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. 317 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE WITH FORFEITURE OF
ALL BENEFITS UNDER THE LAW ON BULACAN ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
EDSEL RUTOR
This refers to the administrative complaint
filed against Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Edsel Rutor of the Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan for alleged grave misconduct
(defiance and disregard of a lawful order of a supervising officer and
bias and partiality in favor of an accused).
Records show that Prosecutor
Rutor was assigned to conduct a reinvestigation on the criminal
complaint for estafa thru falsification of public document filed by Mr.
Mariano Cudia against the spouses Apolonio and Bernarda Cruz (Crim.
Case No. 1469-M-93, Br. 19, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan). After
reinvestigation, Prosecutor Rutor recommended the dismissal of the said
case. However, his recommendation was disapproved by then Provincial
Prosecutor Liberato Reyes who directed him in the following manner:
xxx
"We should present our evidence
that makes (out) a prima facie case and let the court decide, not this
office pre-empting the prerogative of the court."
However, instead of complying
with the said directive, Prosecutor Rutor submitted his resolution to
the trial court, in obvious disregard of his superior's adverse stand.
On 22 December 1993, the court ordered the arraignment of the accused
who pleaded not guilty, and forthwith, issued an order dismissing, with
prejudice, the said criminal case on the basis of Prosecutor Rutor's
resolution. A motion for reconsideration of the court's order of
dismissal was filed by the private prosecutor; this was vehemently
opposed by Prosecutor Rutor thus, resulting in the denial of the said
motion by the court.
Later, it was discovered that
although the resolution of respondent prosecutor dismissing the case
was made only on 17 December 1993, the accused appeared to have been
arraigned a few days thereafter, or specifically on 22 December 1993.
The court's log book, however, did not show that the said case was
scheduled for arraignment on the said date. Apparently, respondent
prosecutor, showing his bias and partiality towards the accused,
connived with the court personnel to make it appear that the accused
was arraigned so that the dismissal of the case could be "with
prejudice".
Further, when complainant moved
for a reconsideration of the dismissal order, Prosecutor Rutor objected
and reiterated his position to dismiss the case. As a result, the court
denied the said motion of complainant Cudia. On 12 January 1994, then
Provincial Prosecutor Reyes and complainant's counsel jointly filed
another motion for reconsideration which was likewise denied by the
court.
Finally, a petition for
certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 114302)
questioning the subject order of dismissal. The Supreme Court, in its
decision dated 29 September 1995, stated, among others, that:
xxx
"The Rutor resolution was
rendered valueless because of the Provincial Prosecutor's disapproval
thereof. In submitting it nonetheless to the court and moving for the
dismissal of the case, Rutor showed outright disregard of the
aforementioned provisions and ruling. So did the respondent Judge when
he dismissed the case on the basis of that resolution. Their disregard
of the said provisions and ruling is condemnable, for it carries with
it a whimsical and capricious bent that taints the exercise of
discretion with grave abuse, thereby rendering the whole act infirmed
and void: (pp. 10 & 11).
xxx
This Court wonders why Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor Edsel M. Rutor disregarded the disapproval by his
superior, Provincial Prosecutor Liberator Reyes, of his resolution
recommending the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 1469-M-93.
Additionally, he vigorously objected to the private prosecutor's motion
to reconsider the dismissal. Something is wrong somewhere. The
attention of the Department of Justice must be called" (p. 12).
xxx
In the comment he submitted
dated 19 January 1994, Prosecutor Rutor avers that the record in Crim.
Case No. 1469-M-93 would show that he never made any motion, either
orally or in writing, for the dismissal of the case; that the court
dismissed the same on its own initiative after his proposed resolution
was disapproved and released by his office immediately to the trial
court; and that he did not influence the early setting of the
arraignment of the accused on 22 December 1993 as he is not the one
responsible in informing the accused of their arraignment.
Region III Regional State
Prosecutor (RSP) Carlos L. de Leon was directed to conduct a formal
investigation of the instant administrative complaint. During the
investigation, Prosecutor Rutor was given the opportunity to present
controverting evidence and be represented by counsel. However, he
failed to appear during the scheduled hearing despite due notice.
Accordingly, based on the evidence, RSP de Leon found Prosecutor Rutor
administratively liable for grave misconduct and recommended the
penalty of dismissal from the service.
The Secretary of Justice, upon
review, concurred with the findings and recommendation of RSP de Leon
that Prosecutor Rutor is administratively liable for grave misconduct
and that he should be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all
benefits under the law. Consequently, the Secretary of Justice
recommended to this Office the dismissal of Prosecutor Rutor from the
service with forfeiture of all benefits under the law.
After a careful evaluation of
the records of the case, this Office concurs with the findings and
recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
The act of respondent prosecutor
in submitting to the court his resolution on reinvestigation in Crim.
Case No. 1469-M-93 recommending dismissal of the said case, knowing
fully well that the same was disapproved by his immediate superior, and
his consequent act of seeking its dismissal by the court, contrary to
the directive of the latter for him to continue with the prosecution of
the said case, exhibits respondent's wanton disregard of the rule and
law, not to mention his total defiance of a legitimate and lawful order
of his immediate superior, constitutes grave misconduct. By such acts
of wrongful defiance and wanton disregard of a superior's lawful order,
Prosecutor Rutor's bias and partiality in favor of the accused became
evident and suspicious. In fact, respondent's defiant position was
further underscored when he vigorously opposed complainant's subsequent
motion for reconsideration.
Further, respondent's assertion
that he never moved for the dismissal of the case is negated by the
court's order of dismissal where it stated that the said dismissal was
prayed for by respondent.
Indeed, Prosecutor Rutor's
reprehensible act of grave misconduct, which no less than the Supreme
Court pronounced as "condemnable", has undermined public faith in the
prosecution service and ultimately in the administration of justice.
The conduct of a public prosecutor must always be beyond reproach and
circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them be
free from any suspicion that may taint the prosecution arm of the
government. While we are aware of the repercussions in meting the
extreme penalty of Prosecutor Rutor's dismissal from the service, we,
however, cannot countenance such condemnable act of insubordination,
which merits no further compassion.
WHEREFORE, premises considered
and as recommended by the Secretary of Justice, Bulacan Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor Edsel M. Rutor is found guilty of grave
misconduct, and is hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of
all benefits under the law effective upon receipt of a copy hereof in
accordance with Sec. 15, Book VII of the 1987 Administrative Code.
DONE in the
City of Manila, this 17th day of March, in the year of Our Lord,
nineteen hundred and ninety-seven.
chan
robles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.