling. When he saw complainant in the
evening of November 2, 1994, he confronted complainant about the
dwindling dispatch collections.
He admits having punched
complainant, but denies having used a firearm, as he swore that he does
not possess any firearm. He, likewise, admits having challenged
complainant to a fistfight as the latter was walking back and forth in
front of his residence.
In Adm. Case No. 95-002,
complainant alleges that the instant charge stemmed from the filing of
an Illegal Fishing complaint against him by respondent prosecutor
before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Baganga, Davao
Oriental (I.S. No. DOB-94-061). When he received the subpoena in the
said complaint he discovered that the private complainant named in the
subpoena was also the same prosecutor who sent him the subpoena. He
deemed it anomalous as respondent prosecutor was both the person who
instituted the illegal fishing complaint and the investigating
prosecutor at the same time. The said act of respondent prosecutor is
clearly violative of the provisions of R.A. 6713, (Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officers and Employees) because prior to
the filing of said charge he had initiated a complaint for slight
physical injuries and attempted murder against respondent prosecutor
before the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao.
In answer, respondent prosecutor
submitted a joint affidavit of Remedios Morales and Jesua Delosa, both
employees of the Provincial Prosecution Office at the Sub-Station in
Baganga, Davao Oriental, admitting that they were the ones who cause
the preparation of the subpoena in I.S. No. DOB-94-061. They averred
that when respondent affixed his signature on the subpoena, the space
designated for the complainant was still blank. Without respondent
prosecutor's knowledge, much less approval, Morales instructed Delosa
to type the name of respondent prosecutor as the complainant in the
case unmindful of the fact that in cases where there are no private
complainants, the arresting officers should be considered as the
complainants.
The Secretary of Justice, after
the conduct of a formal investigation, found that respondent should be
held administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of a public officer
and recommended that he be meted the penalty of suspension from the
service for one (1) month without pay.
The finding of the Secretary of
Justice as the culpability of respondent merits concurrence.
Respondent, however, deserves to be meted a penalty higher than what is
recommended the nature of the acts complained of considered.
Respondent prosecutor explicitly
admitted having punched complainant in the evening of November 2, 1994
when the former confronted the latter about the dwindling and irregular
remittances of his share in the collections relative to the dispatch of
buses. In fact respondent prosecutor, likewise, admitted having
challenged complainant to a fistfight. However, on the issue of whether
or not respondent prosecutor was in possession of a gun during the
incident in question, we give credence to the latter's denial.
Complainant's witness, Reynaldo Cubero, executed an affidavit of
recantation withdrawing his first affidavit wherein he stated that
respondent had a gun. In his second affidavit, Cubero stated that he
signed the first affidavit because of misrepresentation and pressure
exerted by the complainant to the effect that respondent prosecutor had
included him in a theft charge, an allegation he later discovered to be
untrue.
Moreover, it is surprising to
note that Roger Nazareno, whom complainant alleged to have been present
during the incident and to whom he ran to after respondent prosecutor
chased him, did not corroborate complainant's accusation that
respondent prosecutor was in possession of a gun during the incident in
question. Instead, Roger Nazareno denied having seen respondent
prosecutor with a gun and neither did he see respondent prosecutor aim
nor fire a gun at the complainant.
Proceeding to the second charge,
we find no administrative liability on the part of respondent
prosecutor. It is of judicial notice that subpoenas are prepared by the
steno-reporter/secretary of the investigating prosecutor. In the
instant case, clerks Remedios Morales and Jesua Delosa attested to the
fact that respondent prosecutor had no hand in the preparation of the
subpoena sent to complainant in I.S. No. DOB-94-061. Although
respondent prosecutor's name appeared as the complainant in I.S. No.
DOB-94-061, the pertinent document attached to the subpoena, i.e., a
copy of the complaint-affidavit of the arresting officers, shows that
the said document served as the basis for the issuance of the subject
subpoena. Besides, respondent prosecutor's subsequent act reveals that
after the subpoena was sent, he inhibited himself and the investigation
of the illegal fishing complaint was handled by another prosecutor from
Mati, Davao Oriental.
Under the foregoing, while the
second charge has no leg to stand on, I agree with the Secretary of
Justice that respondent prosecutor's act of punching complainant and
challenging him to a fistfight is condemnable. Such an actuation is,
indeed, conduct unbecoming of a public officer. In enforcing his rights
as a private citizen, respondent prosecutor is well aware of the
available legal remedies, but instead, he took the law into his hands
and inflicted physical violence against the complainant. We abhor and
condemn such an unwarranted behavior as it destroys the image of the
prosecution service.
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
Assistant City Prosecutor Manuel Batao of the Davao City Prosecution
Office is hereby found administrative liable for conduct unbecoming of
a public officer. Consequently, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the service
for a period of six (6) months without pay.
Done in the
City of Manila, this 29th day of September in the year of Our Lord,
nineteen hundred and ninety eight.
chan
robles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.