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. 30 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF SUSPENSION FOR ONE YEAR WITHOUT PAY ON
ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR RAMON E. SAN AGUSTIN, JR. OF THE CITY
PROSECUTION OFFICE OF MANDAUE CITY
This refers to the administrative complaint
filed by City Prosecutor Ferdinand G. Peque, City Prosecution Office,
Mandaue City, against Assistant City Prosecutor Ramon R San Agustin,
Jr. of the same office, for grave misconduct, gross insubordination and
refusal to perform official duty.
The facts of the case are as follows:
Complainant City Prosecutor alleges that on September 19, 1995, an
information for violation of Sec. 16, Article III Republic Act 6425,
as amended, was filed by the Philippine National Police (PNP) against
Fritz Callelero and Theodore Garaygay before the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 28, Cebu City, docketed thereat as Crim. Case No. DU-5178. Upon
motion of the accused and without objection on the part of respondent
prosecutor San Agustin, the assigned prosecutor thereat, the scheduled
arraignment on November 16, 1995 was deferred and a reinvestigation was
ordered by the court.
In a reinvestigation report dated March 22, 1996, respondent prosecutor
recommended the dismissal of the case. Complainant City Prosecutor,
however, disapproved/reversed the said recommendation in his order
dated April 19, 1996 embodied in respondent prosecutor's
reinvestigation report (third page) and sustained the filing of an
information in court against Fritz Callelero and Theodore Garaygay.
Subsequent thereto and during the leave of absence of complainant City
Prosecutor, respondent prepared a similar report/recommendation of
dismissal dated May 17, 1996, and had the same approved by
OIC/Assistant City Prosecutor Carmelita Terez. This reinvestigation
report/recommendation of dismissal was filed in court and was later
made the basis for the court's dismissal of the case.
Upon reporting for work, complainant City Prosecutor directed
respondent prosecutor to explain the dismissal order issued by the
court. For failure of respondent to comply with this directive,
complainant City Prosecutor filed an administrative complaint against
respondent prosecutor before the Office of the Regional State
Prosecutor.
A fact-finding investigation was initiated by the Office of the
Regional State Prosecutor (RSP), but despite notice, however,
respondent prosecutor failed to file his answer. Moreover, complainant
City Prosecutor was found to have issued another memorandum dated July
30, 1996, directing respondent prosecutor to file a motion for
reconsideration of the court's order of dismissal in Criminal Case No.
DU-5178 and in the event of a denial thereof, to file a new information
against the accused. However, as of August 15, 1996, when the decision
on the complaint was rendered, respondent prosecutor took no action
thereon. Hence, the RSP's recommendation that respondent prosecutor be
formally charged for serious misconduct, gross insubordination and
refusal to perform official duty.
Respondent prosecutor elected for the conduct of a formal investigation
and refuted the charges. He averred that his first reinvestigation
report dated March 22, 1996, was an honest assessment/evaluation that
the case should be dismissed. When he submitted his resolution to
complainant City Prosecutor for the latter's "initial perusal and
scrutiny without finality", the resolution was returned to him with
"notations". Believing that it was necessary to justify his
recommendation for the dismissal of the case and/or additional matters
need to be incorporated, he made verbal explanations to complainant
City Prosecutor regarding loopholes in the evidence and requested for a
further discussion of the case. Complainant City Prosecutor, however,
went on leave and as the court's allotted time had lapsed, he was
constrained to file another reinvestigation report dated May 17, 1996
which was approved by OIC Terez. This report was filed in court and on
the basis thereof, the case was dismissed.
Upon complainant City Prosecutor's return, respondent prosecutor was
asked to explain the court's dismissal order. Since the case folder was
missing, he complied verbally and asked for an extension of time within
which to file his answer. Complainant City Prosecutor did not, however,
wait for the answer and filed the instant complaint/matter before the
office of the RSP. After due notice, respondent prosecutor verbally
explained to RSP Masangkay and to the investigating prosecutor
regarding the still missing case folder. He then filed an ex-parte
motion for an extension of time within which to file his answer. For
failure of respondent prosecutor to file his answer within the time
granted him, the administrative complaint of City Prosecutor Peque was
forwarded to the Department of Justice.
During the intervening period, complainant City Prosecutor again issued
a memorandum dated July 30, 1996, directing him to file before the
court a motion for reconsideration of its order dismissing the
Callelero case. Thus, on August 23, 1996, he filed the corresponding
motion in court for which the case was ordered revived and the accused
were arrested.
During the conduct of the formal administrative investigation,
complainant City Prosecutor manifested that the instant case arose from
a mere misunderstanding. Openly professing his faith on the ability of
respondent prosecutor, complainant City Prosecutor avers that the
investigation the former was not necessary as the mistake committed by
said respondent prosecutor had already been corrected when he
(respondent prosecutor) caused the revival of the case which is now
undergoing trial and for which a possible conviction is foreseen. The
accused had, however, jumped bail.
After a careful evaluation of the evidence on record, I find, as did
the Secretary of Justice, respondent Prosecutor Ramon E. San Agustin,
Jr. administratively liable for grave misconduct.
Complainant City Prosecutor's disposition dated April 19, 1996, on
respondent prosecutor's reinvestigation report dated April 19, 1996
clearly reversed the latter's findings that the criminal complaint
against Callelero and Garaygay should be dismissed and "sustained the
filing of the information in court." Notwithstanding said disposition,
respondent prosecutor conveniently treated these as mere "notations"
made by complainant City Prosecutor upon the latter's "initial perusal
and scrutiny without finality" of his reinvestigation report. While he
avers to have asked complainant City Prosecutor for more time to
discuss the case, no evidence was presented to show that an action
thereon was taken from the time he was reversed by complainant City
Prosecutor up to May 17, 1996 when, during the latter's leave of
absence, he submitted a re-written report to OIC Terez for approval. By
itself, the act is not only anomalous having been done during
complainant City Prosecutor's absence, but is also an open and
deliberate disposition on the case apparently done for the purpose of
granting benefits to the accused. To be sure, having been in the
prosecution service for quite sometime, respondent prosecutor is well
aware that his actuations is a clear violation of established rules and
regulations specifically Sec. 4 of Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure, in that the findings of his superior (in this case, the City
Prosecutor) is the final disposition on the results of the
reinvestigation.
While it appears that respondent prosecutor complied with the
subsequent directives of complainant City Prosecutor, albeit belatedly,
it further proves respondent prosecutor's stubbornness in not
immediately following the lawful orders of his superior.
Complainant City Prosecutor's subsequent manifestations about the case
arising from a mere misunderstanding with respondent prosecutor and
that he still has faith in the latter's ability to prosecute cases do
not absolve respondent prosecutor's administrative liability under the
premises, there being truth to the charges made. Moreover, what is
sought in an administrative case is the improvement of the public
service and the preservation of the faith and confidence of the people
in their government and its officials. Considering, however, that this
is respondent prosecutor's first offense in an otherwise unblemished
record, we believe that his administrative liability should be
mitigated.
Government employees and officials hold a public trust and by reason
thereof they should act in a manner befitting the honor and dignity of
their positions. The behavior of respondent prosecutor in the handling
of the investigation/reinvestigation of the Callelero, et al. case in
question certainly falls short of this norm or standard of behavior.
Complainant City Prosecutor's subsequent stand for respondent
prosecutor herein is not material to the latter's chastisement. To
condition administrative action upon the will of every complainant, who
may, for one reason or another condone a reprehensible act, is to strip
of the power of the proper authorities to discipline persons in the
government service. Besides, complainant is, in a real sense, only a
witness for the government.
WHEREFORE, and as recommended by the Secretary of Justice, Assistant
City Prosecutor Ramon E. Agustin, Jr. of the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Mandaue City is hereby suspended from office for a period
of one (1) year without pay.
Done in the City of Manila,
this 27th 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.