SECOND DIVISION
[A.C. No. 7926. March 15, 2021.]
EMMANUEL F. SALON, complainant,vs. PROSECUTOR ANTONINO G. RUIZ, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 March 2021which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 7926 (Emmanuel F. Salon v. Prosecutor Antonino G. Ruiz). — The Court RESOLVES to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact and the conclusions of law of the Department of Justice in its Findings 1 dated October 20, 2009. Accordingly, for lack of a prima facie case, the Court hereby dismisses the administrative complaint 2 against respondent Prosecutor Antonino G. Ruiz.
It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving with substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint. Mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. 3 Thus, in the absence of contrary evidence, prosecutors are presumed to have regularly performed their official duties, 4 as in this case, warranting the dismissal of the complaint. HTcADC
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 28-31.
2.Id. at 1-4.
3.Spouses Chua v. Tan-Sollano, 810 Phil. 365, 367 (2017).
4. In Spouses Chua v. Tan-Sollano (id. at 367-368), the Court stated that: 'Here, considering that x x x failed to present substantial proof to show the prosecutors' culpability, the Court cannot rule out the possibility that the instant administrative case was ill-motivated being retaliatory in nature and aimed at striking back at them for having participated in the dismissal of x x x, either as investigating prosecutor or approving officer. In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the prosecutors involved herein have regularly performed their official duties.' See also Yagong v. Magno (820 Phil. 291, 292 [2017]) where the Court had occasion to rule that 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.