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. 23 -
IMPOSING ON ACTING ASSISTANT CITY FISCAL PRISCILO B. INTING OF DAVAO
CITY A FINE EQUIVALENT TO THIRTY DAYS' SALARY.
This is an administrative complaint filed
by Atty. Casimiro Arkoncel, Jr., against City Fiscal Emmanuel Galicia
and Acting Assistant City Fiscal Priscilo B. Inting, both of Davao
City, for grave misconduct, dereliction of duty and acts tantamount to
violation of the Anti-Graft Law, in connection with the delay in
resolving complaints for estafa filed by laborers against their lawyer
and labor leaders.
It appears that 97 complaints for estafa filed by laborers, through
Atty. Arkoncel, against their lawyer and their labor leaders in October
1981 through July 1982, were pending resolution before Acting Assistant
City Fiscal Priscilo B. Inting despite the lapse of a considerable
length of time since the preliminary investigation had been conducted
and after complainants' had filed their last pleading on August 10,
1983. The cases not having been resolved, Atty. Arkoncel filed the
instant administrative complaint on May 8, 1984. It was only on July 3,
1984, when Acting Assistant Fiscal Inting finally submitted the
resolution of the case.
Complainant alleged that City Fiscal Galicia and Acting Assistant
Fiscal Inting, in connivance with each other and with the respondents
of the said cases, "deliberately, maliciously and feloniously sat
down", on the above-mentioned cases.
Respondent Acting Fiscal Inting denied conniving with the respondents
in the said criminal complaints and attributed the delay upon the
following causes:
"a.
"b.
For his part, City Fiscal Galicia, in his comment of June 21, 1984,
stated that the subject cases were "assigned to Assistant City Fiscal
Priscilo B. Inting for preliminary investigation" and that when he
learned of the pendency of the resolution of these cases, he made oral
and written follow-ups with Fiscal Inting who "made assurances that his
resolution would be forthcoming."
Upon the foregoing, the Ministry (now Department) of Justice considered
respondent Acting Assistant Fiscal Inting's "explanation unsatisfactory
to justify the delay" and recommended that he (Inting) be fined the
equivalent of thirty (30) days' salary.
On the charge of connivance between City Fiscal Galicia and Acting
Assistant Fiscal Inting, the then Minister of Justice found the records
"bereft of any evidence in support thereof."
Upon referral for an updated comment and recommendation, the Ministry
(now Department) of Justice, in a letter of December 8, 1986,
reiterated its "previous findings and/or evaluation of evidence" on the
case.
After going over the records of the case, I agree with the finding of
the then Minister (now Secretary) of Justice that the delay of Acting
Assistant Fiscal Inting in the resolution of the subject criminal cases
is not justified. I also concur with the Justice Minister's finding
that there is no evidence on record to support the charge of connivance
between City Fiscal Galicia and Acting Assistant Fiscal
Inting.
Sec. 1 (d) of Presidential Decree No. 911 requires respondent Fiscal
Inting to act within ten (10) days from the termination of the
preliminary investigation or, in the subject cases, from August 10,
1983. However, the records clearly show that more than ten (10) months
had elapsed since the last pleading in the criminal cases was filed
before the resolution was submitted by Acting Assistant Fiscal Inting
on July 3, 1984, despite reminders from City Fiscal Galicia. Such
actuation of respondent Acting Assistant Fiscal Inting is repugnant to
the expeditious administration of justice, specially in cases involving
laborers, which I cannot tolerate, much less condone.
In view of the foregoing, Acting Assistant Fiscal Priscilo B. Inting of
Davao City is hereby fined in an amount equivalent to thirty days'
salary, effective upon receipt of a copy of this Order. He is also
warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future
will be dealt with more severely.
Done in the City of Manila,
Philippines, this 15th day of May, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred eighty-seven.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.