VOL.

477, DECEMBER 13, 2005 409

Pinote vs. Ayco

*
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1944. December 13, 2005.
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2189-RTJ.)

STATE PROSECUTOR RINGCAR B. PINOTE, petitioner,

vs. JUDGE ROBERTO L. AYCO, respondent.

Criminal Law; It is on the account that violations of criminal

laws are an affront to the People of the Philippines as a whole and
not merely to the person directly prejudiced that the presence of a
public prosecutor in the trial of criminal cases is necessary.—
Violation of criminal laws is an affront to the People of the
Philippines as a whole and not merely to the person directly
prejudiced, he being merely the complaining witness. It is on this
account that the presence of a public prosecutor in the trial of
criminal cases is necessary to protect vital state interests,
foremost of which is its interest to vindicate the rule of law, the
bedrock of peace of the people.
Courts; Judges; Criminal Procedure; Due Process; Absence of
Prosecutor; The act of a judge in allowing the presentation of the
defense witness in the absence of the complainant public
prosecutor or a private prosecutor designated for the purpose is a
clear transgression of the Rules which could not be rectified by
subsequently giving the prosecution a chance to cross-examine the
witness.—Respondent’s act of allowing the presentation of the
defense witnesses in the absence of complainant public prosecutor
or a

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

410

410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pinote vs. Ayco

private prosecutor designated for the purpose is thus a clear

transgression of the Rules which could not be rectified by
subsequently giving the prosecution a chance to cross-examine
the witnesses. Respondent’s 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.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Gross

Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority and
Serious Misconduct.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

CARPIO-MORALES, J.:

On August 13 and 20, 2004, Judge Roberto L. Ayco of

Branch 26, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of South Cotabato
allowed the defense in Criminal Case No. 1771 TB, “People
v. Vice Mayor Salvador Ramos, et al.,” for violation of
Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, to present
evidence consisting of the testimony of two witnesses, even
in the absence of State Prosecutor Ringcar B. Pinote who
was prosecuting the case.
State Prosecutor Pinote was on August 13 and 20, 2004
undergoing medical treatment at the Philippine Heart
Center in Quezon City, hence, his absence during the
proceedings on the said dates. On the subsequent
scheduled hearings of the criminal case on August 27,
October 1, 15 and 29, 2004, State Prosecutor Pinote refused
to cross-examine the two defense witnesses, despite being
ordered by Judge Ayco, he maintaining that the
proceedings conducted on August 13 and 20, 2004 in his
absence were void.
State Prosecutor Pinote subsequently filed a
Manifestation on November 12, 2004 before the trial court,
he restating why he was not present on August 13 and 20,
2004, and reiterating his position that Judge Ayco’s act of
allowing the defense to present evidence in his absence was
erroneous and highly irregular. He thus prayed that he
should not be “coerced” to cross-examine those two defense
witnesses and that their testimonies be stricken off the
record.

411

VOL. 477, DECEMBER 13, 2005 411

Pinote vs. Ayco

By Order issued also on November 12, 2004, Judge Ayco,

glossing over the Manifestation, considered the prosecution
to have waived its right to cross-examine the two defense
witnesses.
Hence, arose the present administrative complaint
lodged by State Prosecutor Pinote (complainant) against
Judge Ayco (respondent), for “Gross Ignorance of the Law,
Grave Abuse of Authority and Serious Misconduct.”
By Comment dated March 18, 2005, respondent proffers
that complainant filed the complaint “to save his face and
cover up for his incompetence and lackadaisical handling of
the prosecution” of the criminal case as in fact complainant
was, on the request of the Provincial Governor of South
Cotabato, relieved as prosecutor in the case by the
Secretary of Justice.
And respondent informs that even after complainant
was already relieved as the prosecutor in the case, he filed
a motion for his inhibition without setting it for hearing.
On the above-said Manifestation filed by complainant
before the trial court on November 12, 2004, respondent
brands the same as “misleading” and “highly questionable,”
complainant’s having undergone medical treatment at the
Philippine Heart Center on August 13 and 20, 2004 having
been relayed to the trial court only on said date.
 On his Order considering the prosecution to have waived
presenting evidence, respondent justifies the same on
complainant’s failure to formally offer the evidence for the
prosecution despite several extensions of time granted for
the purpose.
Finally, respondent proffers that no substantial
prejudice was suffered by the prosecution for complainant
was permitted to cross examine the two defense witnesses
but he refused to do so.
By way of counter-complaint, respondent charges
complainant with “Contempt of Court” and “Grave
Misconduct” and/or “Conduct Unbecoming of a Member of
the Bar and as an Officer of the Court.”
On evaluation of the case, the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), citing Section 5, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rule on Criminal
412

412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pinote vs. Ayco

Procedure, finds respondent to have breached said rule and

accordingly recommends that he be reprimanded therefor,
with warning that a repetition of the same or similar act
shall be dealt with more severely.
Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure reads:

“Sec. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions.—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 case subject to the approval of
the Court. Once so authorized 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. x x x”
(Italics supplied)

Thus, as a general rule, all criminal actions shall be

prosecuted under the control and direction of the public
prosecutor.
If the schedule of the public prosecutor does not permit,
however, or in case there are no public prosecutors, a
private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the
Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State
Prosecution Office to prosecute the case, subject to the
approval of the court. Once so authorized, the private
prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case until the
termination of the trial even in the absence of a public
prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise
withdrawn.
Violation of criminal laws is an affront to the People of
the Philippines as a whole and not merely to the person
directly 1 prejudiced, he being merely the complaining
witness. It is on this account that the presence of a public
prosecutor in the trial of criminal cases is necessary to
protect vital state interests, foremost of
_______________

1 Vide: People v. Ramos, 207 SCRA 144, 152 (1992).

413

VOL. 477, DECEMBER 13, 2005 413

Pinote vs. Ayco

which is its interest to vindicate

2
the rule of law, the
bedrock of peace of the people.
Respondent’s act of allowing the presentation of the
defense witnesses in the absence of complainant public
prosecutor or a private prosecutor designated for the
purpose is thus a clear transgression of the Rules which
could not be rectified by subsequently giving the
prosecution a chance to cross-examine the witnesses.
Respondent’s 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.
Respondent’s lament about complainant’s failure to
inform the court of his inability to attend the August 13
and 20, 2004 hearings or to file a motion for postponement
thereof or to subsequently file a motion for reconsideration
of his Orders allowing the defense to present its two
witnesses on said dates may be mitigating. It does not
absolve respondent of his utter disregard of the Rules.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Roberto L. Ayco is
hereby ordered to pay a fine FIVE THOUSAND PESOS
(P5,000.00) with warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Respecting the counter-complaint against complainant
State Prosecutor Ringcar B. Pinote, respondent is advised
that the same should be lodged before the Secretary of
Justice.
SO ORDERED.

          Panganiban (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez,

Corona and Garcia, JJ., concur.

Judge Roberto L. Ayco meted with P5,000.00 fine, with

warning against repetition of similar acts.

Notes.—A petition for certiorari filed by a private

prosecutor with the conformity of the Provincial Prosecutor
is defective in

_______________

2 Vide: People v. Arcilla, 256 SCRA 757, 763-764 (1996).

414

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pacific Mills, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

form—it is the Office of the Solicitor General that is

authorized by law to represent the Government in the
Supreme Court and in the Court of Appeals in all criminal
proceedings. (People vs. Montesa, Jr., 248 SCRA 641 [1995])
 While a private prosecutor is allowed in criminal cases,
an analogous arrangement is not allowed in civil cases
wherein a municipality is a party—the collaboration of a
private counsel with the provincial prosecutor or provincial
attorney is contrary to law and should not be recognized as
legal. Private lawyers may not represent municipalities on
their own, and neither may they do so even in collaboration
with authorized government lawyers. (Ramos vs. Court of
Appeals, 269 SCRA 34 [1997])
A judge cannot be faulted for allowing the intervention
of a private prosecutor in the trial of a criminal case where
the counsel for the accused failed to object to the absence of
the public prosecutor, giving rise to the presumption that
the intervention of a private prosecutor was due to the
unavailability of the public prosecutor. (Enriquez vs.
Vallarta, 378 SCRA 12 [2002])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.