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 UPON ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR BEN DE LA CRUZ OF THE OFFICE OF
THE CITY PROSECUTOR OF QUEZON CITY THE PENALTY OF ONE (1) YEAR
SUSPENSION WITHOUT PAY FOR GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY, INEFFICIENCY,
INCOMPETENCE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS AND VIOLATIONS OF
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) ORDERS NO. 49, SERIES OF 1993 AND NO. 9,
SERIES OF 1998 This has reference to the administrative
complaints against Assistant City Prosecutor Ben de la Cruz of the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City in ADM Case No.
98-005-A-FS for neglect of duty and violation of DOJ Order No. 49,
series of 1993, as amended, and ADM. Case No. 99-0056-FS for gross
neglect of duty, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of
official functions. The Secretary of Justice found respondent
prosecutor liable of said charges and recommended in his letter of
October 12, 2001, the suspension of the latter for one (1) year without
pay. "That
you failed to act on the complaint of Esmaela A. Padilla for illegal
demolition, landgrabbing, qualified trespass to dwelling, grave
threats, grave coercion and malicious mischief against Danilo Chua, et
al. docketed as I.S. No. 98-26125 and the subsequent motion filed my
complainant from the time that it was assigned to you on January 20,
1999 up to the present, in violation of Sec. 3, Rule 112 of the Revised
Rules on Criminal Procedure and Department Order No. 9 dated February
6, 1998. Court." Although he was required to submit, within ten (10) days from receipt of the formal charge, his answer thereto and his sworn statement covering his testimony and those of his witnesses, respondent prosecutor did not do so. During the initial investigation of this case, respondent prosecutor failed to attend on time. In the second setting held on April 7, 2000, respondent prosecutor requested for the deferment of the hearing until May 3, 2000. The deferment was prompted by his desire to seek from the DOJ Secretary an extension of time within which to file his comment as required by the formal charge. He, however, failed to appear on May 3, 2000, much less show proof that he, in fact, requested for additional time within which to submit his answer. He likewise did not attend the subsequent hearing on May 24, 2000 despite notice thereof. As it is, respondent prosecutor did not file his answer or any sworn statement as required in the formal charge. He likewise did not adduce any evidence on his behalf. Thus, upon motion of complainant, this instant administrative complaint was submitted for resolution. We find the instant administrative complaint meritorious especially in light of the fact that respondent failed to dispute the same despite the various opportunities for him to do so. Complainant has categorically stated that respondent prosecutor failed to resolve her complaint in I.S. No. 98-26125 which she filed on December 28, 1998. Worse, he did not resolve the said case despite repeated follow-ups by the complainant. This certainly is contrary to Sec. 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure and DOJ Order No. 9 dated February 6, 1998 which directs all prosecutors to resolve cases on preliminary investigation within forty-five (45) days. WHEREFORE, and as recommended by the Secretary of Justice, Assistant City Prosecutor Ben de la Cruz of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of one (1) year without pay effective upon his receipt of this Administrative Order with a stern warning that commission of the same or similar offenses in the future will warrant his dismissal from the service. DONE in the City of Manila this 7th day of February, in the year of Our Lord two thousand and three. |
Back to Main
Since 19.07.98.