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.
Search for
www.chanrobles.com:
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ PHILIPPINE LAWS, STATUTES & CODES
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 31 -
SUSPENDING ATTY. NINI CRUZ-ALCALA FROM OFFICE AS SECOND ASSISTANT CITY
PROSECUTOR OF OLONGAPO CITY
This pertains to the administrative
complaint filed by Atty. Ernesto A. Gonzales, Jr., against respondent
Nini Cruz-Alcala, Second Assistant City Prosecutor of Olongapo City,
for alleged manifest partiality and undue delay in the resolution of
criminal complaints filed by herein complainant's client, Ricky Pulido,
before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Olongapo City.
It appears that the instant administrative case arose from the
dismissal of the criminal complaints against Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios
for Grave Coercion, which were docketed as I.S. Nos. 89-309 and 89-388.
In his letter-complaint of March 7, 1990, complainant alleged that
respondent connived with Atty. De Dios in exerting undue influence and
intimidation upon Rocky Pulido to execute an Affidavit of Desistance
that resulted to the dismissal of the aforementioned criminal
complaints.
Complainant averred that respondent exhibited manifest partiality in
dismissing said criminal complaints, since Atty. De Dios was her close
friend. Complainant also maintained that respondent disregarded the
established office procedure in administering the oath on the Affidavit
of Desistance. Further, he charged respondent with undue delay in the
resolution of said criminal cases.
Respondent denied the charges against her. Respondent alleged, among
other things, that she has always been impartial in discharging the
functions of her office; that she never intimidated Ricky Pulido to
execute an Affidavit of desistance in connection with the
aforementioned criminal complaints; and that Ricky Pulido was apprised
of the consequences of his before he voluntarily executed said
affidavit.
With regard to the charge of undue delay in resolving the cases, she
attributes the same to her work load, as she performs a number of
official capacities.
After a formal investigation, the Secretary of Justice, in his letter
to this Office, dated May 16, 1991, made the following observations and
recommendations:
"Before
us are two (2) issues: First, whether or not the respondent committed
manifest partiality, thereby giving undue advantage to the client of
her friend, Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios; and Second, whether or not there
was undue delay in the resolution of I.S. Nos. 89-309 and 89-388
constitutive of a violation of Department Circular No. 27, series of
1988.
"After a thorough examination of
the record, we find that the charge of manifest partiality had not been
sufficiently substantiated not satisfactorily proven. The complainant
failed to show by convincing evidence that the respondent had exerted
undue influence on Ricky Pulido in the execution of his Affidavit of
Desistance. It would have been expedient on complainant's part to
present Ricky Pulido himself to testify and attest to the alleged undue
influence or intimidation, however, he did not do so. Such omission was
fatal to his cause. Instead, complainant relied on evidence which are
mainly hearsay and speculative, not having been personally present
during the occurrence of the transaction under consideration. Neither
does the fact what Ricky Pulido received by virtue of his Affidavit of
Desistance was much less than what is claimed to be the 'true' value of
the properties (sic), absent evidence [of the] value of the properties,
absent evidence to conclusively show the exact value thereof, prove
that an advantage was unduly accorded to Atty. Lourdes I. De Dios by
virtue of the respondent's actuations. Furthermore, there is no known
rule of procedure or office regulation which would require that a
document has to be notarized by a private lawyer prior to an
acknowledgment or confirmation before a prosecutor or officer
authorized to administer oath. The alleged 'established office
procedure' does not exist in fact and in law.
"Parenthetically,
however, we believe that the more prudent course of action which the
respondent should have observed was to voluntarily inhibit herself from
resolving the cases (I.S. Nos. 89-309 and 89-388) on the ground that
one of the counsels involved in the same was her close, personal
friend. Public officials are indubitably enjoined to observe a certain
degree of ethical standard not unlike that of Caesar's wife who must be
above reproach and approach, but must also be perceived to be such.
"With respect to the issue of
undue delay, we find that the respondent is, indeed, liable therefore.
The respondent, in her testimony, admitted that the cases had not been
resolved from the time these were assigned to her up to and until 16
February 1990 (TSN, p. 15, 08 August 1990). A period of eight (8)
months had, therefore, lapsed before the cases were finally acted upon
by the respondent, in clear contravention of the mandate of Department
Circular No. 27, series of 1988 which requires the disposition of cases
within a period of sixty (60) days from receipt, unless this period is
extended, on valid and meritorious grounds, by the Chief State
Prosecutor or the City/Provincial Prosecutor. There is no showing that
an extension had been requested and granted to the respondent so far as
the cases were concerned."
After going over the records of the case, I agree with the finding of the Secretary of Justice that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the charge of manifest partiality. I also concur with the finding of the Secretary of Justice that the delay of respondent in the resolution of the aforementioned criminal complaints is not justified.
WHEREFORE, and as recommended by the Secretary of Justice, Atty. Nini Cruz-Alcala is hereby suspended from office as Second Assistant City Prosecutor of Olongapo City for one (1) month without pay, effective fifteen (15) days after receipt of a copy of this Order by respondent.
This Administrative Order shall take effect immediately.
DONE in the City of Manila, this 21st day of January in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Three.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.
