VOL.

477,DECEMBER13,2005 409
Pinotevs.Ayco
*
A.M.No.RTJ051944.December13,2005.
(FormerlyOCAI.P.I.No.052189RTJ.)

STATE PROSECUTOR RINGCAR B. PINOTE, petitioner, vs.

JUDGEROBERTOL.AYCO,respondent.

CriminalLawIt is on the account that violations of criminal laws are

anaffronttothePeopleofthePhilippinesasawholeandnotmerelytothe
persondirectlyprejudicedthatthepresenceofapublicprosecutorinthetrial
ofcriminalcasesisnecessary.Violationofcriminallawsisanaffronttothe
People of the Philippines as a whole and not merely to the person directly
prejudiced,hebeingmerelythecomplainingwitness.Itisonthisaccountthat
thepresenceofapublicprosecutorinthetrialofcriminalcasesisnecessary
toprotectvitalstateinterests,foremostofwhichisitsinteresttovindicatethe
ruleoflaw,thebedrockofpeaceofthepeople.
Courts Judges Criminal Procedure Due Process Absence of
Prosecutor The act of a judge in allowing the presentation of the defense
witness in the absence of the complainant public prosecutor or a private
prosecutor designated for the purpose is a clear transgression of the Rules
whichcouldnotberectifiedbysubsequentlygivingtheprosecutionachance
tocrossexaminethewitness.Respondentsactofallowingthepresentation
ofthedefensewitnessesintheabsenceofcomplainantpublicprosecutorora

_______________

*THIRDDIVISION.

410

410 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Pinotevs.Ayco

privateprosecutordesignatedforthepurposeisthusacleartransgressionof
theRuleswhichcouldnotberectifiedbysubsequentlygivingtheprosecution
a chance to crossexamine the witnesses. Respondents intention to uphold
the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of the case, no matter how
nobleitmaybe,cannotjustifyabreachoftheRules.Iftheaccusedisentitled
todueprocess,soistheState.

ADMINISTRATIVEMATTERintheSupremeCourt.GrossIgnorance
oftheLaw,GraveAbuseofAuthorityandSeriousMisconduct.

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.

CARPIOMORALES,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
CriminalCaseNo.1771TB,Peoplev.ViceMayorSalvadorRamos,
etal.,forviolationofSection3ofPresidentialDecree(P.D.)No.1866,
topresentevidenceconsistingofthetestimonyoftwowitnesses,evenin
theabsenceofStateProsecutorRingcarB.Pinotewhowasprosecuting
thecase.
StateProsecutorPinotewasonAugust13and20,2004undergoing
medicaltreatmentatthePhilippineHeartCenterinQuezonCity,hence,
hisabsenceduringtheproceedingsonthesaiddates.Onthesubsequent
scheduledhearingsofthecriminalcaseonAugust27,October1,15and
29, 2004, State Prosecutor Pinote refused to crossexamine the two
defensewitnesses,despitebeingorderedbyJudgeAyco,hemaintaining
that the proceedings conducted on August 13 and 20, 2004 in his
absencewerevoid.
State Prosecutor Pinote subsequently filed a Manifestation on
November12,2004beforethetrialcourt,herestatingwhyhewasnot
present on August 13 and 20, 2004, and reiterating his position that
Judge Aycos 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 crossexamine those two defense witnesses
andthattheirtestimoniesbestrickenofftherecord.

411

VOL.477,DECEMBER13,2005 411
Pinotevs.Ayco

ByOrderissuedalsoonNovember12,2004,JudgeAyco,glossingover
theManifestation,consideredtheprosecutiontohavewaiveditsrightto
crossexaminethetwodefensewitnesses.
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
criminalcaseasinfactcomplainantwas,ontherequestoftheProvincial
Governor of South Cotabato, relieved as prosecutor in the case by the
SecretaryofJustice.
And respondent informs that even after complainant was already
relievedastheprosecutorinthecase,hefiledamotionforhisinhibition
withoutsettingitforhearing.
OntheabovesaidManifestationfiledbycomplainantbeforethetrial
court on November 12, 2004, respondent brands the same as
misleading and highly questionable, complainants having undergone
medical treatment at the Philippine Heart Center on August 13 and 20,
2004havingbeenrelayedtothetrialcourtonlyonsaiddate.
OnhisOrderconsideringtheprosecutiontohavewaivedpresenting
evidence, respondent justifies the same on complainants failure to
formallyoffertheevidencefortheprosecutiondespiteseveralextensions
oftimegrantedforthepurpose.
Finally,respondentproffersthatnosubstantialprejudicewassuffered
by the prosecution for complainant was permitted to cross examine the
twodefensewitnessesbutherefusedtodoso.
By way of countercomplaint, respondent charges complainant with
Contempt of Court and Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct
UnbecomingofaMemberoftheBarandasanOfficeroftheCourt.
On evaluation of the case, the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA),citingSection5,Rule110oftheRevisedRuleonCriminal
412

412 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Pinotevs.Ayco

Procedure,findsrespondenttohavebreachedsaidruleandaccordingly
recommends that he be reprimanded therefor, with warning that a
repetitionofthesameorsimilaractshallbedealtwithmoreseverely.
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
directionandcontroloftheprosecutor.Incaseofheavyworkscheduleorin
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
StateProsecutionOfficetoprosecutethecasesubjecttotheapprovalofthe
Court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private
prosecutorshallcontinuetoprosecutethecaseuptotheendofthetrialeven
in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or
otherwisewithdrawn.xxx(Italicssupplied)
Thus,asageneralrule,allcriminalactionsshallbeprosecutedunderthe
controlanddirectionofthepublicprosecutor.
Ifthescheduleofthepublicprosecutordoesnotpermit,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
continuetoprosecutethecaseuntiltheterminationofthetrialeveninthe
absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or
otherwisewithdrawn.
ViolationofcriminallawsisanaffronttothePeopleofthePhilippines
as a whole and not merely to1the person directly prejudiced, he being
merelythecomplainingwitness. Itisonthisaccountthatthepresenceof
a public prosecutor in the trial of criminal cases is necessary to protect
vitalstateinterests,foremostof

_______________

1 Vide:Peoplev.Ramos,207SCRA144,152(1992).

413

VOL.477,DECEMBER13,2005 413
Pinotevs.Ayco

whichisitsinteresttovindicatetheruleoflaw,thebedrockofpeaceof
2
thepeople.
Respondentsactofallowingthepresentationofthedefensewitnesses
intheabsenceofcomplainantpublicprosecutororaprivateprosecutor
designatedforthepurposeisthusacleartransgressionoftheRuleswhich
couldnotberectifiedbysubsequentlygivingtheprosecutionachanceto
crossexaminethewitnesses.
Respondentsintentiontoupholdtherightoftheaccusedtoaspeedy
dispositionofthecase,nomatterhownobleitmaybe,cannotjustifya
breach of the Rules. If the accused is entitled to due process, so is the
State.
Respondentslamentaboutcomplainantsfailuretoinformthecourtof
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
witnessesonsaiddatesmaybemitigating.Itdoesnotabsolverespondent
ofhisutterdisregardoftheRules.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Roberto L. Ayco is hereby
ordered to pay a fine FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) with
warningthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaractsinthefutureshallbe
dealtwithmoreseverely.
Respecting the countercomplaint against complainant State
ProsecutorRingcarB.Pinote,respondentisadvisedthatthesameshould
 belodgedbeforetheSecretaryofJustice.
SOORDERED.

Panganiban (Chairman), SandovalGutierrez, Corona and

Garcia,JJ.,concur.

JudgeRobertoL.AycometedwithP5,000.00fine,withwarning
againstrepetitionofsimilaracts.

Notes.A petition for certiorari filed by a private prosecutor with

theconformityoftheProvincialProsecutorisdefectivein

_______________

2 Vide:Peoplev.Arcilla,256SCRA757,763764(1996).

414

414 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
PacificMills,Inc.vs.CourtofAppeals

formitistheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralthatisauthorizedbylawto
represent the Government in the Supreme Court and in the Court of
Appeals in all criminal proceedings. (People vs. Montesa, Jr., 248
SCRA641[1995])
Whileaprivateprosecutorisallowedincriminalcases,ananalogous
arrangementisnotallowedincivilcaseswhereinamunicipalityisaparty
thecollaborationofaprivatecounselwiththeprovincialprosecutoror
provincial attorney is contrary to law and should not be recognized as
legal.Privatelawyersmaynotrepresentmunicipalitiesontheirown,and
neithermaytheydosoevenincollaborationwithauthorizedgovernment
lawyers.(Ramosvs.CourtofAppeals,269SCRA34[1997])
A judge cannot be faulted for allowing the intervention of a private
prosecutor in the trial of a criminal case where the counsel for the
accused failed to object to the absence of the public prosecutor, giving
risetothepresumptionthattheinterventionofaprivateprosecutorwas
duetotheunavailabilityofthepublicprosecutor.(Enriquezvs.Vallarta,
378SCRA12[2002])

o0o

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.