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. 250 -
DISMISSING FROM THE SERVICE FOURTH ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
ROMEO H. MEDIODIA OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OF ILOILO
This refers to the administrative
complaints for a) Insubordination, and b) Grave Misconduct and
Oppression against Fourth Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Romeo H.
Mediodia of the Provincial Prosecutor's Office of Iloilo.
The relevant antecedent facts are related in the Memorandum for the
President dated January 25, 1991 of the Secretary of Justice, to wit:
"The
administrative complaint for insubordination was filed by Provincial
Prosecutor Vicente Aragona of Iloilo against the respondent.
"Prosecutor Aragona alleges that
on November 10, 1989, operatives of the Narcotics Command (NARCOM)
conducted a buy-bust operation which resulted in the arrest of one
Efraim Baldeo. A complaint for violation of Sec. 4, Article II of
R.A. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as 'The Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972' was thereupon filed by NARCOM with the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Iloilo against Efraim Baldeo and docketed therein as I.
S. No. 89-111. After preliminary investigation, a resolution was issued
on November 14, 1989 finding Baldeo prima faciely liable for the
offense charged and a criminal information was filed with the Regional
Trial Court of Iloilo and docketed as Criminal Case No. 33820. No bail
was recommended. During the arraignment on December 7, 1989, accused
Baldeo, through counsel, expressed to the court his desire to plead
guilty to a lesser offense. When asked to comment, being the trial
prosecutor assigned in said court, respondent Mediodia allegedly
requested for a recess and thereafter sought Prosecutor Aragona's
advice. The Provincial Prosecutor advised respondent herein to
interpose an objection to the intended plea of the accused, reminding
him therefore of the objectives of the Department's Memorandum Circular
dated November 15, 1989, warning against the soft-glove handling of
cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act and other related
cases. Prosecutor Aragona learned later that his subordinate, the
respondent herein, had defied his instructions and that of the
Department Memorandum Circular on the matter because the trial court
issued an order imposing upon accused Baldeo the penalty of
imprisonment of two (2) years and a fine of Two Thousand Pesos
P2,000.00) after the accused pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of
violation of Sec. 13 of R.A. 6425 without respondent's objection.
"Complainant
Prosecutor Aragona avers that a mere perusal of the facts and
circumstances attendant to the arrest of accused Baldeo, as appearing
in the information filed in court, would readily show the
inapplicability of Sec. 13 of R.A. 6425, even as a lesser offense,
considering that the accused was caught not only in the act of selling,
distributing and/or delivering 20 sticks of cigarettes containing
marijuana, but also having in his possession 30 sticks of cigarettes
containing marijuana. Certainly, Sec. 4 (Sale, administration,
delivery, distribution and transportation of prohibited drugs) and
Sec. 8 (Possession or use of prohibited drugs) would be more
applicable on the case. Sec. 13, which deals with possession of
opium pipe and other paraphernalia for prohibited drugs, would have no
application to the case since what were recovered from the accused was
neither a pipe, equipment, instrument, apparatus or paraphernalia, but
sticks of cigarettes containing marijuana. Based, therefore, on the
facts of the case, the lesser offense that accused could have pleaded
guilty to would have been under Sec. 8 of R.A. 6425, the penalty of
which is imprisonment ranging from six years and one day to twelve
years and a fine ranging from P6,000.00 to P12,000.00.
"In
his comment/answer, respondent Mediodia did not dispute the claim of
Provincial Prosecutor Aragona that the former did not interpose any
objection to accused Baldeo's entering a plea of guilty to the lesser
offense of violation of Sec. 13 of R.A. 6425. He claims, however,
that his action was prompted by the fact that the NARCOM agents
themselves, who were witnesses for the prosecution, did not offer any
objection thereto as it was in conformity with the instruction of their
Commander. He alleged that if he persisted in the prosecution of the
accused for violation of Sec. 4 of R.A. 6425, as originally charged,
the latter's acquittal would have been a foregone conclusion
considering the testimonies that the NARCOM agents would give. Hence
instead of going through the tedious process of presenting evidence
which would, anyway, be insufficient to warrant conviction, he opted to
dispose of the case by consenting to the plea of the accused to a
lesser offense. In support of his defense, respondent submitted the
affidavit of Judge Norberto E. Devera, Jr., Presiding Judge, Branch 24,
Regional Trial Court of Iloilo wherein he considered (respondent's)
actuation as 'procedurally correct and unassailable.'
"The
other administrative complaint against the respondent was initiated by
Ely P. Convocar, allegedly representing complainants Minda Faldas and
Luceño Bayot, for Grave Misconduct and Oppression (the latter
charge consisting of 'abuse of judicial power and personal
intervention').
"The complaint arose out of
Criminal Case No. 1137 entitled 'People of the Philippines versus Jorge
Dato-on' for Multiple Murder, originally filed with the 4th Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of San Dionisio and Concepcion, Iloilo and
transmitted for appropriate action to the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Iloilo. The case was subsequently assigned to the
respondent for preliminary investigation. In a resolution dated
November 9, 1988, the respondent dismissed the case at the instance of
complainants Minda Faldas and Luceno Bayot who executed a joint
affidavit of desistance. The victim in the case against Jorge Dato-on
were Marlon Faldas and Joemarie Faldas, children of complainant Minda
Faldas, and Rudy Bayot, son of complainant Luceno Bayot.
"Ely Convocar, in his
letter-complaint dated December 5, 1988, alleged that on November 9,
1988, in response to a summons from the respondent, complainants Faldas
and Bayot went to the Office of the respondent where they were
'persuaded' by the respondent to accept the amount of Eleven Thousand
Pesos (P11,000.00) for each victim as payment in the settlement of the
case against Jorge Dato-on. They refused to accept the settlement
amount. However, the respondent continued to exert pressure on them
saying that 'it is better you were paid, you should be happy for that.'
Thereafter, the respondent produced three bundles of money from his
drawer, extracted One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) from each of the three
bundles, handed the remaining amount to them and ordered them to go
home. The complainants aver that the settlement, engineered by the
respondent prejudiced them because 'justice was not implemented
equally.'
"Subsequently,
Ely Convocar, without the participation of complainants Faldas and
Bayot, withdrew the complaint against the respondent. The Secretary of
Justice, desirous of being informed as to the real status of the
complaint, designated City Prosecutor Efrain V. Baldago of Iloilo City
to conduct an investigation of the administrative complaint.
"In the course of the
investigation conducted by City Prosecutor Baldago, the respondent,
through counsel, submitted his brief-memorandum assailing the charges
against him as being baseless, having been filed by Ely Convocar who
was not authorized to so file the complaint and who was motivated by
greed, and pursued by Provincial Prosecutor Aragona out of
vengefulness. He cited several instances when complainant Faldas
manifested her desire and/or intent not to pursue the complaint against
the respondent. During the investigation conducted by the NBI, she
stressed that 'they have really no intention of filing any complaint
against Romeo H. Mediodia' and that complainant's Joint Affidavit dated
November 28, 1988 (attached to the letter-complaint of Ely Convocar)
was not explained to them. Likewise, in her letter dated August 11,
1990 and submitted to City Prosecutor Baldago, complainant Faldas
stated that she is not interested in the investigation against the
respondent because she has no complaint against him. These statements,
he avers, are proofs that no pressure was exerted upon complainants
Faldas and Bayot in the settlement of their case against Jorge Dato-on
and that no money was given to the respondent.
"After investigation, City
Prosecutor Baldago issued a resolution dated October 22, 1990
incorporating his findings and recommendation on the administrative
complaint under consideration. In the said resolution, City Prosecutor
Baldago recommended that the respondent be dismissed from the service."
The Secretary of Justice, in his said Memorandum, concurred in the recommendation of City Prosecutor Baldago for respondent's dismissal from the service. We quote the pertinent findings and conclusions of the Secretary of Justice:
"In
the complaint for Insubordination, it is not disputed that the
respondent defied a valid order of complainant Provincial Prosecutor
Aragona, respondent's immediate superior, to enter an opposition to the
plea to a lesser offense by accused Baldeo. While respondent may have a
reason for disagreeing with his superior and taking a different course
of action, prudence and respect for authority demand that the former
should have first discussed the matter with the latter, especially in
the case where respondent's action negated the seriousness of the
offense committed by the accused, thus adversely affecting the
integrity and effectivity of the National Prosecution Service in the
administration of justice. By disobeying the lawful order of his
superior, respondent had, in effect substituted his own judgment to
that of his superior, to the detriment of the service. This is the
essence of insubordination and it cannot be countenanced.
"The
complaint for Insubordination against the respondent, in this instance,
serves as an aggravating circumstance to the other administrative
complaint against the same respondent for Grave Misconduct and
Oppression.
"The findings of City Prosecutor
Baldago in the Grave Misconduct and Oppression case are supported by
the record and we find no reason to divert from the same.
"Thus, as found by City
Prosecutor Baldago, while complainants had jointly executed an
Affidavit of Desistance dated November 9, 1988, they also executed a
joint affidavit dated November 28, 1988 stating that they were told and
persuaded by the respondent, against their will, to accept the
settlement money and afterwards, the latter took Three Thousand Pesos
(P3,000.00) from the three bundles of money for his own personal use.
Thereafter, complainant Minda Faldas confirmed and reiterated these
implicatory allegations when she was investigated by NBI Agent Juan Y.
Amane on May 14, 1990. Once again, complainant Faldas reiterated the
same charges against the respondent when she was interviewed on July
27, 1990 by Restituto Jotiz, Jr. (aka Agent Korantay) of Bombo Radio,
Iloilo. The interview was recorded on tape. On August 24, 1990,
complainant Faldas submitted an affidavit dated August 4, 1990
absolving the respondent of all charges she had made against him and,
in two hand written letters, urged the dismissal of the administrative
case as she was no longer interested in pursuing the same.
"During
the investigation when complainant Minda Faldas appeared, she testified
to the fact that the statements she made in her joint affidavit with
Luceno Bayot dated November 28, 1988, those she made to NBI Agent Juan
Y. Amane, and the interview she gave to Bombo Radio, Iloilo were all
voluntarily made, given and executed by her. The evidence adduced
therefrom is that a settlement of the multiple murder case was effected
and the payment of the settlement money was facilitated by the
respondent. There was no showing that complainants were motivated by
intentions other than to tell the truth regarding the incident which
led to the purported settlement, and subsequent dismissal, of the
criminal case against Jorge Dato-on.
"With respect to the retraction
of complainant Faldas, City Prosecutor Baldago found the reasons
therefore as grounded on 'no serious' considerations. Ostensibly,
complainant was retracting her accusations against the respondent
because she was not in a 'proper mental state' when she made her
incriminating statements and that she wants to 'have peace of mind.'
However, the real reason for complainant's recantation was revealed by
Sgt. Franklin Catequista, Station Commander, Batad Police Station where
he testified the complainant was retracting her statements against the
respondent because she was 'afraid of Fiscal Mediodia (the respondent)
and his companions and that she was (fearful for) her safety . . . and
that they have returned the amount of P2,000.00'. In this wise, the
recantation may be said not to have been voluntarily executed by the
complainant but was secured through a nefarious mixture of pressure,
threat and reward. A retraction secured through fear and intimidation,
or through promise of reward, is frowned upon and disregarded as
competent evidence. Thus, the recantation of complainant Faldas is set
aside as being without effect.
"In
regard to respondent's attestation that his superior, Provincial
Prosecutor Aragona, is the moving spirit behind the complaints of
Faldas and Bayot, there is no scintilla of evidence to support the
same.
"It has been noted that in both
complaints, respondent had abused the trust reposed upon him by virtue
of his office. Respondent has shown a manifest propensity to misuse his
position and the powers and authority appurtenant thereto to the
detriment of the service and the policies of government. Respondent is
no longer deserving of our trust and confidence.
"IN VIEW WHEREOF, it is
respectfully recommended that respondent Fourth Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor ROMEO H. MEDIODIA of Iloilo be dismissed from the service
with forfeiture of pay and benefits."
After a circumspect review, I am in complete accord with the above findings and recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
WHEREFORE, and as recommended by the Secretary of Justice, Fourth Assistant Provincial Prosecutor ROMEO H. MEDIODIA is hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of pay and benefits, effective upon receipt of a copy hereof.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 11th day of November in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety-one.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.