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. 71 -
IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE ON ASSISTANT CITY
PROSECUTOR DARIO P. RAMA, JR. OF THE CEBU CITY PROSECUTION OFFICE
This refers to the complaint of SPO3
Ambrosio G. Ibones and Sr. Inspector Esmeraldo C. Briones against Asst.
City Prosecutor Dario P. Rama, Jr. of Cebu City for grave misconduct,
more particularly in securing the release of a suspected drug user who
is his niece.
Records show that on June 13, 1991, the Cebu City Police Anti-
Narcotics and Drug Section arrested five (5) suspected drug users
having pot session. Christine Rodriguez, the lone female in the group
and a niece of Prosecutor Rama, was detained at the Barangay Hall in
San Nicolas, proper.
The following day, SPO3 Ambrosio Ibones, a member of the arresting
team, learned from Sr. Inspector Esmeraldo Briones that Prosecutor Rama
had requested and taken custody of Ms. Rodriquez. SPO Briones acceded
on the prosecutor's promise to present the detainee the next day. On
June 17, 1991, Prosecutor Rama failed to present his niece but promised
to present her at the proper time. On June 26, 1991, instead of
presenting the suspect, Prosecutor Rama submitted a court order to the
investigating prosecutor for the detainee's confinement to a
rehabilitation center.
Respondent Rama denies responsibility for the charge. He admits having
requested custody of his niece because there is no detention cell for
female detainees. He claims that as the surrogate father, he was merely
concerned for the welfare of his niece and that in requesting for her
custody, he did not prevent the police officers from pursuing the case.
At the formal investigation respondent and complainants agreed to
submit the case for resolution without need of further hearing.
The thrust of the argument is whether or not the act of Prosecutor Rama
in securing the release of a suspect in a criminal case, who is his
niece constitutes grave misconduct.
We find the answer in the affirmative.
Grave Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite
rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or grave
misconduct by the public officer. The word "misconduct" implies a
wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment. For serious
misconduct to exist, there must be a reliable evidence that the
judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to
violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal
rules (In re Impeachment of Horrilleno, 43 Phil. 212).
If respondent had presented his niece as promised, this may have
mitigated his guilt. He made things worse when, instead of presenting
his niece, he submitted a court order for her confinement at a
rehabilitation center. This is an indication of the bad faith of the
prosecutor in that while making excuses for failing to present the
accused, he was wittingly working for the issuance of a court order.
Prosecutor Rama's claim as the surrogate father of the suspect is
belied by the fact that it was Ramos Rodriquez who petitioned the court
for said order being the father and the one who supports the suspect.
The most that Prosecutor Rama could have done to help his niece was to
find her a competent lawyer to defend her. It was noted that the same
incident involved a nephew of another prosecutor who did not intercede
in his behalf. Prosecutor Rama's act creates in his niece an impression
that she can violate the law with impunity because she has an uncle who
is public prosecutor and who can save her from legal entanglements.
The prosecutor's action in protecting a relative caught flagrantly
violating the law erodes the faith and confidence of the public in the
prosecution service. Prosecutor Rama took undue advantage of his
position as public prosecutor to circumvent the law in order to come to
the rescue of a relative. Such conduct is undeserving of a member of
the national prosecution service.
WHEREFORE, finding Prosecutor Dario P. Rama, Jr. guilty of grave
misconduct, he is hereby dismissed from the service effective
immediately.
Done in the City of Manila,
this 29th 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.