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. 83 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF SUSPENSION FOR THREE (3) MONTHS WITHOUT PAY ON
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR AURELIO H. CASTILLO OF THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTION
OFFICE OF RIZAL, LAS PIÑAS SUB-OFFICE
This is an administrative case against
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Aurelio H. Castillo, Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal, Las Piñas Sub-Office, for
inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duty.
The formal charge arose from respondent Castillo's taking cognizance of
a complaint lodged against spouses Danilo and Milan Rose Bajador for
falsification of public document and thereafter causing the filing of
two (2) separate informations, one in the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
and the other, in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), both of Las
Piñas, Metro Manila. Claiming to have been prejudiced by
respondent Castillo's actuations, Mrs. Bajador instituted the instant
administrative complaint.
On May 14, 1998, respondent, as required by the Secretary of Justice,
submitted his answer to complaint, therein stating that he was waiving
his right to a formal investigation.
From the complaint and the answer and their respective annexes, I
gather the following facts:
On April 19, 1996, a criminal complaint for estafa thru falsification
of public document was filed against the Bajador spouses by Milagros D.
Mandras, docketed as I.S. No. LP 96-531. In support of her complaint,
Ms. Mandras adduced in evidence two (2) deeds of donation dated June
14, 1995 and June 20, 1995.
After the preliminary investigation, respondent Castillo, as
prosecuting officer, rendered a resolution dated July 10, 1996,
dismissing the charge of estafa, it being his finding that the deed of
donation dated June 14, 1995 was genuine. He, however, found a probable
cause to indict spouses Bajador for falsification of public document
with respect to the deed of donation dated June 20, 1995, which on its
face was executed and notarized in the City of Manila. On August 7,
1996, respondent filed the corresponding information with the RTC of
Las Piñas, Metro Manila, Branch 225, where the case was docketed
as Criminal Case No. 96-0340. Subsequently, he filed a "Motion to
Withdraw Information", therein stating that, considering the nature of,
and the imposable penalty for, the offense charged, the case falls
within the jurisdiction of the MTC of Las Piñas. Without
awaiting, however, the RTC's resolution on his motion to withdraw,
respondent, on September 3, 1996, filed with the MTC of Las
Piñas an information for falsification of public document,
docketed thereat as Crim. Case No. 29055.
Subsequently, or on September 16, 1996 to be precise, RTC Judge
Florentino Alumbres, acting on the said motion to withdraw information
filed vis-a-vis Crim. Case No. 96-0340, issued an order granting the
motion, at the same time directing that the case be remanded to the MTC
of Las Piñas, Branch 79. The information that was remanded to
the MTC was docketed as Criminal Case No. 29201. As things thus stood,
the spouses Bajador were made to contend with two (2) separate criminal
charges arising from the same transaction, not to mention of their
being required to twice post a cash bond of P6,000.00 each for their
provisional liberty. It was only on December 5, 1996 when the MTC of
Las Piñas, Branch 79, noting the case duplication, ordered the
withdrawal/dismissal of Crim. Case No. 29201.
It is Mrs. Bajador's posture that respondent Castillo should not have
taken cognizance of the offense of falsification of public document,
alleging that all the essential elements of the crime took place in the
City of Manila. As she argued, the document in question was a deed of
donation dated June 20, 1995 executed in that city.
In defense, respondent Castillo avers that the error he committed was
rectified by his filing with the RTC of a motion to withdraw
information, supra, and the filing of a new information with the MTC
before this motion was acted upon by the former court. He further
averred that the said error was due to the voluminous work in his
office, and that the same was an honest and excusable mistake, it being
his belief that once the RTC grants the motion to withdraw information,
the records of the case will be remanded to the Department of Justice
and not to the MTC. Moving on, he also claims that his filing of the
information in the court of Las Piñas relative to the deed of
donation dated June 20, 1995 is justified by the fact that the deed was
presented to the Office of the Register of Deeds of Las Piñas
for registration.
Respondent's defense may be accorded some merit, but for a nagging
reality. I refer to the fact that the purportedly falsified deed of
donation dated June 20, 1995 was executed and notarized in the City of
Manila. Thus, the act of falsification, if this be the case, was
consummated in the said city. Any improper or illegal use of said deed
in Las Piñas is of no moment. In this regard, respondent
Castillo, through sheer incompetence, failed to observe the rule that
the authority of his office to conduct preliminary investigation is
confined only to crimes cognizable by the proper court within his
territorial jurisdiction (Rule 112, Sec. 2, New Rules of Court), and
that criminal action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the
municipality or city where the offense was committed or any of its
essential ingredients took place (Rule 110, Sec. 15(a), Ibid).
Additionally, in his taking cognizance of the falsification case and
the subsequent filing of the information in the courts of Las
Piñas, respondent patently displayed his ignorance of the basic
rules on criminal procedure. His incompetency is further shown by the
fact that he initially filed the information for falsification before
the RTC of Las Piñas which has no jurisdiction over the nature
of the offense.
Respondent's invocation of good faith, in defense, cannot be accepted.
For, it is basic, almost elementary, that the authority of city or
provincial prosecutors to conduct preliminary investigation is limited
to offenses committed within their respective territorial
jurisdictions. The spouses Bajador could have been spared a lot of
inconvenience and expense if respondent had been a little more
circumspect in the performance of his functions. Had he bothered to
examine more closely the document which the Bajador spouses supposedly
falsified, he would have discovered that the same could not be the
basis for prosecution for falsification in Las Piñas. As it
were, respondent fell short of the degree of professionalism ordinarily
expected of prosecutors.
WHEREFORE, and as recommended by the Secretary of Justice, Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor Aurelio H. Castillo of the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor, Las Piñas Sub-Office, is hereby suspended
for a period of three (3) months without pay for inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of duty, effective upon his receipt
hereof.
Done in the City of Manila,
this 28th day of August, in the year of our Lord, nineteen hundred and
ninety nine.
chan
robles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.