Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 53 views

    8.pinole v. Ayco, AM No. RTJ-05-1944, 13 December 2005

    Uploaded by

    Benedicto Pintor
    Judge Ayco allowed the defense in a criminal case to present two witnesses while the prosecutor was absent undergoing medical treatment. The prosecutor later refused to cross-examine the witnesses despite a court order, arguing the proceedings in his absence were void. This led the prosecutor to file an administrative complaint against Judge Ayco for gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the prosecutor, finding that Judge Ayco violated rules requiring a prosecutor's presence, and his intention to ensure a speedy trial did not justify breaching the rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    8.pinole v. Ayco, AM No. RTJ-05-1944, 13 December 2005

    Uploaded by

    Benedicto Pintor
    53 views1 page
    Judge Ayco allowed the defense in a criminal case to present two witnesses while the prosecutor was absent undergoing medical treatment. The prosecutor later refused to cross-examine the witnesses despite a court order, arguing the proceedings in his absence were void. This led the prosecutor to file an administrative complaint against Judge Ayco for gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the prosecutor, finding that Judge Ayco violated rules requiring a prosecutor's presence, and his intention to ensure a speedy trial did not justify breaching the rules.

    Original Title

    8.Pinole v. Ayco, AM No. RTJ-05-1944, 13 December 2005

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Ayco allowed the defense in a criminal case to present two witnesses while the prosecutor was absent undergoing medical treatment. The prosecutor later refused to cross-examine the witnesses despite a court order, arguing the proceedings in his absence were void. This led the prosecutor to file an administrative complaint against Judge Ayco for gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the prosecutor, finding that Judge Ayco violated rules requiring a prosecutor's presence, and his intention to ensure a speedy trial did not justify breaching the rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    53 views1 page

    8.pinole v. Ayco, AM No. RTJ-05-1944, 13 December 2005

    Uploaded by

    Benedicto Pintor
    Judge Ayco allowed the defense in a criminal case to present two witnesses while the prosecutor was absent undergoing medical treatment. The prosecutor later refused to cross-examine the witnesses despite a court order, arguing the proceedings in his absence were void. This led the prosecutor to file an administrative complaint against Judge Ayco for gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the prosecutor, finding that Judge Ayco violated rules requiring a prosecutor's presence, and his intention to ensure a speedy trial did not justify breaching the rules.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Judge Roberto L.

    Ayco of Regional Trial Court (RTC) of South Cotabato allowed the defense in a criminal
    case 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 at that time
    undergoing medical treatment at the Philippine Heart Center in Quezon City.

    On the subsequent scheduled hearings of the criminal case, Pinote refused to cross-examine the two
    defense witnesses, despite being ordered by Judge Ayco, maintaining that prior proceedings conducted
    in his absence were void. Judge Ayco considered the prosecution to have waived its right to cross-
    examine the two defense witnesses.

    Hence, arose the present administrative complaint lodged by Pinote against Judge Ayco for “Gross
    Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority and Serious Misconduct.”

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not Judge Ayco violated the Rules on Criminal Procedure for allowing the defense to present
    evidence in the absence of a prosecutor

    HELD:

    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 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.

    Judge Ayco’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.

    Judge Ayco’s lament about Pinote’s failure to inform the court of his inability to attend the 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 Judge Ayco of his utter disregard of the Rules.

    You might also like