SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 9360. September 29, 2021.]
JOSE P. DE VILLA, CONSUELO DE VILLA DJAJAKUSUMA, JULIO DE GUZMAN PUYAL, AND ANGELINA PUYAL GILLEGO, complainants,vs. PROSECUTOR JUANITO D. SERRANO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 29 September 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 9360 — (Jose P. De Villa, Consuelo de Villa Djajakusuma, Julio De Guzman Puyal, and Angelina Puyal Gillego v. Prosecutor Juanito D. Serrano) — At bench is an administrative complaint 1 filed by complainants Jose P. De Villa, Consuelo de Villa Djajakusuma, Julio De Guzman Puyal, and Angelina Puyal Gillego (complainants) against respondent Prosecutor Juanito D. Serrano (Pros. Serrano) of Gumaca, Quezon, for Gross Ignorance of the Law and deliberate failure to immediately furnish the former a copy of a resolution 2 dismissing a Robbery criminal complaint.
Factual Antecedents:
On November 22, 2009, Antonio Silvestre Puyal (Antonio; sibling of complainants), Geronimo Macalintal Higuit (Higuit), Glen Biñas Valdemor (Valdemar), Rene Rolluda (Rolluda), and Joel Dimaculangan Morcilla (Morcilla) planned to dig up the grave of Julio Puyal, Sr. (Julio) to steal the bronze casket and his remains. The next day, around 4:00 p.m., they went to the cemetery to execute their plan. Antonio momentarily left to get a "trapal'' while the others waited for dusk to start digging the grave. Thereafter, they, except for Antonio who had not yet returned, proceeded to make a hole in the grave. They were interrupted when the police and barangay officials came and arrested them. Later, Antonio arrived and ordered his men to seal the grave.
A few days later, or on November 27, 2009, Antonio, with the help of several policemen, opened again the grave of Julio and took his casket and remains without the required permits and consent of the deceased's heirs.
This prompted the complainants to file on October 28, 2010 an amended criminal complaint for Robbery 3 before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Quezon Province against Antonio and his group. The criminal complaint, which was docketed as IV-09b-10F-00172, was assigned to Pros. Serrano.
On March 1, 2011, Pros. Serrano issued a Resolution 4 dismissing the Robbery complaint for lack of probable cause. Respondent prosecutor opined that the elements of Robbery were not fully established to warrant the indictment of Antonio and his men. There was also no sufficient proof of their intent to gain or of force upon things under Article 302 of the Revised Penal Code.
Pros. Serrano further observed that there was dearth of evidence showing that Higuit, Valdemor, and Morcilla were involved in desecrating Julio's grave. Moreover, the complaint was purely based on hearsay, heavily relying on the counter-affidavit of Rulloda and on informations received from other individuals who were not presented as witnesses that Antonio forcibly took Julio's casket because of a treasure buried inside. Notably, Antonio admitted retrieving the casket and transferring it to another place to avoid being stolen. 5
Complainants claimed that they were not aware of the dismissal of the criminal complaint or that they received a copy of the March 1, 2011 Resolution. It was only on August 9, 2011 when they found out about the issuance of the March 1, 2011 Resolution when they went to Pros. Serrano's office to follow up on the case.
Hence, they filed the instant administrative complaint against Pros. Serrano. They claimed that the prosecutor committed Gross Ignorance of the Law in dismissing the criminal complaint despite substantial evidence proving that Antonio and his men may have committed the crime of Robbery. They alleged that Pros. Serrano's findings were not only contrary to law and jurisprudence, but also unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, and discriminatory. Complainants averred that Pros. Serrano deliberately and maliciously furnished them the March 1, 2011 Resolution five months late, or only on August 9, 2011, after its promulgation, thus impairing their substantial and procedural rights.
Pros. Serrano, on the other hand, argued that he recommended the dismissal of the criminal complaint as the evidence presented by complainants were insufficient to prove that Antonio and his men may have committed the crime of Robbery. He averred that to establish intent to gain, complainants solely relied on the counter-affidavit of Rolluda which had no probative value. Thus, since the elements of the crime charged was not sufficiently established, the dismissal of the criminal complaint against respondents therein was only proper for lack of probable cause.
Besides, had there been gross errors in his findings, Pros. Serrano contended that complainants did not avail any of the available remedy prescribed by laws to correct the March 1, 2011 Resolution. No petition for review was filed by complainants before the Department of Justice (DOJ); hence, the dismissal of the criminal complaint was presumed to be in accordance with law and jurisprudence. 6
Anent the allegation that Pros. Serrano deliberately delayed furnishing complainants the March 1, 2011 Resolution, he averred that there was absence of proof that he acted in bad faith. He explained that a prosecutor's recommendation would be submitted to the Provincial Prosecutor. Upon his/her signing of the resolution, it is the administrative staff of the said Provincial Prosecutor's office in Lucena City who is in charge of furnishing the parties a copy thereof through a registered mail. Pros. Serrano therefore claimed that he had no control in the release of the March 1, 2011 Resolution especially since his office is located in Gumaca, Quezon. 7
Report and Recommendation of the
In the January 26, 2015 Report and Recommendation, 8 the Investigating Commissioner opined that there was no finding that the March 1, 2011 Resolution was erroneous. It was already final and executory as complainants did not file a petition for review before the DOJ assailing the dismissal of the criminal complaint against Antonio and his men. Thus, Pros. Serrano is not administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law since the March 1, 2011 Resolution had not been found to be manifestly erroneous, unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, and discriminatory.
Moreover, to rule on the matter would require the Investigating Commissioner to delve into the factual and legal questions that were raised to determine probable cause. This would clearly result in the substitution of his own findings with that of Pros. Serrano's in the resolution which has already attained finality.
Anent Pros. Serrano's failure to timely furnish complainants a copy of the March 1, 2011 Resolution, the Investigating Commissioner found him liable for the same. A perusal of the resolution showed that complainants' names were omitted from the list of parties to be furnished a copy thereof. This explained why complainants were unable to receive the March 1, 2011 Resolution. The Investigating Commissioner further ruled that it was Pros. Serrano who prepared and signed the said resolution. As such, the administrative staff was not at fault when they failed to mail a copy of the same to complainants.
Due to the omission of complainants' names in the March 1, 2011 Resolution, the Investigating Commissioner found Pros. Serrano to have violated Part IV, II (J) of the 2008 Revised Manual for Prosecutors, which mandates that "'the names and addresses of the complainant and respondent shall be set out at the end of the resolution after the signature of the investigating prosecutor and the head of the Prosecutor's Office concerned under the phrase: "Copy furnished:.'" 9
Thus, the Investigating Commissioner recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint against Pros. Serrano for Gross Ignorance of the Law in the performance of his official duties. Nonetheless, Pros. Serrano should be admonished for failure to observe the 2008 Revised Manual for Prosecutors and be sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts should be dealt with more severely. 10
In its April 19, 2015 Resolution, 11 the IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner to dismiss the administrative complaint for lack of sufficient basis. Nonetheless, it deleted the recommendation to impose admonition against Pros. Serrano, to wit:
RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution as Annex "A", and finding the recommendation to be fully supported by the evidence on record and applicable laws and for lack of sufficient basis, the case against Respondent is hereby DISMISSED. The last paragraph of the said report and recommendation imposing admonition of Respondent is ordered deleted. 12
Complainants sought reconsideration 13 but it was denied by the IBP Board of Governors in its November 29, 2016 Resolution. 14
Issue
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether Pros. Serrano is administratively liable.
Our Ruling
The Court dismisses the administrative complaint against Pros. Serrano for lack of jurisdiction.
It is a settled rule that the IBP has no jurisdiction over government lawyers who are charged with administrative offenses involving their official duties and functions. 15 The administrative complaint must therefore be lodged before the Office of the Ombudsman, which is the administrative disciplinary authority in charge of investigating and prosecuting all the acts or omission of a government official in relation to his or her function. 16 Its power is likewise embodied under Section 15, paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 6770 (RA 6770), otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989," to wit:
Section 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. — The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of his primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases.
In Buffe v. Gonzalez, 17 the Court thus held:
The authority of the Ombudsman to act on complainants' administrative complaint is anchored on Section 13(1), Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that: "[t]he Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties: (1) investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient."
Under Section 16 of RA 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman encompasses all kinds of malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance committed by any public officer or employee during his or her tenure. Section 19 of RA 6770 also states that the Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relating, but not limited, to acts or omissions which are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive, or discriminatory. 18 (Citations omitted)
Here, the charges against Pros. Serrano stemmed from his evaluation of whether probable cause exists to indict Antonio and his group and the consequent dismissal of the Robbery complaint, as well as his alleged failure to send a copy of the March 1, 2011 Resolution relative thereto to complainants. Plainly, these acts were committed in the performance of his functions as a prosecutor. As such, any purported malfeasance or misfeasance he committed may be brought before the Secretary of Justice who has the power to discipline him or her as his or her superior. 19
The instant case is similar with Anima v. Penaco-Rojas. 20 In the said case, complainant therein sought the disbarment of Pros. Penaco-Rojas for unethical legal practice because of her failure to furnish complainant a copy of the Resolution she issued. The Court pronounced that the act complained of involved her functions as a prosecutor. As such, it is within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman and not of the IBP thus warranting its dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
Verily, considering that the charges against Pros. Serrano are related to his functions as a prosecutor, it is therefore the Office of the Ombudsman which has the power to discipline him being a government official.
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against Pros. Juanito D. Serrano is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-8.
2.Id. at 27-29.
3.Id. at 10-12.
4.Id. at 27-29.
5.Id. at 28; See also Position Paper of respondent, before the IBP, IBP Records Vol. II, p. 63.
6. Position Paper of Respondent before the IBP, p. 64.
7.Id. at 65.
8. IBP Records, Volume III, pp. 2-10.
9. IBP Records, Volume II, pp. 9-10.
10. IBP Records, Volume III, p. 10.
11.Id. at 1.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 11-18.
14.Id. at 1.
15.Alicias, Jr. v. Macatangay, 803 Phil. 85, 91 (2017), citing Spouses Buffe v. Gonzales, 797 Phil. 143, 151 (2016).
16.Id., citing Samson v. Restrivera, 662 Phil. 45, 52-53 (2011).
17.Supra.
18.Id. at 150-151.
19.Anima v. Penaco-Rojas, A.C. No. 10121, April 1, 2019.
20.Id.