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. 60 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE OF FIRST ASSISTANT
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR SESINIO E. BELEN, PROVINCIAL PROSECUTION OFFICE,
PALAWAN
This refers to the administrative complaint
filed by Vicente Buenavista, Jr., against First Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Sesinio B. Belen. Provincial Prosecution Office,
Palawan for serious misconduct, grave ignorance or indifference to the
law.
In the affidavit executed by the complaint on 13 September 1988, he
alleged that herein respondent was the investigating prosecutor in
Criminal Cases Nos. 6744 and 6745 for the rape of complainant's eleven
years old. These cases were subsequently dismissed, albeit
provisionally, on the basis of an Affidavit of Desistance purportedly
executed by the victim herself. This affidavit was found to have
several infirmities such as: being sworn before the respondent
prosecutor without requiring the affiant's parental consent; neither
was there a counsel assisting the affiant when she executed it or later
when she executed it it or later when she had it sworn before the
respondent prosecutor without requiring the affiant's parental consent:
neither was there a counsel assisting the affiant when she
executed it or later when she had it sworn before the respondent; and
that there was a discrepancy between the Motion to dismiss and the
Affidavit of Desistance. The Motion, which was based on the Affidavits,
was dated 04 July 1988 whereas the Affidavit itself was dated 26 July
1988. In other words, the Motion to Dismiss was prepared twenty two
(22) days ahead than the Affidavit of Desistance.
These irregularities were brought to the attention of the court, which
subsequently ordered for the reopening of the said cases which until
now are still pending.
Respondent, in the original administrative case filed against him,
submitted his answer-explanation and claimed that somebody accompanied
the girl to his office; that he was convinced of the truthfulness and
veracity of her statement and that she acted on her own free will; that
he had no knowledge that she was the victim of kidnapping by the
accused; that he was aware of negotiations between the parties for a
possible compromise and that he could not prolong the prosecution of
the case because the accused had been detained for along time already.
Thereafter, the then Undersecretary of Justice Artemio G. Tuguero
resolved the case on 01 February 1991; finding respondent's action
"short of the diligence required of a public officer who represents the
State". Respondent was thus admonished and reminded to be more careful
in the performance of his duties.
Complainant utilized the same Affidavit dated 13 September 1988 to
charge the presiding judge handling the cases before the Supreme
Court. The dispositive portion of the Supreme Court decision
promulgated on 19 July 1990 reads as follows:
"Wherefore, the court finds respondent Judge Marcelo Garcia guilty of
serious misconduct and hereby orders his immediate dismissal from the
service with forfeiture of retirement benefit except the value of his
accrued leaves.
"In view of Asst. Fiscal Sesinio B. Belen's questionable actuations in
the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 6744 and 6745 and Criminal Case No.
9756 (for kidnapping), let a copy of this decision be furnished the
Honorable Secretary of Justice for this information and proper
disposition."
Subsequently, after the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court
was published and a copy thereof furnished the Department, then
Secretary Franklin M. Drilon motu propio ordered the administrative
case against the respondent reopened and to conduct formal
investigation of the case. Likewise, on 28 August 1990, complainant
sent a letter to the Department appealing for the revival of his
complaint against respondent. On 26 February 1991, a reinvestigation
was conducted by a Senior State Prosecutor. In the respondent's
"Ex-Parte Manifestation" dated 3 April 1991, citing there were no new
matters adduced, he submitted the case for resolution to which the
complainant concurred. In the same manifestation, respondent raised the
issue of res judicata pointing out that the 01 February 1989 resolution
wherein he was admonished has become final. He also averred that
complainant's reason for re-opening which was "as a result of the
very disappointing action taken dated February 1, 1989 by the
Undersecretary of Justice Artemio G. Tuguero" is not valid or legal
ground for reopening the case.
The issue to be resolved is whether or not respondent should still be
held administratively liable for the same act as he was
previously admonished in the 01 February 1991 resolution of the then
Undersecretary of Justice Artemio G. Tuguero.
Respondent's contentions are without merits.
As a general rule, the findings of facts of quasi-judicial, which have
acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific
matters, are accorded not only respect but at times finality if
such findings are supported by substantial evidence (Dangan vs.
NLRC , 127 SCRA 706; Philippine Labor Alliance Council vs. Bureau of
Labor Relations, 75 SCRA 162).
However in Ateneo de Manila University vs. Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA
100, 106, it states: "However, there are exceptions to this rule
and judicial power asserts itself whenever the factual findings are
initiated by fraud, imposition or collusion; where the procedure
which led to the factual findings is irregular; when palpable errors
are committed; or when a grave abuse of discretion, misapprehension of
facts, arbitrariness or capriciousness is manifest, (Sichangco vs.
Commissioner of Immigration, 94 SCRA 61)".
Scrutiny of the records of the case shows that there was
misapprehension of facts. These facts which were taken into
consideration by the Supreme Court in its decision dismissing
respondent judge from the service, were not considered when the
Department resolved the Administrative case on 01 February 1991. These
are:
1.
2.
In the administrative case against Judge Marcelo G. Garcia, the Supreme
Court ruled that the respondent judge's intervention in brokering
a compromise of the criminal cases against the accused Ledesma was
improper, immoral, a show of ignorance of the law and was an act
unbecoming of a judge. This actuation of the judge was known to the
respondent prosecutor as he stated in his answer-explanation. It
appears, therefore, that both the judge and the prosecutor conspired
with each other to stifle eventually dismiss the cases against accused
Ledesma.
The above circumstances and admissions of the respondent clearly show
that there was a serious misconduct, grave ignorance or difference to
the law on the part of the respondent. If one has to carefully read the
01 February 1989 resolution of the Undersecretary Tuquero, these
same facts were not taken into consideration.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent First Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Sesinio B. Belen is hereby DISMISSED from the service.
Done in the City of Manila,
this 10th day of July in the year of our Lord, nineteen Hundred and
Ninety three.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.