A.C. No. 9684 - Boto vs. Villena

The administrative matter arose from an information for libel filed by complainant Mary Rose A. Boto before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch LXXIV, Taguig City.
The libel information was prepared by Assistant City Prosecutor Patrick Noel P. de Dios and approved by City Prosecutor Archimedes V. Manabat, with Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Vincent L. Villena designated as the trial prosecutor.
In her affidavit-complaint, Boto charged respondents Villena, Manabat, and de Dios with gross ignorance of the law for filing the information and opposing the motion to quash despite the lower court’s lack of jurisdiction.

On September 18, 2013, the Special Third Division rendered a decision imposing sanctions on the respondents:

Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Villena was found liable for ignorance of the law and fined Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), with a caution that a similar offense in the future would incur a more severe penalty.
Assistant City Prosecutor Patrick Noel P. de Dios was reprimanded with a warning.
City Prosecutor Archimedes V. Manabat was admonished to exercise greater care in supervising his assistants.

Villena subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration on October 22, 2013, seeking either relief from liability or a downgrade of his penalty from a fine to a reprimand or admonition.

He should have initiated the motion for dismissal instead of opposing it.
There was a considerable delay in the prosecution of the case, which was beyond his control since the decision on the complainant’s Motion to Quash was for the lower court.

He conceded that he did not immediately oppose the Motion to Quash when first ordered by the lower court.
He explained that he had assumed the lower court would recognize the error and dismiss the case without his intervention.
He described his submission as merely a "pro-forma comment" that was short, simple, and imprecise, meant only to comply with procedural requirements.

His unblemished prosecutorial career.
The absence of any malice or ill motive in his actions.
His sincere remorse and apology for the lapse in his performance.
That the penalty, if maintained in his record, might adversely affect his future promotions and applications for higher office.

Whether the penalty imposed on Vincent L. Villena (a fine of P10,000.00) is commensurate with the alleged infraction, given that his lapse did not arise from malice or ill motive.

The issue also involves the appropriate measure of disciplinary action for prosecutorial misconduct that appears to be more procedural than intentional.
Whether the administrative sanction should affect Villena’s prospects for future career advancement considering his long and unblemished record.

Whether the mitigating circumstances, including his expressed contrition, apology, and explanation of the procedural delays beyond his control, warrant a reduction or downgrading of the imposed penalty.