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. 85 -
DISMISSING ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR SALVADOR M. QUIAMBAO OF THE CITY
PROSECUTION OFFICE OF MANILA FROM THE SERVICE
This refers to the administrative
complaints separately filed by Virgie Terakita and Dante Edangal
against Assistant City Prosecutor Salvador M. Quiambao of the City
Prosecution Office of Manila for gross neglect of duty, inefficiency
and/or grave misconduct in office.
It appears that on February 22, 1993, Virgie Terakita filed a criminal
complaint for grave threats against Dante Edangal, docketed as I.S. No.
93-B-06463. It was only on October 28, 1994, or seventeen (17) months
from the time the said criminal case was assigned to respondent
prosecutor for preliminary investigation that the same was resolved,
hence, this administrative charge.
In his answer, respondent explained that he could not have resolved the
subject criminal case earlier because "there was no proof that the
other respondents in the said case had been duly served with notice of
the subpoena pursuant to Circular No. 215 of the DOJ." He likewise
averred that he does not only attend to court duties three (3) times a
week, but he also conducts night inquests and night court hearings.
Moreover, he claimed that he acts as "trouble shooter" for absent trial
prosecutors. Furthermore, he lamented the lack of clerical staff,
stating that he shares the services of one stenographic reporter with
two (2) other prosecutors. Finally he disclosed that he is already
sixty (60) years old.
As did the Secretary of Justice, I find respondent's explanation to be
unsatisfactory. The reasons he invoked could not justify his long delay
in resolving I.S. No. 93-B-06463, a simple case of grave threats. Had
the respondent prosecutor found comp issue/s in the subject criminal
case, the appropriate course to take was to request for an extension of
time within which to resolve the same from the chief of office, which
he failed to do.
Members of the prosecution service are enjoined to act with promptitude
and dispatch in the discharge of their functions. Narrowing the gap
between the number of cases filed for preliminary investigation and
those which have been resolved/disposed of, is the primary concern of
the prosecution service. Indeed, the full realization of this ideal
hinges on the industry and dedication of every prosecutor such that he
cannot afford to be sluggish in the resolution of cases filed for
preliminary investigation before him.
It cannot be over-emphasized that it is the sworn duty of each member
of the prosecution service to administer justice without undue delay.
There obtains a Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular, i.e. Circular No.
49, series of 1993, requiring every prosecutor to resolve a case within
sixty (60) days after the same shall have been assigned to him for
preliminary investigation.
I cannot countenance the 15-month delay incurred by the respondent in
resolving I.S. No. 93-B-06463. Notably, the subject matter of the
complaint simply involved an issue of grave threats, which respondent
prosecutor could have resolved even without conducting the preliminary
investigation pursuant to the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the case
being cognizable by the Metropolitan Trial Courts, where a preliminary
investigation is not a matter of right. Accordingly, it was
unreasonable, inexcusable and a manifest gross inefficiency on
respondent prosecutor to have resolved the same in seventeen (17)
months. His inefficiency had indeed hindered the efforts of the
Department of Justice to minimize if not eradicate undue delay in the
resolution of cases.
WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Secretary of Justice, Assistant City
Prosecutor Salvador M. Quiambao of the City Prosecution Office, Manila,
is hereby dismissed from the service, 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.