Erring prosecutors should be removed from public service
IWROTE two open letters — one for the education secretary and another one for the justice secretary — in my column last week. The letter to the justice secretary pertains to the public prosecutor who had an altercation with the traffic enforcers. Caught on video, the incident went viral in social media.
This prompted me to look back into some previous cases in which I felt the public prosecutor blatantly erred. I cannot make a conclusion on whether or not it was deliberate, or simply due to ignorance. Either way, the prosecutor should be liable.
Here is a sampling of these cases. The names and identities of the parties, as well as those of the prosecutors, are not mentioned to protect the innocent.
Venue in cyber libel
Where should a complaint for cyber libel be filed? Venue in libel cases can be in any of three places — the place where the libelous article was first printed, the place where it was read by the complainant, or the place where the complainant resides at the time of the publication of the libelous article.
In this particular case, the complainant ( Nurse C) was working in a hospital somewhere in the Middle East. The respondent ( Nurse R) was likewise working in a location not far from Nurse C, also in the Middle East.
Nurse R allegedly sent private
complaint for cyber libel against
Prosecutor in Bulacan.
Obviously, the supposed libelous Facebook messages were posted in the Middle East. It is also clear that it was read by the complainant while she was also in the Middle East. The place where she resided at the time of her reading the Facebook posts was somewhere in the Middle East.
The Bulacan prosecutor resolved in favor of Nurse C, claiming that it has criminal jurisdiction over the offense. Say what?
Forum shopping
Forum- shopping is the filing of two or more suits in different tribunals, either simultaneously or successively, in order to get a favorable resolution on the same or related causes. It is an act of malpractice that is prohibited and condemned because it trifles with the judicial system and abuses its processes.
The penalty for forum- shopping is the immediate dismissal of not one, but both of the cases.
In this example the executive officer of a corporation filed a case against several individuals for a certain criminal act in Makati City. Subsequently, on behalf of the corporation, he filed the same case against the same individuals for the same criminal act in Quezon City.
Resolving the issue of forumshopping, the prosecutor in Makati City dismissed the complaint. The same issue of forumshopping was raised before the prosecutor in Quezon City. However, the latter prosecutor resolved that there was no forum- shopping and thereafter filed the information in court.
What happened to the Quezon City prosecutor? Don’t tell me that he does not know the concept of forum-shopping. Or is he simply playing dumb and ignorant?
Concealing a witness
Rule 6.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility states that the primary duty of a lawyer engaged in public prosecution is not to convict but to see that justice is done. The suppression of facts or the concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is cause for disciplinary action.
In this last illustration, the Special Prosecutor informed the court, in several instances, that he would be presenting Mr. M. as a witness for the prosecution. The court even directed the prosecution to submit the judicial affidavit of Mr. M prior to his taking the witness stand.
The Special Prosecutor met with Mr. M as part of the preparatory work. During their discussion, he found out that Mr. M’s testimony would be favorable for the accused and that it would establish the innocence of the latter.
You know what he did? He cancelled the presentation of Mr. M, tantamount to concealment of a witness. A highly reprehensible act which should merit a disciplinary action against the Special Prosecutor.
The same Special Prosecutor sent a “sealed” and “secret communication” to the court, which is tantamount to “prosecutorial misconduct.” His act of not giving a copy of the “secret communication” to the defense smacks of willful defiance of the basic rule of procedure.
As an officer of the court, the Special Prosecutor should have been more circumspect in his actions. His act of sending a “sealed” envelope to the court may create suspicion and loss of confidence in the legal processes and endanger public respect for law.
What do all of these prosecutors have in common? They all erred. And they all should be removed from public service.