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. 369 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF SUSPENSION FOR SIX (6) MONTHS WITHOUT PAY ON
ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR EULOGIO I. PRIMA OF THE PROVINCIAL
PROSECUTION OFFICE OF CAMARINES SUR
This refers to the administrative complaint
of Manuel B. Casaclang, Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, against
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Eulogio I. Prima of Camarines Sur (Adm.
Case No. RV-96-001-AC) for negligence of duty.
The facts of the case, as found
by the Fact Finding Investigation Panel duly constituted by the
Department of Justice for the purpose, are as follows:
"On November 9, 1994, the Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor, Iriga City Sub Office, received, through
Segundina Buena, the complete records of the case entitled "People of
the Philippines versus SPO1 Melchor Prades and SPO1 Henry Orbita" from
the Office of the Ombudsman with an accompanying instruction to
regularly update the said office of the progress of the case after the
Information is filed.
Upon the filing of the
Information, the case was raffled off to the 5th Municipal Circuit
Trial Court of Nabua-Bato, Camarines Sur. It was docketed as Criminal
Case No. 6978. The arraignment of the accused was set on January 20,
1995. It turned out, however, that, the arraignment was legally
defective since during the court proceedings, the Information was not
read to the accused, the accused did not personally enter his plea, and
the respondent prosecutor was absent. Notwithstanding these defects,
respondent prosecutor, did not exert any effort when he appeared in
court on July 20, 1995 and August 17, 1995 to rectify the irregularity.
Instead, he just let the trial proceed.
In the subsequent hearing on
December 8 and 22, 1995, respondent prosecutor, did not appear in Court
despite notice. He did not even make a formal motion for the
postponement of the scheduled hearings. This was again repeated on
February 9, 1996. In view of his series of failures to appear in court,
the case of arbitrary detention initiated by the Office of the
Ombudsman against the police officers was dismissed. Furthermore,
respondent prosecutor, without any justifiable reason, failed to submit
to the Office of the Ombudsman the requested progress report during the
pendency of the case.
In defense, respondent
prosecutor claims he is not the designated prosecutor to handle
criminal cases filed before the MCTC Nabua-Bato; that whoever is
approached in his office by the private complainant will be the trial
prosecutor for such particular case; that he was never approached by
the private complainant in the arbitrary detention case to handle the
same; that his office is not in possession of any record pertaining to
Criminal Case No. 6978; that he happens to be involved in the said case
when the private prosecutor at one instance was absent during the
trial; that on the scheduled hearing on February 9, 1996, he had to
appear in another Court; and, in an attempt to justify his failure to
appear in court for several times, he professes that it is a
fundamental rule in our jurisdiction that a complaint for arbitrary
detention can always be prosecuted by a private prosecutor since the
offended party is a private individual."
Upon evaluation of the evidence
and arguments adduced by both complainant and respondent, the Secretary
of Justice found the defense of the latter frivolous.
A public prosecutor who enters
his appearance in court is deemed to try the case up to its termination
or until there is a formal withdrawal in such capacity and which
withdrawal is approved by the court. Thus, for all legal intents and
purposes, he is the trial prosecutor for the said case. In such
capacity, he has the supervision and control over the prosecution of
the case. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the respondent prosecutor to
take an active role in the case. He cannot entirely relegate the matter
to the private prosecutor, be it a case of a private or public offense.
The physical presence of the public prosecutor in a criminal
proceedings is an indispensable requisite. On this point, respondent
prosecutor failed to discharge his duty accordingly.
The respondent in his attempt to
be absolved from the responsibility, denies possession of the records
transmitted by the Office of the Ombudsman. His denial is, however,
explicitly contradicted by the fact of receipt of such record by
Segundina Buena, Clerk Stenographer of the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor, Iriga City Sub-Station. Such gratuitous denial on the part
of the respondent prosecutor amounts to an indirect admission of the
loss of record of the case while it was in his custody. Had he
exercised due diligence, the loss of the record would not have
happened. His gross negligence in handling the records of the case also
constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service.
Furthermore, respondent's claim
that his intervention in the subject case is necessary only when
requested by the complainant, the offended party being a private
individual, is untenable. Such contention runs counter with Sec. 4,
Rule 110, of the Revised Rules of Court which reads:
Sec. 4.
This is because, except for
private crimes, criminal cases are public offenses committed against
the state. Ignorance by the respondent prosecutor of this basic concept
should not be sanctioned.
In view of the foregoing
considerations, I concur with the Secretary of Justice that respondent
prosecutor is clearly guilty of negligence of duty and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Eulogio I. Prima of the Provincial
Prosecution office, Camarines Sur, is hereby imposed the penalty of six
(6) months suspension from office without pay.
SO ORDERED.
chan
robles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.