A.C. No. 2040 - Nakpil vs. Valdes

The case originated from Criminal Case No. 09-03-16474 involving People of the Philippines v. Cresencio Palo, Sr.
On March 24, 2009, City Prosecutor Armando P. Abanado filed the Information in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bacolod City, which was later raffled to Branch 7, presided over by Judge Abraham A. Bayona.
The case concerns issues arising from preliminary investigation documents and conflicting resolutions regarding probable cause.

On April 13, 2009, Judge Bayona ordered the production of additional evidence pursuant to Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to evaluate the existence of probable cause.

A copy of the Memorandum of Preliminary Investigation;
The resolution of the Investigating Prosecutor on record (the Jarder Resolution);
The memorandum of transfer of case assignment from Assistant City Prosecutor Dennis S. Jarder to the City Prosecutor;
Copies of all documents submitted by both the prosecution and the respondents.

On April 29, 2009, the Office of the City Prosecutor complied by submitting the Memorandum of Preliminary Investigation and indicating that all documents required (except the transfer memorandum) had already been attached to the complaint.

The City Prosecutor explained in a letter that no memorandum of transfer existed because the case was originally handled by ACP Jarder, who had initially recommended dismissal on the ground of no probable cause.
Upon review, the City Prosecutor found that probable cause existed, thereby invalidating the Jarder Resolution and justifying the filing of the Information.

On May 5, 2009, Judge Bayona issued an order insisting that the Jarder Resolution, despite its disapproval, must form part of the official records for evaluating probable cause, given the conflicting resolutions from ACP Jarder and the City Prosecutor.
On May 11, 2009, the Office of the City Prosecutor reiterated, via a letter, its inability to produce the Jarder Resolution, citing a directive from Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito ZuAo about the confidentiality and non-release of resolutions disapproved by the prosecutor.
On May 14, 2009, Judge Bayona ordered the City Prosecutor to explain within five (5) days why he should not be cited for contempt for failing to produce the Jarder Resolution.
The City Prosecutor sought an extension and subsequently filed a motion for inhibition and a petition for certiorari with a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the contempt proceedings. The TRO was granted by RTC Judge Pepito B. Gellada on May 25, 2009.

On June 15, 2009, Judge Gellada granted the petition for certiorari, holding that when a city prosecutor reverses the resolution of an investigating prosecutor, the resolution recommending dismissal is no longer part of the case record and need not be attached for probable cause determination.
On July 10, 2009, the City Prosecutor executed an administrative complaint alleging that Judge Bayona’s insistence on securing the Jarder Resolution amounted to gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, and a violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 12.
Judge Bayona retaliated by filing a counter-complaint for disbarment against the City Prosecutor, asserting misconduct, disrespect, and infidelity in the custody of documents.
A reply filed on October 8, 2009, by the City Prosecutor denied these countercharges and maintained that the administrative complaint was a legitimate exercise of duty.

On February 2, 2011, the OCA submitted its report noting the June 15, 2009 Gellada Order, which clarified that the disapproved Jarder Resolution did not form an integral part of the records.
The OCA concluded that the City Prosecutor could not be held guilty of contempt but recommended:

The Supreme Court later adopted the OCA’s factual findings while ultimately deciding against imposing the recommended penalty.

Whether the production of the disapproved Jarder Resolution is mandatory under the DOJ-NPS Manual and the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Whether Judge Bayona’s insistence on obtaining the Jarder Resolution constitutes gross ignorance of the law or gross misconduct.
Whether initiating contempt proceedings against the City Prosecutor for non-production of the disapproved resolution was justified.
Whether the counter-complaint for disbarment against the City Prosecutor holds merit under the applicable procedural rules.