8/29/2020 Pinote vs Ayco : AM RTJ-05-1944 : December 13, 2005 : J.

Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library™ |

chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share

Custom Search Search

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

Home > ChanRobles Virtual Law Library > Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > 2005 Decisions > Pinote vs Ayco : AM RTJ-05-
1944 : December 13, 2005 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

Criminal Law Cases Lawyer Number Public Lawyer

Laws of Motion Defense and Prosecution Lawyer and Defendant
Defense and Prosecution Lawyer and Defendant Prosecution Lawyer

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/dec2005/am_rtj_05_1944.php 1/6
8/29/2020 Pinote vs Ayco : AM RTJ-05-1944 : December 13, 2005 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

THIRD DIVISION

A.M. No. RTJ-05-1944

STATE PROSECUTOR RINGCAR
B. PINOTE, [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-
2189-RTJ]
Petitioner ,

Present:

-versus-

PANGANIBAN, Chairman,

SANDOVAL- GUTIERREZ,

JUDGE ROBERTO L. AYCO, CORONA,

Respondent . CARPIO MORALES, and

GARCIA, JJ.

Promulgated:

December 13, 2005

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

On August 13 and 20, 2004, Judge Roberto L. Ayco of Branch 26, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
South Cotabato allowed the defense in Criminal Case No. 1771 TB, 'People v. Vice Mayor Salvador
Ramos, et al., for violation of Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, to present evidence
consisting of the testimony of two witnesses, even in the absence of State Prosecutor Ringcar B.
Pinote who was prosecuting the case.

State Prosecutor Pinote was on August 13 and 20, 2004 undergoing medical treatment at the
Philippine Heart Center in Quezon City, hence, his absence during the proceedings on the said dates.

On the subsequent scheduled hearings of the criminal case on August 27, October 1, 15 and 29,
2004, State Prosecutor Pinote refused to cross-examine the two defense witnesses, despite being

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/dec2005/am_rtj_05_1944.php 2/6
8/29/2020 Pinote vs Ayco : AM RTJ-05-1944 : December 13, 2005 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

ordered by Judge Ayco, he maintaining that the proceedings conducted on August 13 and 20, 2004
in his absence were void.

State Prosecutor Pinote subsequently filed a Manifestation on November 12, 2004 before the trial
court, he restating why he was not present on August 13 and 20, 2004, and reiterating his position
that Judge Ayco's act of allowing the defense to present evidence in his absence was erroneous and
highly irregular. He thus prayed that he should not be 'coerced to cross-examine those two defense
witnesses and that their testimonies be stricken off the record.

By Order issued also on November 12, 2004, Judge Ayco, glossing over the Manifestation,
considered the prosecution to have waived its right to cross-examine the two defense witnesses.

Hence, arose the present administrative complaint lodged by State Prosecutor Pinote (complainant)
against Judge Ayco (respondent), for 'Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority and
Serious Misconduct.

By Comment dated March 18, 2005, respondent proffers that complainant filed the complaint 'to
save his face and cover up for his incompetence and lackadaisical handling of the prosecution of the
criminal case as in fact complainant was, on the request of the Provincial Governor of South
Cotabato, relieved as prosecutor in the case by the Secretary of Justice.

And respondent informs that even after complainant was already relieved as the prosecutor in the
case, he filed a motion for his inhibition without setting it for hearing.

On the above-said Manifestation filed by complainant before the trial court on November 12, 2004,
respondent brands the same as 'misleading and 'highly questionable, complainant's having
undergone medical treatment at the Philippine Heart Center on August 13 and 20, 2004 having been
relayed to the trial court only on said date.

On his Order considering the prosecution to have waived presenting evidence, respondent justifies
the same on complainant's failure to formally offer the evidence for the prosecution despite several
extensions of time granted for the purpose.

Finally, respondent proffers that no substantial prejudice was suffered by the prosecution for
complainant was permitted to cross examine the two defense witnesses but he refused to do so.

By way of counter-complaint, respondent charges complainant with 'Contempt of Court and 'Grave
Misconduct and/or 'Conduct Unbecoming of a Member of the Bar and as an Officer of the Court.

On evaluation of the case, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), citing Section 5, Rule 110 of
the Revised Rule on Criminal Procedure, finds respondent to have breached said rule and

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/dec2005/am_rtj_05_1944.php 3/6
8/29/2020 Pinote vs Ayco : AM RTJ-05-1944 : December 13, 2005 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

accordingly recommends that he be reprimanded therefor, with warning that a repetition of the
same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure reads:

Sec. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. - All criminal actions commenced
by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and
control of the prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule or in the event of lack
of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by
the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecution Office to
prosecute the case subject to the approval of the Court. Once so authorized to
prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute
the case up to the end of the trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor,
unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn.

x x x (Underscoring supplied)

Thus, as a general rule, all criminal actions shall be prosecuted under the control and direction of
the public prosecutor.

If the schedule of the public prosecutor does not permit, however, or in case there are no public
prosecutors, a private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office
or the Regional State Prosecution Office to prosecute the case, subject to the approval of the court.
Once so authorized, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case until the termination
of the trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise
withdrawn.

Violation of criminal laws is an affront to the People of the Philippines as a whole and not merely to
the person directly prejudiced, he being merely the complaining witness. [1] It is on this account
that the presence of a public prosecutor in the trial of criminal cases is necessary to protect vital
state interests, foremost of which is its interest to vindicate the rule of law, the bedrock of peace of
the people. [2]

Respondent's act of allowing the presentation of the defense witnesses in the absence of
complainant public prosecutor or a private prosecutor designated for the purpose is thus a clear
transgression of the Rules which could not be rectified by subsequently giving the prosecution a
chance to cross-examine the witnesses.

Respondent's intention to uphold the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of the case, no
matter how noble it may be, cannot justify a breach of the Rules. If the accused is entitled to due
process, so is the State.

Respondent's lament about complainant's failure to inform the court of his inability to attend the
August 13 and 20, 2004 hearings or to file a motion for postponement thereof or to subsequently
file a motion for reconsideration of his Orders allowing the defense to present its two witnesses on
said dates may be mitigating. It does not absolve respondent of his utter disregard of the Rules.

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/dec2005/am_rtj_05_1944.php 4/6
8/29/2020 Pinote vs Ayco : AM RTJ-05-1944 : December 13, 2005 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Roberto L. Ayco is hereby ordered to pay a fine FIVE THOUSAND
PESOS (P5,000.00) with warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.

Respecting the counter-complaint against complainant State Prosecutor Ringcar B. Pinote,

respondent is advised that the same should be lodged before the Secretary of Justice.

SO ORDERED.

' 'CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN

Associate Justice

Chairman

ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ

Associate Justice

RENATO C. CORONA

Associate Justice

CANCIO C. GARCIA

Associate Justice

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/dec2005/am_rtj_05_1944.php 5/6
8/29/2020 Pinote vs Ayco : AM RTJ-05-1944 : December 13, 2005 : J. Carpio-Morales : Third Division : Decision

Endnotes:

[1] Vide : People v. Ramos, 207 SCRA 144, 152 (1992).

[2] Vide : People v. Arcilla, 256 SCRA 757, 763-764 (1996).

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920

1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960

1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

FEATURED
DECISIONScralaw

Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Search

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920
1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960
1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Copyright © 1998 - 2020 ChanRoblesPublishing Company| Disclaimer | E-mailRestrictions ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library ™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2005/dec2005/am_rtj_05_1944.php 6/6