Criminal Procedure

People v. Dimaano (Sept. 14, 2005) Nature: Automatic Review of a decision of the CA Subject: Sufficiency of complaint or information Facts: Maricar Dimaano charged her father, Edgardo Dimaano, of 2 counts of rape and 1 count of attempted rape. The first rape incident happened in September 1993 when Maricar was only ten years old. The defendant entered her room, asked her to lie on her stomach, undressed her, then subsequently forcing anal intercourse upon her. The second rape incidenthappened in December 1995 in the kitchen of the parties home. Th e attempted rape, which happened in January 1996, was only foiled because while the defendant was already setting forth with his lewd designs, his wife (complainants mother) arrived thereby interrupting the would-be rape. Due to Maricars fear of her father, she did not tell anyone about these incidents until after the second incident wherein she told her mother. Before the trial, the parties entered into a Compromise Agreement wherein Maricar agreed to withdraw the suit in exchange for Edgardo allowing her mother to annul the marriage, have sole custody of the children and to have sole control of the conjugal properties. Shortly after, Maricar withdrew her affidavit of desistance, the act Edgardo now assails. The RTC found the defendant guilty on both charges and the CA affirmed. Issues: Whether Edgardo Dimaano should be guilty for the rapes he committed and the attempted rape he committed. Held: The Court affirmed the RTC and CAs decision to convict Edgardo for the consummated rapes, but held that he should be acquitted for the attempted rape for failure to allege in the complaint the specific acts constitutive of attempted rape. What is controlling is the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. The acts and omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged, and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. Moreover, every element of the offense must be stated in the information. The cited complaint upon which defendant was arraigned does not allege specific acts or omission constituting the elements of the crime of rape. The allegation that the defendant tried and attempted to rape the complainant does not satisfy the test of sufficiency of a complaint but is merely a conclusion of law by the one who drafted the complaint. RTC: convicted the defendant of both crimes CA: affirmed SC: affirmed the rape convictions but acquitted defendant for attempted rape Sasot v. People Nature: The case subject of the present special civil action for certiorari is a criminal prosecution against petitioners for unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code, filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila (Branch 1), and docketed as Criminal Case No. 98166147 Subject: Defective complaint Facts: In May 1997, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted an investigation pursuant to NBA Properties, Inc.s complaint against petitioners for possible violation of Art. 189 of the RPC for unfair competition. NBA Properties, Inc. is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the US and is the registered owner of NBA trademarks and names of NBA basketball teams (i.e. USA Basketball, Chicago Bulls, Orlando Magic etc.). These names are used on hosiery, footwear , tank tops and other garments, which were allegedly registered with the Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology Transfer. During the investigation, NBI discovered that petitioners are engaged in the manufacture, printing, sale, and distribution of counterfeit NBA garment products. In a Special Power of Attorney, Rick Welts, as President of NBA Properties, Inc., constituted the law firm of Ortega, Del Castillo, Caborro, Odulio, Calma & Carbonell, as the companys attorney-in-fact, and to act for and on behalf of the company, in the filing of criminal, civil and administrative complaints, among others. Petitioners argue that the fiscal should have dismissed Weltss complaint because under the rules, the complaint must be sworn to before the prosecutor and the copy on record appears to be only a fax transmittal. They also contend that complainant is a foreign corporation not doing business in the Philippines, and cannot be protected by Philippine patent laws since it is not a registered patentee. Petitioners aver that they have been using the business name ALLANDALE SPORTSLINE,

Ballesteros.Beltran.Callangan.Carbonell.Falgui.Francisco.Ilagan.Ladringan.Maglaya.Martin.Ortinez.StaMaria.Villalva.Zabala

Criminal Procedure
INC. since 1972, and their designs are original and do not appear to be similar to complainants, and they do not use complainants logo or design. The trial prosecutor of the RTC-Manila (Branch 1), Jaime M. Guray, filed his Comment/Opposition to the motion to quash, stating that he has the original copy of the complaint, and that complainant has an attorney-in-fact to represent it. Prosecutor Guray also contended that the State is entitled to prosecute the offense even without the participation of the private offended party, as the crime charged is a public crime. Petitioners reiterate the argument that the complaint filed by Rick Welts of the NBA Properties, Inc., is defective and should have been dismissed by the fiscal because it should have been personally sworn to by the complainant before the investigating prosecutor. They also reiterate the claim that Welts failed to show any board resolution showing his authority to institute any action in behalf of the company, and that the NBAs trademarks are not being actually used in the Philippines, hence, they are of public dominion and cannot be protected by Philippine patent laws. Petitioners further contend that they have not committed acts amounting to unfair competition. The Office of the Solicitor General appeared in behalf of the People, and filed its Amended Comment, praying for dismissal based on the same grounds. Issue: Whether a prosecutor may conduct a preliminary investigation of a criminal complaint for unfair competition initiated by means of affidavid-complaint notarized by a Notary Public of the US? Held: Yes. Under Section 3, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, a complaint is substantially sufficient if it states the known address of the respondent, it is accompanied by complainants affidavit and his witnesses and supporting documents, and the affidavits are sworn to before any fiscal, state prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or in their absence or unavailability, a notary public who must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits. All these have been duly satisfied in the complaint filed before Prosecution Attorney Aileen Marie S. Gutierrez. It must be noted that even the absence of an oath in the complaint does not necessarily render it invalid. In this case, Weltss Complaint-Affidavit contains an acknowledgement by Notary Public Nicole Brown of the State of New York that the same has been subscribed and sworn to before her on February 12, 1998, duly authenticated by the Philippine Consulate. . If prosecution follows after the completion of the preliminary investigation being conducted by the Special Prosecutor the information shall be in the name of the People of the Philippines and no longer the petitioner, which is only an aggrieved party since a criminal offense is essentially an act against the State. It is the latter which is principally the injured party although there is a private right violated. Petitioner's capacity to sue would become, therefore, of not much significance in the main case. We cannot allow a possible violator of our criminal statutes to escape prosecution upon a far-fetched contention that the aggrieved party or victim of a crime has no standing to sue. RTC Ruling: Sustained the prosecutions arguments and denied petitioners motion to quash based on a defective complaint CA Ruling: Dismissed motion to quash since petition is not the proper remedy and that the grounds raised should be raised during the trial based on merits SC Ruling: Denied motion to quash based on defective complaint Lasoy v. Zenarosa Facts: An information was filed by Assistant City Prosecutor Dimaculangan-Querijero wherein the accused Marcelo Lasoy and Felix Banisa were said to have willfully, unlawfully sell or offer for sale a total of 42.410 grams of dried marijuana fruiting tops, a prohibited drug. Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded guilty. Accordingly, they were found guilty of violation of Section 4, Republic Act 6425. As the accused were applying for probation, People of the Philippines, thru Assistant City Prosecutor Escasa-Ramos, filed two separate motions, first, to admit amended information, and second, to set aside the arraignment of the accused, as well as the decision of the trial court. In the amended information, the accused should be charged for transportation and delivery, with intent to sell and to gain, 45 pieces of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing 42.410 kilos. Motion to Admit Amended Information was denied while Motion to Set Aside the Arraignment of the Accused as well as the Decision was granted. The second information was assigned to Branch 76 of the RTC of Quezon City presided by Judge Zenarosa. Both accused filed a Motion to Quash which was opposed by the People in its Comment/Opposition filed before the trial court. The trial court denied accuseds motion to quash, and scheduled the arraignment of the accused under the

Ballesteros.Beltran.Callangan.Carbonell.Falgui.Francisco.Ilagan.Ladringan.Maglaya.Martin.Ortinez.StaMaria.Villalva.Zabala

Criminal Procedure
amended information. Accuseds Motion for Reconsideration, duly opposed by the prosecution, was denied by the trial court. Hence, the instant petition. Issues: 1. Whether there was valid information and, therefore, the accused can claim the right against double jeopardy. 2. Whether the RTC had jurisdiction over the case. Held: 1. Yes, the information is deemed valid and retrial would put the accused in double jeopardy. The request for appropriate inquest proceedings as well as the joint affidavit of the poseur-buyers who arrested the accused states that they were caught with approximately 45 kilos of dried marijuana fruiting tops. For some unknown reasons, however, the information filed against the accused reflected a much lesser quantity,i.e., 42.410 grams. An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the statutory designation of the offense and the acts or omissions constitutive thereof. the first information is valid inasmuch as it sufficiently alleges the manner by which the crime was committed. Verily thepurpose of the law, that is, to apprise the accused of the nature of the charge against them, is reasonably complied with. Furthermore, the first information, applying Rule 110,37 Section 6, shows on its face that it is valid. Section 6. Sufficiency of complaint or information. A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense by the statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and the place wherein the offense was committed. As to the issue that the accused took a hand in the tampering of the information, there was no hard evidence presented thereof. The belated move on the part of the prosecution to have the information amended defies procedural rules, the decision having attained finality after the accused applied for probation and the fact that amendment is no longer allowed at that stage. Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is emphatic: Sec. 14. Amendment. The information or complaint may be amended, in substance or form, without leave of court, at any time before the accused pleads; and thereafter and during the trial as to all matters of form, by leave and at the discretion of the court, when the same can be done without prejudice to the rights of the accused. There is, therefore, no question that the amendment of an information by motion of the prosecution and at the time when the accused had already been convicted is contrary to procedural rules and violative of the rights of the accused. Yes, the RTC had jurisdiction over the case. Administrative Order No. 51-96 vests the RTC with jurisdiction to try and decide cases of violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 regardless of the quantity of the drugs involved.

2.

Saludaga v. Sandiganbayan, 4th Division April 23, 2010 Nature: Certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus Subject: Substitution of information Facts: An Information was initially charged against Lavezares, Northern Samar Mayor Quintin Saludaga and SPO2 Fiel Genio for having violated Section 3(e) of RA 3019, by causing undue injury to the government, xxx. This case was initially raffled to the Third Division of Sandiganbayan. The Third Division granted Saludagas Motion to Quash and dismissed the information "for failure of the prosecution to allege and prove the amount of actual damages caused the government, an essential element of the crime charged." The Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) then re-filed the Information with the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan, charging the petitioners for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, by giving unwarranted benefit to a private person, to the prejudice of the government, xxx. Saludaga filed a Motion for Preliminary Investigation contending that there was a substitution of the first Information. They argue that if assuming that no substitution took place, there was a substantial amendment in the new information and that its submission should have been preceded by a new preliminary investigation. The Sandiganbayan Fourth Division issued the assailed Resolution denying the petitioners motion for preliminary investigation. The refiled information did not change the nature of the offense charged, but merely modified the mode by which accused committed the offense. Issue: Whether the 2 ways of violating section 3(e) of RA 3019, namely: (a) by causing undue injury to any party, including the Government; or (b) by giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference

Ballesteros.Beltran.Callangan.Carbonell.Falgui.Francisco.Ilagan.Ladringan.Maglaya.Martin.Ortinez.StaMaria.Villalva.Zabala

Criminal Procedure
constitute two distinct and separate offenses that would warrant a new or another preliminary investigation. Held: No. Section 3(e) of RA 3019 provides as one of its elements that the public officer should have acted by causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or by giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions. The use of the disjunctive term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3 paragraph (e), or as 2 different modes of committing the offense. This does not however indicate that each mode constitutes a distinct offense, but rather, that an accused may be charged under either mode or under both. There is no substituted information. The first Information charged the same offense. Only the mode of commission was modified. In People v. Lacson, it states that: The case may be revived by the State within the time-bar either by the refiling of the Information or by the filing of a new Information for the same offense or an offense necessarily included therein. There would be no need of a new preliminary investigation. However, in a case wherein after the provisional dismissal of a criminal case, the original witnesses of the prosecution or some of them may have recanted their testimonies or may have died or may no longer be available and new witnesses for the State have emerged, a new preliminary investigation must be conducted before an Information is refiled or a new Information is filed. A new preliminary investigation is also required if aside from the original accused, other persons are charged under a new criminal complaint for the same offense or necessarily included therein; or if under a new criminal complaint, the original charge has been upgraded; or if under a new criminal complaint, the criminal liability of the accused is upgraded from that as an accessory to that as a principal. The accused must be accorded the right to submit counter-affidavits and evidence. No such circumstance is obtaining in this case, because there was no modification in the nature of the charged offense. Sandiganbayan, 3 division: Granted motion to quash th Sandiganbayan, 4 division: Denied Motion for reconsideration: Denied in open court SC ruling: DENIED Bonifacio v. RTC of Makati Nature: Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition assailing Makati RTCs decision which denied their motion to quash the
rd

Amended Information indicting them for libel, and Joint Resolution denying reconsideration of the first issuance. Subject: Amended Information Facts: Private respondent Jessie John P. Gimenez filed on behalf of the Yuchengco Family (former Ambassador Alfonso Yuchengco and Helen Y. Dee) and of the Malayan Insurance Co., Inc. a criminal complaint before the Makati City Prosecutors Office, for thirteen counts of libel under Article 355 in relation to Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code against the officers, trustees, members and website administrator of the Parents Enabling Parents Coalition, Inc. (PEPCI). PEPCI is formed by a large group of disgruntled plan holders of Pacific Plans, Inc. (PPI) who had previously purchased traditional pre-need educational plans but were unable to collect or avail of the benefits thereunder after PPI, due to liquidity concerns, filed for corporate rehabilitation with prayer for suspension of payments before the Makati RTC. As a result, PEPCI sought to provide a forum by which the plan holders could seek redress for their pecuniary loss under their policies by maintaining a website on the internet under the address of www.pepcoalition.com. Apart from the said forum, PEPCI also maintains an internet blogspot and a yahoo e-group which are accessible to the public. Upon accessing the above-stated websites in Makati on various dates, Gimenez was appalled to read numerous articles maliciously and recklessly caused to be published by the accused containing highly derogatory statements and false accusations, relentlessly attacking the Yuchengco Family, YGC, and particularly, Malayan. He cited an article which was posted/published on www.pepcoalition.com, which stated: Talagang na isahan nanaman tayo ng mga Yuchengcos. Nangyari na ang mga kinatatakutan kong pagbagsak ng negotiation because it was done prematurely since we had not filed any criminal aspect of our case. What is worse is that Yuchengcos benefited much from the nego. xxx . That is the fact na talagang hindi dapat pagtiwalaan ang mga Yuchengcos. LETS MOVE TO THE BATTLEFIELD. FILE THE CRIMINAL CASES IN COURT, BSP AND AMLC AND WHEREVER. Pumunta tayong muli sa senado, congreso, RCBC Plaza, and other venues to air our grievances and call for boycott ng YGC. Let us start within ourselves. Alisin natin ang mga investments and deposits natin sa lahat ng YGC and I mean lahat and again convince friends to do the same. Yung mga nanonood lang noon ay dapat makisali na talaga ngayon specially those who joined only after knowing that there was a

Ballesteros.Beltran.Callangan.Carbonell.Falgui.Francisco.Ilagan.Ladringan.Maglaya.Martin.Ortinez.StaMaria.Villalva.Zabala

Criminal Procedure
negotiation for amicable settlements. FOR SURE MAY TACTICS PA SILANG NAKABASTA SA ATIN. LET US BE READY FOR IT BECAUSE THEY HAD SUCCESSFULLY LULLED US AND THE NEXT TIME THEY WILL TRY TO KILL US NA. xxx. Petitioners filed before the public respondent a Motion to Quash the Information on the grounds that it failed to vest jurisdiction on the Makati RTC; the acts complained of in the Information are not punishable by law since internet libel is not covered by Article 353 of the RPC; and the Information is fatally defective for failure to designate the offense charged and the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense of libel. In citing Macasaet v. People, petitioners maintained that the Information failed to allege a particular place within the trial courts jurisdiction where the subject article was printed and first published or that the offended parties resided in Makati at the time the alleged defamatory material was printed and first published. However, upon prosecutions motion for reconsideration, respondent ordered the public prosecutor to amend the Information to cure the defect of warrant of venue. In the said amended information, instead of alleging that the libelous articles were printed and first published by the accused in Makati, prosecution laid the venue of the case in the place where the offended party accessed the internet-published article. Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether or not the Amended Information sufficiently vested the RTC of Makati with jurisdiction over the case. Held: No. The venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited to only either of two places, namely: 1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or 2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. The Amended Information in the present case opted to lay the venue by availing of the second. Thus, it stated that the offending article was first published and accessed by the private complainant in Makati City. In other words, it considered the phrase to be equivalent to the requisite allegation of printing and first publication. Such contention must be evidenced or supported by the address of their editorial or business offices in the case of newspapers, magazines or serial publications. This precondition becomes necessary in order to forestall any inclination to harass. However, the same measure cannot be reasonably expected when it pertains to defamatory material appearing on a website on the internet as there would be no way of determining the situs of its printing and first publication. To credit Gimenezs premise of equating his first access to the defamatory article on petitioners website in Makati with printing and first publication would spawn the very ills that the amendment to Article 360 of the RPC sought to discourage and prevent. It hardly requires much imagination to see the chaos that would ensue in situations where the websites author or writer, a blogger or anyone who posts messages therein could be sued for libel anywhere in the Philippines that the private complainant may have allegedly accessed the offending website. In the earlier pronouncement of Agbayani v. Sayo, it must be noted that in order to obviate controversies as to the venue of the criminal action for written defamation, the complaint or information should contain allegations as to whether, at the time the offense was committed, the offended party was a public officer or a private individual and where he was actually residing at that time. Whenever possible, the place where the written defamation was printed and first published should likewise be alleged. That allegation would be a sine qua non if the circumstance as to where the libel was printed and first published were used as the basis of the venue of the action. RTC Ruling: Denied Motion to Quash Information SC Ruling: Affirmed Motion to Quash Information Note: The established policy of strict observance of the judicial hierarchy of courts as a rule requires that recourse must first be made to the lower-ranked court exercising concurrent jurisdiction with a higher court. A regard for judicial hierarchy clearly indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary writs against first level courts should be filed in the RTC and those against the latter should be filed in the Court of Appeals. The rule is not ironclad, however, as it admits of certain exceptions. Thus, a strict application of the rule is unnecessary when cases brought before the appellate courts do not involve factual but purely legal questions. Panaguiton v. DOJ Nature: Petition for review of the resolutions of the CA Subject: Procedural and Substantive compliance; Prescription

Ballesteros.Beltran.Callangan.Carbonell.Falgui.Francisco.Ilagan.Ladringan.Maglaya.Martin.Ortinez.StaMaria.Villalva.Zabala

Criminal Procedure
Facts: Cawili and his business associate Tongson borrowed from Panaguiton (petitioner) sumsamounting to 1,979,459. Cawili and Tongson issued checks signed by both of them to Panaguiton but these were dishonored upon presentation. Panaguiton made demands to pay butto no avail. He formally filed a complaint on August 24 1995 for violating BP 22 before the City Prosecutors Office.Tongson moved to drop his name from the case as his signatures were allegedly falsified. The caseagainst him was dismissed but afterwards, upon finding that Tongson might have indeed signedthe checks, the chief state prosecutor directed the city prosecutor to conduct a reinvestigation.Tongson moved for reconsideration but was denied.In 1999 the assistant prosecutor dismissed the complaint for the action has prescribed pursuant to Act 3326, which provides for the prescriptive periods of statutes without their own (4 years for BP22). She claims that the filing of the complaint on August 24 1995 did not interrupt the runningof the period as the law refers to judicial and not administrative proceedings.Panaguiton appealed to the DOJ, but was dismissed. He moved for reconsideration two timesbefore it was held that the prescription had not elapsed. However, in another resolution, the DOJruled that the prescription has set in.Panaguiton filed certiorari petition in CA but was dismissed for failure to attach a proper verification and certification for non-forum shopping, and that the DOJ resolution (sayingprescription has set in) dated August 9 2003 submitted was a mere photocopy. Panaguitoncomplied but the CA still denied. Issues: Procedural: 1. Whether verification subsequently attached by Panaguiton substantially complies with the rules 2. Whether dismissal of the case for failure to attach certified true copy was warranted (hesubmitted only a photocopy) Substantive: 3. Whether the filing of the complaint in the prosecutors office tolled the prescriptive period Held: 1. Yes. Subsequent attachment substantially complied with requirements of the law. The verification was intended simply to secure an assurance that the allegations therein are true and not a mere product of fiction. Deficiency in the verification may be excused or dispensed with as this does not affect jurisdiction. At times the court even waives the requirement or just allows corrections. No. Case should not have been dismissed. A certified true copy was actually attached in Annex A for the August 9 resolution. The photocopy attached was for the August 3 resolution and this was not the resolution the petitioner seeks to be reversed. Yes. Filing of the complaint in the prosecutors office tolls the prescriptive period for violations of BP22. When Act 3326 was passed into law, preliminary investigation of cases was done by the justices of peace, and not by agents of the executive department (i.e. prosecutors). Thus, the prevailing rule at that time is that prescription is tolled once filed with the justice of peace (a judicial process). However, since then, the conduction of a preliminary investigation was moved to the function of the executive department. Today, the term proceedings must be understood to mean either executive or judicial proceedings. With this interpretation, any type of investigation may ultimately lead to sufficiently toll prescription. To rule otherwise would deprive the injured party the right to obtain vindication on account of delays not under his control. As seen in this case, various conflicting opinions of the DOJ delayed his cause. Aggrieved parties who do not sleep on their right should not be allowed to suffer simply because of circumstances beyond their control.

2.

3.

Chief State Prosecutors resolution: case dismissed due to prescription Appeal to DOJ: case dismissed due to prescription MR to DOJ: case dismissed due to prescription; ordered withdrawal of 3 information Petition to CA: dismissed due to petitioners failure to attach a proper verification and certification of nonforum MR to CA: dismissed State Prosecutor Pinote v. Judge Ayco Nature: Manifestation: Why the defense should not be allowed to present witnesses in the absence of the prosecutor Subject: Rule 110: Control and Direction of Criminal Petition

Ballesteros.Beltran.Callangan.Carbonell.Falgui.Francisco.Ilagan.Ladringan.Maglaya.Martin.Ortinez.StaMaria.Villalva.Zabala

Criminal Procedure
Facts: Involved in this case is the prosecution of the criminal case People v. Vice Mayor Ramos, et. al. for violation of PD 1866: Illegal/unlawful possession of firearms, ammunitions, etc. Pinote was the state prosecutor and Judge Ayco, the presiding judge. On August 13 and 20, 2004, State Prosecutor Pinote was absent during the proceedings because he was undergoing medical treatment at the Philippine Heart Center. In his absence, Judge Ayco allowed the defense to present evidence consisting of the testimony of two witnesses. On subsequent scheduled hearings, August 27, October 1, 15 and 29, 2004, Pinote was ordered by Judge Ayco to crossexamine the two defense witnesses but he refuses to do so because he maintains that the proceedings on August 13 and 20 were void. Pinote subsequently filed a Manifestation on November 12 restating why he was not present on August 13 and 20, and reiterating his position that Judge Aycos act of allowing the defense to present evidence in his absence was erroneous and highly irregular. He prayed that he should not be coerced to cross-examine the defense witnesses and that their testimonies be stricken off the record. Judge Ayco on the other hand, issued an Order considering the prosecution to have waived its right to cross-examine because of their failure to formally offer the evidence for the prosecution despite several extensions. Judge Ayco proffers that the prosecution suffered no substantial prejudice for complainant was permitted to crossexamine but he refused to do so. Pinote then filed a complaint against Judge Ayco for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority and Serious Misconduct. Pinotes filing of the complaint was interpreted by Judge Ayco as an act to save his face and cover up for his incompetence and lackadaisical handling of the prosecution. He questions Pinotes excuse of undergoing medical treatment and his delayed filing of the manifestation. Despite the fact that the Secretary of Justice relieved Pinote as prosecutor in the case, Judge Ayco filed a motion for his inhibition without setting it for hearing. Judge Ayco also charged Pinote with Contempt of Court and Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct Unbecoming of a Member of the Bar and as an Officer of the Court. Issue: Whether Judge Aycos act of allowing the defense to present evidence even in the absence of State Prosecutor Pinote was erroneous and highly irregular. Held: Yes. Judge Ayco violated Rule 110, Section 5 of Criminal Procedure which reads: All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule or in 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 State Prosecution office to prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to the end of the trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn. The presence of a public prosecutor in the trial of criminal cases is necessary to protect vital state interests. Judge Aycos intention to uphold the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of the case, no matter how noble it may be, cannot justify a breach of the Rules. If the accused is entitled to due process, so is the State. Pinotes failure to inform the court of his inability to attend the August 13 and 20 hearings or to file a motion for postponement or for a motion for reconsideration of his Orders are considered to be mitigating. SC Ruling: No mention of the RTC and CA ruling. Judge Ayco is ordered to pay a fine of 5,000 with warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Ballesteros.Beltran.Callangan.Carbonell.Falgui.Francisco.Ilagan.Ladringan.Maglaya.Martin.Ortinez.StaMaria.Villalva.Zabala