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. 62 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE ON PROSECUTOR I
JESUS CLARITO L. ESPINA, PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, LAOANG,
NORTHERN SAMAR
This refers to the administrative complaint
filed by the children of the late Senecio Cerujano against Prosecutor I
Jesus Clarito L. Espina of the Provincial Prosecutor's Office, Laoang,
Northern Samar, for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service.
The records show that a case for robbery in band with multiple homicide
was filed against Matea Infante, et. al., before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch XXII, Laoang, Northern Samar and docketed thereat
as Criminal Case No. 1276. After trial, all the accused, except Matea
Infante, were convicted and meted the death penalty. On automatic
review by the Supreme Court, the judgment of conviction was affirmed
but the death penalty was commuted to reclusion perpetua. The
resolution of the Court En Banc became final and executory on May 7,
1987. On May 28, 1987, the records of the case were remanded to the
court of origin for execution of judgment. On June 14, 1993, respondent
prosecutor filed a motion seeking the perpetual dismissal of the case
in view of the repeal of Republic Act (R.A.) 1700 (the Anti-Subversion
Law). Acting on said motion, presiding Judge Mateo Leanda of RTC-Branch
XXII, Laoang, Northern Samar issued an order of even date dismissing
Crim. Case No. 1276 perpetually.
Thus, the instant complaint.
In his comment/answer, respondent prosecutor denies any anomalous
conduct in affixing his signature on the motion to dismiss Crim. Case
No. 1276. He avers that it was Judge Leanda who initiated the same in
view of the repeal of R.A. 1700. He further avers that considering the
circular mandating all government prosecutors handling subversion cases
to file the corresponding motion to dismiss such cases and because he
respected and trusted Judge Leanda who further assured him that the
dismissal would cover only the anti-subversion aspect of the case, he
agreed and asked the judge to prepare the necessary motion. On the same
morning, respondent adds, the motion was handed to him and after
reading the same, he affixed his signature thereon. The corresponding
order granting said motion was issued but he was not furnished a copy
thereof. Hence, he was not able to evaluate the same nor ask for its
reconsideration.
During the formal investigation, respondent prosecutor reiterated his
earlier averments. He further manifested that he was of the belief that
Crim. Case No. 1276 also involves a violation of the Anti-Subversion
Law because all the accused are members of the NPA.
In a subsequent memorandum, respondent prosecutor submitted the sworn
statements of Marlu Gonzales and Felipe Irinco, branch clerk of court
and court interpreter, respectively, of RTC-Branch XXII to support his
earlier averments. He further avers that he filed before the court an
urgent motion dated June 29, 1998 seeking the annulment of the order
dated June 14, 1993 dismissing Crim. Case No. 1276 but the motion was
referred by the court to the Supreme Court for proper disposition.
Evaluating carefully the answer of respondent in the light of the
evidence on record, we find his explanation unsatisfactory.
The records clearly show that Criminal Case No. 1276 is a suit for
robbery in band with multiple homicide. Very evident is the fact that
all the accused, except one, were convicted by the lower court on March
21, 1986 and that the judgment of conviction was affirmed with finality
by the Supreme Court on May 7, 1987. With this factual backdrop, it is
totally surprising for respondent prosecutor to file a motion to
dismiss the same case six (6) years later completely disregarding the
settled rule that a judgment which has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect
except only to correct clerical errors or mistakes. All issues between
the parties being deemed resolved and laid to rest.
In transgressing the rules and settled jurisprudence, respondent
irresponsibly trifled with court processes and impaired the right of
the people to due process. Respondent's defense of lack of malice
and/or corrupt motive in filing the motion to dismiss Crim. Case No.
1276 does not absolve him from liability for an improper and forbidden
act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character and implying wrongful
intent. This despicable conduct is exactly the opposite of what the
government expects from its prosecutors in its vigorous and unrelenting
campaign against criminality.
Thus, prosecutors should not allow and should avoid giving the
impression that their noble office is being used or prostituted
willingly or unwittingly, for political ends or other purposes alien
to, or subversive of, the basic and fundamental objective of serving
the interest of justice evenhandedly, without fear or favor to any and
all litigants alike, whether rich or poor, weak or strong, powerless or
mighty. Only by strict adherence to the established procedure may the
public's perception of the impartiality of the prosecutor be enhanced.
(Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72335-39, 21 March 88.)
WHEREFORE, respondent Prosecutor I Jesus Clarito L. Espina of Northern
Samar is hereby DISMISSED from the service.
Done in the City of Manila,
this 30th day of March, in the year of Our Lord, Nineteen Hundred and
Ninety-Nine.
chan
robles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.