Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-05-1944)
Facts:
State Prosecutor Ringcar B. Pinote, Petitioner, vs. Judge Roberto L. Ayco, Respondent, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1944, December 13, 2005, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.In Criminal Case No. 1771 TB, "People v. Vice Mayor Salvador Ramos, et al.," Judge Roberto L. Ayco of Branch 26, Regional Trial Court, South Cotabato, on August 13 and 20, 2004 allowed the defense to present two witnesses and receive their testimony despite the absence of the public prosecutor assigned to the case, State Prosecutor Ringcar B. Pinote. Pinote was undergoing medical treatment at the Philippine Heart Center in Quezon City on those dates and did not attend the hearings.
At subsequent hearings (August 27, October 1, 15 and 29, 2004), Pinote refused to cross-examine the defense witnesses, asserting that proceedings held in his absence were void. On November 12, 2004 Pinote filed a Manifestation before the trial court reiterating his absence and sought that he not be coerced into cross-examining the witnesses and that their testimonies be stricken from the record. That same day Judge Ayco issued an Order treating the prosecution as having waived its right to cross-examine the witnesses.
Pinote filed an administrative complaint against Judge Ayco for "Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority and Serious Misconduct." Respondent Judge Ayco filed a Comment alleging that the complaint was meant to excuse Pinote's alleged poor prosecution performance and noting that Pinote had been relieved as prosecutor in the case at the request of the Provincial Governor and the Secretary of Justice; Ayco also counter‑filed a complaint against Pinote for contempt and misconduct. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), citing Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, found that Judge Ayco breached the rule and recommended that he be reprimanded.
The case reached...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Judge Roberto L. Ayco commit a violation of Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and thereby commit gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority or serious misconduct by allowing defense witnesses to testify in the absence of the public prosecutor or an authorized private prosecutor?
- Should the counter-complaint against State Prosecutor Ringcar B. Pinote be entertained by this Court in the admini...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)