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. 68 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF SUSPENSION FOR TWO MONTHS WITHOUT PAY ON
ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR BIENVENIDO N. MABANTO, JR. OF CEBU CITY
This refers to the administrative complaint
filed by Cebu City Mayor Tomas R. Osmeña as complainant against
Assistant City Prosecutor Bienvenido N. Mabanto, Jr. of Cebu City as
respondent for Grave Misconduct.
Complainant alleged that respondent was the investigating prosecutor in
I.S. No. 91-2406; that the case evolved from a raid on April 17, 1991,
conducted by Policemen on Queen Mini Theater for showing lewd and
obscene pictures; that one half (1/2) roll of pornographic film was
found inside the projection room thereat; the complaint was filed
against Amonia Aragon, owner of the theater; that on May 13, 1991,
respondent herein as investigating prosecutor dismissed the case on the
ground that the confiscated pornographic film could not be
shown/exhibited without the use of a reel; that respondent's resolution
was contrary to the demonstration jointly attended by the members of
the Cebu-Anti-Indecency Board and respondent himself where the film
could still be shown without reel; that respondent premised his
resolution dated May 13, 1991 on the preview undertaken by the Cebu
City Anti-Indecency Board on May 22, 1991; that it was unusual for
respondent to know about the incident on May 22, 1991, while his
resolution was dated May 13, 1991, unless "Amonia endowed him with
something extremely valuable that made him see things before they take
place"; that respondent, with determination to exonerate the accused at
all cost, disregarded the testimonies of two (2) impartial witnesses;
that in 1987, respondent likewise dismissed a case against Amonia
Aragon, et al., despite the lawful seizure of several pornographic
films from Queen Mini Theater; that it was quite unusual for the two
(2) cases involving the same parties to be assigned to the same
investigating prosecutor-respondent herein; that respondent
deliberately did not notify the arresting officers of the
reinvestigation conducted in the latter case nor has a copy of his
resolution been furnished the latter.
Based on the foregoing, complainant prayed that respondent herein be
investigated; thus, a formal investigation was readily conducted by
State Prosecutor Alvin C. Go pursuant to Department Order No. 312,
Series of 1991, of the Department of Justice.
Thereafter, the Secretary of Justice found the respondent guilty of
Simple Misconduct and recommended his suspension from office.
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the Secretary of
Justice.
Complainant's evidence shows that a team of policemen conducted a raid
at Queen Mini Theater where one half (1/2) roll of pornographic film
was confiscated. The owner of said theater, Amonia Aragon, was
criminally charged and investigated by the respondent, but the latter
dismissed the complaint despite the existence of prima facie
case. Moreover, in a similar case in 1987 respondent was handling and
investigating a case against Amonia Aragon likewise for showing
pornographic films, he deliberately failed to furnish the policemen
with a copy of his resolution while Amonia Aragon was promptly
furnished thereof. The said case was also dismissed.
Respondent put up the defense that the case against Amonia Aragon was
accordingly resolved based on the evidence and the rule of law. It was
Florentina Mamalias, the officer-in-charge in their office, who was
responsible for sending copies of resolutions to the parties. That he
had no direct control and supervisory power over Florentina Mamalias.
After he witnessed the actual demonstration of the pornographic film
without a reel, he resolved to dismiss the case against Amonia Aragon
because the film could not be properly exhibited without the use of a
reel.
Upon clarificatory questioning, respondent testified that he witnessed
the actual demonstration of the confiscated film found to be
pornographic; that while the pornographic film was not contained in a
reel, several reels were found inside the projection room of Queen Mini
Theater that it was possible for that pornographic film to have been
inserted in one of those reels.
The records reveal that respondent was handling two (2) similar cases
involving the same parties. The said cases arose out of separate raids
conducted by Police operatives in 1987 and 1991, where pornographic
films were confiscated thereon. It was indeed quite unusual for
respondent to have handled the two (2) cases involving the same parties
only by accident. We cannot simply lose sight of the fact that
respondent had a certain degree of influence in his own office. Most
notably that in both cases against Amonia Aragon, the owner of Queen
Mini Theater, the same were dismissed.
Respondent's claim that he remembered having handled a similar case in
1987 against Amonia Aragon only when he received the instant complaint
is not only improbable, but unbelievable. It must be noted that the two
(2) cases were of similar facts having the same parties, particularly
the respondent therein Amonia Aragon. Obviously, respondent prosecutor
knowingly handled and resolved the case for the benefit of said Amonia
Aragon. Otherwise, respondent could have easily and immediately
initiated for his inhibition from handling the later (1991) case which
was proper under the premises.
After a careful review of the records, it appears more reasonable to
believe the version of the complainant that in the 1987 case,
respondent deliberately failed to furnish the police operatives of the
resolution dismissing the case against Amonia Aragon, thereby depriving
the former of their right to file an appeal by petition for review with
the Department of Justice. Florentina Mamalias categorically admitted
that being the resolution-in-charge she received the approved
resolution of respondent also from the latter. She sent a copy of the
resolution to Amonia Aragon through the process server, while the
police operatives received their copy only when Arturo Hontiveros went
to her office. Evidently, the copy received by Ms. Mamalias from
respondent was intended only for Amonia Aragon. Furthermore, it must be
noted that respondent and Mamalias gave two (2) conflicting versions.
Respondent stated that after he renders a resolution, the same goes to
the City Prosecutor for approval and no copy returns to him. However,
Mamalias, claimed that she received the approved resolution from
respondent. Indubitably, it can be shown that respondent had complete
control over the disposition of his resolution.
Respondent's further claim that he has no supervisory or administrative
control over Mamalias is untenable. Ms. Mamalias being a support staff
is certainly subordinate to prosecutors. Accordingly, the
administrative supervision over Ms. Mamalias is vested upon the
prosecutors, especially in the handling of cases filed with the
Prosecutor's Office.
It has been repeatedly stressed that "Public Office is a public trust.
Public Officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the
people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives."
(Article XI, Sec. 1, 1987 Philippine Constitution). And
complainant's evidence have substantially established that respondent
had committed a nefarious act prejudicial to public services.
WHEREFORE, finding substantial evidence to hold respondent Assistant
City Prosecutor BIENVENIDO N. MABANTO, JR. of Cebu City
administratively liable, a penalty of suspension from office for a
period of TWO (2) MONTHS is hereby imposed upon him.
Done in the City of Manila,
this 22nd day of July, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
ninety three.
chanrobles virtual law library
Back
to Main
Since 19.07.98.