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. 27 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE WITH FORFEITURE OF
BENEFITS UNDER THE LAW OF ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR CARLOS B.
BARBERO OF ABRA
This is an administrative complaint
initialed by the Department of Justice against Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Carlos B. Barbero of Abra, for serious misconduct inimical
to public interest and gross dishonesty.
Respondent Provincial Prosecutor Carlos B. Barbero was charged
administratively for having filed a motion which led to the dismissal
of two (2) criminal complaints for Robbery with Homicide (Julie Dabbay
Case) and Robbery with Rape (Juliet Velasco case) docketed as Criminal
Case Nos. 1287 and 1288, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court of
Abra.
The factual milieu of the administrative complaint as narrated in the
letter-memorandum of then Secretary of Justice (now Senator) Franklin
M. Drilon dated August 25, 1994, are as follows:
"The
formal charge in the administrative case against respondent prosecutor
thus reads:
'1.
2.
'3.
'4.
"Required
to comment, respondent prosecutor denies the charges leveled against
him and alleges that there is no way for him to have allowed Sabaot and
Bringas to be induced and made to recant their previous voluntary
confessions because they were not under his protective custody.
Further, respondent prosecutor states that the documents were not
merely marked but were submitted to the court which subsequently gave
it probative value. Respondent also claims that he did not question the
due execution of these documents because he was the administering
officer thereof.
"As to the charge of dishonesty,
respondents prosecutor pointed out that his statement in his letter
dated January 10, 1994 that '(i)t was accused. thru their counsel who
moved for the dismissal of the case', has reference to the October 11,
1993 hearing. He admitted though that he moved for their dismissal on
October 14, 1993, in line with the accused's constitutional rights to
be presumed innocent and to a speedy disposition of their cases."
In finding the respondent guilty as charged and recommending his dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits, the Department of Justice, in the said letter-memorandum, made the following findings and conclusions, to wit:
"After
a painstaking evaluation of the evidences on record, State Prosecutor
Menrado V. Corpuz, who conducted the formal investigation hereof, found
respondent prosecutor guilty as charged. We agree with his evaluation
and further sustain his recommendation that respondent prosecutor be
dismissed from the service.
"The dismissal of Crim. Case No.
1287 (Robbery with Homicide) and Crim. Case No. 1288 (Robbery with
Rape) on motion of respondent prosecutor that the guilt of accused
cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt in view of the retractions of
the witnesses and the lack of interest of the parents of the victims,
is highly reprehensible. Respondent-prosecutor's precipitate act in
moving to dismiss the subject cases despite sufficient evidence to
secure the convictions of the seven (7) accused is the kind of gross
and flaunting misconduct that so quickly and surely corrodes the
respect for the law which is vital in civilized society.
"Indeed, notwithstanding the
apathy of Bringas and Sabaot to the prosecution's cause, respondent may
call on Atty. Sergio Paredes (assisting counsel of Sabaot and Bringas)
when they executed their extrajudicial confession, Prosecutor Edgardo
Flores (administering officer) and SPO2 Antonio Carpio/SPO1 Samson
Dumalo (investigating officers) who can attest to the voluntariness and
regularity of the confession. As between the extrajudicial confession
of Sabaot and Bringas and their Joint-Affidavit of Recantation,
respondent prosecutor should have given more importance to the former
there being no showing that it was obtained through violence,
intimidation, threat, or promise of reward or leniency (People vs.
Parojinog, 203 SCRA 673).
"As a ranking and veteran
prosecutor, respondent prosecutor knows too well that a recantation
does not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration. Like any other
testimony, it is subject to the test of credibility based on the
relevant circumstances and especially the demeanor of the witness on
the stand. Indeed, retractions are mere afterthoughts which should be
received with caution as otherwise it could make a solemn trial a
mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of
unscrupulous witnesses. For these reasons, respondent prosecutor should
not have initiated the dismissal of the subject cases, but instead
insisted for a hearing on the affidavit of recantation of Sabaot and
Bringas thereby affording him an opportunity to cross-examine and
impeach them on the basis of their earlier extrajudicial confession
which is presumed to have been regularly executed. In this way, the
court would not simply admit as gospel truth such recantation but have
to weigh it vis-a-vis the affiants previous confession. Respondent
prosecutor's serious misconduct is even made more manifest when he gave
credence to the Affidavits of Desistance of the parents of the victims
knowing only too well that such desistance is unavailing in criminal
cases because as crimes are an outrage to the sovereignty of the state,
its vindication must be in the name of the sovereign power.
"In allowing the introduction of
evidence to be used as basis for the withdrawal of the criminal cases
albeit the same had not been formally offered in evidence, respondent
prosecutor had exposed his total disregard of, or indifference to, or
even ignorance of the procedure laid down by law. Respondent's
intentional disregard of well known legal precepts can be characterized
as gross misconduct. By his acts, respondent prosecutor had allowed the
seven (7) accused to go unpunished resulting in public indignation
which adversely affected the faith and confidence of the public in the
administration of justice.
"Respondent prosecutor's
argument that as administering officer of the Joint-Affidavit of
Recantation, he is barred from questioning its due execution is
erroneous in the light of the parties' earlier confession which enjoys
the presumption of regularity. The rule is that a witness may be
impeached by the party against whom he was called by evidence such as
statements that he has made at other times but which are inconsistent
with his present testimony.
"On this point, respondent
prosecutor cannot pass on the blame to Judge Benjamin A. Bongolan even
it the latter allowed the documents or evidence to be marked, allowed
it to be submitted to the court, admitted the documents, ordered it to
be attached to the records and finally, used and considered the said
evidence and documents as the basis for the dismissal of the cases. All
these came to pass only because respondent prosecutor had initiated the
motion for the dismissal of the cases.
"Respondent is also guilty of
gross dishonesty. His assertion that 'it was accused, thru their
counsel who moved for the dismissal of the cases on October 11, 1993'
has nothing to commend itself. Nowhere in the transcript of the
stenographic notes of the October 11, 1993 hearing does it show that
Atty. Feir moved for the dismissal thereof. On the contrary, it was
respondent prosecutor who moved for such dismissal which was favorably
granted by the court as per the TSN of the October 14, 1993 hearing.
Whatever his reason was in resorting to such deception, does not speak
well of his integrity.
"What is exposed by the evidence
adduced in this administrative investigation is the sad spectacle of a
public prosecutor who is ignorant of fairly elementary legal
principles, exhibits indifference to, and even disdain for the rule of
law, applies the law whimsically, capriciously and oppressively, and
displays bias and partiality and thereafter would not hesitate to
resort to dishonesty to exculpate himself. These characteristics and
quirks are impermissible in a public prosecutor.
"Finally, it must be stressed
that a prosecutor must conduct himself in such a manner as to merit the
respect, reverence and confidence of the people. His conduct must at
all times not only be characterized by propriety but must also be
above-suspicion. There is thus the utmost need for integrity and
dedication in the performance of his function if only to preserve the
public trust character of a public office. In these, respondent
prosecutor failed miserably. He should not be allowed to stay a minute
longer in the prosecution service."
The actuations of respondent Barbero in the two criminal complaints show his determined effort to disregard existing policies on the prosecution of criminal offenders. The dismissal of the cases, despite the presence of sufficient and independent evidence to secure the convictions of the seven (7) accused, is, to say the least, a highly condemnable act. As a prosecutor, it is his sublime duty to prosecute and to serve the ends of justice without fear or favor, so that all parties who appears to be guilty therefore be meted the corresponding penalty regardless of their affiliations. Surely, his alacrity in filing the motion which eventually led to the dismissal of the criminal cases is a conduct that is exactly the opposite of what the government expects of its prosecutors in its vigorous and unrelenting campaign against criminality. His lack of zeal and dedication in pursuing the cause of justice has not only eroded the people's faith in our ability to combat criminals, but also has considerably negated the gains achieved through the years. Given the foregoing factual backdrop, respondent Barbero is absolutely undeserving to continue in the government service. I fully agree with the findings and recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Carlos B. Barbero of Abra is hereby DISMISSED from the service, for serious misconduct inimical to public interest and for gross dishonesty, with forfeiture of all benefits under the law.
Done in the City of Manila, this 8th day of October, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and ninety eight.
chan robles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.