THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12234. January 30, 2019.]
ERWIN A. DESIONGCO, petitioner, vs. PROS. JULIETTE V IBANA AND PROS. CHRISTINE A. SORIANO-IGOT, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated January 30, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12234 (Erwin A. Desiongco vs. Pros. Juliette V. Ibana and Pros. Christine A. Soriano-Igot). — This is an administrative complaint filed by complainant Erwin Desiongco y Aguillon (complainant) against respondents Atty. Juliette V. Ibana (Pros. Ibana) and Atty. Christine A. Soriano-Igot (Pros. Igot) (respondents), Assistant City Prosecutor and Associate City Prosecutor, respectively, of San Pedro City, Laguna, for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
The Facts
In his complaint-affidavit, 1 the complainant alleged that on December 6, 2015, he found out that his brother, Eric A. Desiongco (Eric), and his sister, Sylvia Desiongco (Sylvia), were trying to sell their ancestral property in Sampaguita Village, San Pedro City, Laguna, using falsified documents, and without the consent of the family. He decided to talk to Eric about this, but the latter became confrontational. Later, the complainant was surprised to learn that Eric and his nieces, Eunice Desiongco (Eunice) and Rogielyn Advincula (Rogielyn), filed civil and criminal cases against him. 2
On June 9, 2016, Pros. Ibana issued a Resolution 3 in NPS Docket No. IV-29-INV-16A-00058, finding probable cause against the complainant for grave coercion and recommending that an Information against him be filed in court. Pros. Ibana found that on December 6, 2015, the complainant and his nephew, Jermaine Johnson (Jermaine), who was armed with a baseball bat, forcibly entered Eric's apartment. Complainant also threatened to destroy Eric's motorcycle. He cursed Eric and threatened to hit him with the bat. Thereafter, the complainant broke the windows of the apartment. 4
Meanwhile, on June 16, 2016, Pros. Igot issued a Resolution 5 in NPS Docket No. IV-29-INV-15L-01507. Pros. Igot found that on December 6, 2015, Eunice and Rogielyn, both minors, were sleeping at the second floor of their house when they were awakened by the loud voice of their uncle, herein complainant. Rogielyn went downstairs to check the situation. Jermaine then attempted to hit Rogielyn with the bat, but she was able to evade the blows. Thereafter, the complainant told Eunice that she should tell her parents to pay their debts. Complainant threatened to break all the windows of the house. Accordingly, Pros. Igot recommended that an Information for violation of Section 10 (a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 6 be filed against the complainant in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the City of San Pedro, Laguna. 7
In view of the resolutions of respondents Pros. Ibana and Pros. Igot finding probable cause in NPS Docket No. IV-29-INV-16A-00058 and NPS Docket No. IV-29-INV-15L-01507, respectively, the complainant filed the present administrative cases against the respondents. He contends that the cases should have been dismissed by the respondents because there is no concrete evidence to support the accusations against him. He argued that the respondents' findings and assessments are inconsistent, fabricated and speculative. Complainant further alleges that in issuing the resolutions, the respondents violated the Constitution, the Family Code of the Philippines, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Rules on Forum Shopping, Rules of Evidence, Human Rights Law and the CPR. Thus, he prays for the immediate disbarment of the respondents from the practice of law. 8
Ruling of the Court
The administrative complaint against the respondents must be dismissed for lack of merit.
Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, only for the most imperative reasons, and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of thē bar. As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges proffered against him until the contrary is proved, and that, as an officer of the court, he has performed his duties in accordance with his oath. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the former establishes its case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Considering the serious consequence of disbarment, the Court has consistently held that only a clear preponderant evidence would warrant the imposition of such a harsh penalty. It means that the record must disclose as free from doubt a case that compels the exercise by the court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done, as well as the motivation thereof, must be clearly demonstrated. 9
In this case, the complainant miserably failed to discharge said burden.
In his complaint-affidavit, the complainant argued that the respondents should have dismissed the criminal cases against him because of forum shopping, violation of Article 151 of the Family Code, and lack of personality to file the complaint. It must, however, be stressed that there can be no forum shopping in these cases considering that the two (2) criminal cases filed against the complainant pertain to two (2) different criminal acts and separate sets of private complainants. Moreover, although Article 151 of the Family Code provides that no suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, this rule is inapplicable the cases filed against complainant, since criminal cases may not be the subject of a compromise. Furthermore, with regard to the complainant's claim of lack of personality to file the criminal cases against him, it must be pointed out that Eric, as the injured party, is the proper party to file the complaint for grave coercion. In the same manner, Eunice and Rogielyn likewise have personality to file the complaint for Violation of R.A. No. 7610, since they are the injured parties in that case.
The Court finds that the respondents were only performing their official duties of ascertaining whether or not probable cause exists in the case before them, and filing the necessary Information if probable cause is found present. A preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial and is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the prosecutor to prepare his Complaint or Information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no objective except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the respondent is guilty thereof.
In the conduct of preliminary investigation, the prosecutor does not decide whether there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the respondent. A prosecutor merely determines the existence of probable cause, and to file the corresponding information if he finds it to be so. In the exercise of their powers and in the discharge of their functions and responsibilities, prosecutors enjoy the presumption of regularity. This presumption of regularity includes the public officer's official actuations in all the phases of his work. 10
The Court reiterates that protection is afforded to members of the Bar who are at times maliciously charged. The complainant's failure to discharge its burden of showing that the respondents violated the CPR warrants the dismissal of the instant administrative complaint.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the complaint against respondents Assistant City Prosecutor Juliette V. Ibana and Associate City Prosecutor Christine A. Soriano-Igot is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." (Carandang, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-8.
2.Id. at 4.
3.Id. at 14-16.
4.Id. at 15-16.
5.Id. at 15.
6. AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Approved on June 17, 1992.
7.Rollo, pp. 17-18.
8.Id. at 3-8.
9.Munar, et al. v. Atty. Bautista, et al., 805 Phil. 384, 398 (2017).
10.De Chavez v. Ombudsman, 543 Phil. 600, 616 (2007).