People vs Ramos

207 SCRA 114

G.R. No. 95370 March 10, 1992
G.R. No. 101227 March 10, 1992
Ponente: J. Cruz

Nature of the case:
This is a consolidated cases both seeking for the interpretation of Section 5 Rule 110 of
the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.

In the first case, the petition questions the validity of the order of Judge Ramos
dismissing the petition against the two orders of Judge Ranches requiring the participation of
Provincial Prosecutor Cabebe to attend the series of trial of criminal cases pending before his
court.

The second case involves a petition seeking certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with
preliminary injunction against Judge Vizcarra for requiring the attendance of the office of the
provincial prosecutor of Ilocos Sur in a criminal case pending before said court.

Facts:
There are pending criminal cases in the MCTC of Ilocus Sur, these were instituted
without the intervention of the Provincial Prosecutor but the assistant prosecutor participated in
one of these cases. Upon his death he was not replace due to alleged undermanned office of
Provincial Prosecutor Cabebe. Cabebe informed Judge Ranches about this matter and asked him
to allow the offended parties or peace officers to handle the prosecution of these cases. Judge
Ranches rejected his request which was also sustained by Judge Ramos upon appeal in the RTC
of Vigan.
In the second case, Judge Vizcarra postponed the trial of the pending criminal case and
ordered for the attendance of Cabebe or any of his assistance to prosecute the case. Despite the
claim of Cabebe that his office was understaffed and that the case was already handled by a
private practitioner under his authority and that Cabebe already informed the court the
circumstances why his office was understaffed.

Issue:
Whether or not the judge are allowed to interfere with the administration of the office of
the Provincial Prosecutor
Whether or not the contention of the petitioners are tenable
(Since the office of the Provincial Prosecutor is understaffed the peace officers should be
allowed to handle the prosecution of the cases.)

Held: Yes, the judge can interfere pursuant to the clear directive of the law.
No, the contention is not tenable.

The argument of the petitioners that the respondent judges should not be allowed to
interfere with the administration of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor is not acceptable. In
requiring that office to prosecute the cases before them, the said respondent judges were merely
enforcing the basic rule in Section 5 that "all criminal actions either commenced by complaint or
information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the fiscal." The questioned
orders were in fact based, albeit unwittingly, on the directive of the Department of Justice.

The Court feels that in those cases where the prosecutors themselves have filed the
criminal charges, there is all the more reason for them to actively intervene in their prosecution.
Having presumably made the necessary investigation of these cases before filing the
corresponding informations, they are in the best position to handle their prosecution on the basis
of their initial findings. If the prosecutor had not determined the prima facie guilt of the accused,
he should not have filed the information in the first place. At any rate, there is something not
quite correct in the prosecutor filling the information himself and then leaving the offended party
in the lurch, as it were, by asking him to fend for himself in prosecuting the case.

The exception provided in Section 5 must be strictly applied as the prosecution of crime
is the responsibility of officers appointed and trained for that purpose. The violation of the
criminal laws is an affront to the People of the Philippines as a whole and not merely the person
directly prejudiced, who is merely the complaining witness. This being so, it is necessary that the
prosecution be handled by persons skilled in this function instead of being entrusted to private
persons or public officers with little or no preparation for this responsibility. The exception
should be allowed only when the conditions therefore as set forth in Section 5, Rule 110 of the
Rules on Criminal Procedure have been clearly established.