IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF SUSPENSION FOR TWO (2) MONTHS WITHOUT PAY ON BENJAMIN V. DELA CRUZ, ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR, CITY PROSECUTION OFFICE OF QUEZON CITY
Tepace-Bumolo and Zenaida S. Insilay against respondent Assistant City
Prosecutor Benjamin V. de la Cruz of the City Prosecution Office of
Quezon City for gross neglect of duty.
The facts are undisputed.
On November 11, 1996, complainants filed criminal complaints for
grave oral defamation and grave threats (docketed as I.S. Nos. 96-24586
and 96-24587) against a certain Aida Agustin. These cases were assigned
to respondent for the conduct of preliminary investigation. After the
parties have filed their respective pleadings, the cases were submitted
for resolution.
Five (5) months later, the cases remain unresolved. This prompted
complainants to file a motion for the early resolution of the said
cases. When respondent still failed to resolve their cases, complainants
sought the assistance of then Quezon City Prosecutor Candido Rivera to
convince respondent to act on their cases. Similarly, complainants
sought the aid of the Office of the Ombudsman to facilitate the early
resolution of the cases. However, despite the intercessions of both the
City Prosecutor and the Office of the Ombudsman, the cases remained
unacted.
Aggrieved by these unreasonable delays, complainants filed with the
Department of Justice (DOJ) an administrative complaint against the
respondent. On October 30, 1997, Chief State Prosecutor (CSP) Jovencito
R. Zuño endorsed the said complaint to respondent and directed him to
submit his comment and/or answer thereon within ten (10) days from
receipt thereof. On February 6, 1998, CSP Zuño again directed respondent
to submit his answer to the administrative complaint. To date,
respondent failed to heed these directives.
On the basis thereof, respondent was formally charged by the DOJ with
gross neglect of duty and a formal investigation was initiated relative
thereto. On the scheduled hearing, only complainants appeared while
respondent was conspicuously absent. Thus, upon motion of the
prosecuting attorney, the case was submitted for resolution. On the
basis of available records, respondent was found guilty of the said
charge and the Secretary of Justice recommended the penalty of
suspension from office for a period of two (2) months without pay.
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the DOJ. Section 3,
Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which outlines the
uniform procedure for conducting a preliminary investigation in accord
with Presidential Decree No. 911, provides the following, to wit:
“Section 3. Procedure. — Except as provided for in Section 7
hereof, no complaint or information for an offense cognizable by the
Regional Trial Court shall be filed without a preliminary investigation
having been conducted in the following manner:a) The complaint shall . . . be accompanied by affidavits of
complaint and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents . .
.;b) If the investigating officer finds no ground to continue
with the inquiry, he shall dismiss the complaint. Otherwise, he shall
issue a subpoena to the respondent attaching thereto a copy of the
complaint, affidavits and to the supporting documents and granting him
ten (10) days from receipt hereof within which to submit counter
affidavits and other supporting documents;xxx xxx xxx
f) Thereafter, the investigation shall be deemed concluded
and the investigating officer shall resolve the case within ten (10)
days therefrom. Upon the evidence thus adduced, the investigating
officer shall determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to
hold the respondent for trial.” ( emphasis ours)
While the foregoing provision only provides for a ten (10)-day period
within which to resolve cases under preliminary investigation, the DOJ,
thru Department Circular No. 49 dated July 14, 1993, grants more leeway
to prosecutors by allowing them a reglementary period of up to sixty
(60) days within which to resolve cases under preliminary investigation.
Non-observance of this requirement constitutes a ground for
administrative sanction against the defaulting prosecutor. In certain
meritorious cases, i.e., those involving difficult questions of law or
complex issues, the DOJ allows the prosecutors a longer period to decide
the case, but only upon proper application therefrom has been made by
the concerned prosecutor.
There is no question that respondent failed to decide the cases
within the prescribed reglementary period. From the time the cases were
submitted for resolution up to the time he was administratively charged
by the DOJ, which spans more than two (2) years, respondent has not
resolved the cases filed by the complainants. The intercessions of the
City Prosecutor and the Office of the Ombudsman proved to be futile.
Such conduct of respondent is unreasonable, inexcusable and highly
deplorable. It violates the complainants’ constitutional right to due
process and to speedy disposition of their cases. Prosecutors are
mandated to adhere to the 60-day period within which to resolve cases
under preliminary investigation. Otherwise, the public’s trust on our
prosecution will be jeopardized.
All prosecutors are reminded that, for the common people, justice
means the fair and prompt disposition of cases. This is necessary not
only to eradicate the docket congestion in our prosecution office, but
also to keep the people’s faith in our prosecution system.
WHEREFORE, and as recommended by the Secretary of Justice, Assistant
City Prosecutor Benjamin V. Dela Cruz is hereby SUSPENDED from office
for a period of two (2) months without pay.
Adopted: 04 Oct. 2000
BY THE PRESIDENT:
(SGD.) RONALDO B. ZAMORA
Executive Secretary