Case Summary (G.R. No. 119368)
Petitioner
State Prosecutor Ringcar B. Pinote, complainant in the administrative proceeding, contends that Judge Ayco’s allowance of defense evidence in the absence of a public or authorized private prosecutor violated Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and constituted gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and serious misconduct.
Respondent
Judge Roberto L. Ayco of RTC Branch 26, South Cotabato, respondent in the administrative proceeding, justifies his orders on the ground of upholding the accused’s right to a speedy trial and contends that the prosecution waived its right to cross-examine the defense witnesses.
Key Dates
• August 13 & 20, 2004 – Judge Ayco admitted defense evidence without the public prosecutor present.
• August 27, October 1, 15 & 29, 2004 – Pinote refused to cross-examine those witnesses.
• November 12, 2004 – Pinote filed a Manifestation; Judge Ayco issued an Order deeming prosecution to have waived cross-examination.
• March 18, 2005 – Respondent filed a Comment and counter-complaint.
• December 13, 2005 – Supreme Court decision rendered.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution – as the decision date is post-1990.
• Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 110, Section 5 – requiring prosecution of criminal actions under the direction and control of the public prosecutor, with provisions for authorized private prosecutors.
Factual Background
On August 13 and 20, 2004, Judge Ayco allowed the defense in the tuberculosis criminal case to present two witnesses despite the absence of the state prosecutor, who was hospitalized for heart treatment. On subsequent dates, the prosecutor, arguing that the prior proceedings were void, refused to cross-examine the witnesses.
Procedural History
Pinote filed a Manifestation on November 12, 2004, explaining his absence and requesting that the defense testimony be stricken and that he not be compelled to cross-examine. On the same day, Judge Ayco ruled that the prosecution had waived its right to cross-examine. Pinote then lodged an administrative complaint against the judge, alleging gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and serious misconduct. Judge Ayco countered with allegations of contempt and grave misconduct against Pinote. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the matter and recommended that Judge Ayco be reprimanded for breaching Rule 110, Section 5.
Issue
Whether Judge Ayco committed gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and serious misconduct by allowing defense witnesses to testify in the absence of the public prosecutor or an authorized private prosecutor.
OCA Findings
The OCA concluded that Judge Ayco breached Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure by permitting the defense to proceed without a prosecutor, recommending a reprimand with warning against recurrence.
Legal Analysis
Rule 110, Section 5 mandates that criminal actions be prosecuted under the direction and cont
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 119368)
Facts of the Case
- On August 13 and 20, 2004, Judge Roberto L. Ayco of Branch 26, RTC South Cotabato, allowed the defense in Criminal Case No. 1771 TB (“People v. Vice Mayor Salvador Ramos, et al.”) to present the testimony of two witnesses in the absence of State Prosecutor Ringcar B. Pinote.
- State Prosecutor Pinote was undergoing medical treatment at the Philippine Heart Center in Quezon City on those dates.
- At subsequent hearings on August 27, October 1, 15, and 29, 2004, Pinote refused to cross-examine the two defense witnesses, asserting that the proceedings conducted in his absence were void.
- On November 12, 2004, Pinote filed a Manifestation in the trial court, restating his absence and contending that Judge Ayco’s act of allowing evidence in his absence was erroneous, praying that he not be “coerced” to cross-examine and that the testimonies be stricken from the record.
- By Order dated November 12, 2004, Judge Ayco considered the prosecution to have waived its right to cross-examine the defense witnesses.
- State Prosecutor Pinote filed an administrative complaint against Judge Ayco for “Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority and Serious Misconduct.”
Position of the Complainant
- Alleges that Judge Ayco breached Section 3 of P.D. No. 1866 by allowing defense evidence in absence of the public prosecutor.
- Maintains that such proceedings are void and that he should not be compelled to cross-examine the defense witnesses.
- Seeks to have the testimonies of the two defense witnesses stricken from the record.
- Claims the judge’s order disregarded prose