AC 10333; (November, 2017) (Digest)
A.C. No. 10333. November 6, 2017. CORNELIO V. YAGONG, Complainant vs. CITY PROSECUTOR NEOPITO ED G. MAGNO and ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR DON S. GARCIA, Respondents.
FACTS:
Complainant Cornelio V. Yagong was charged with violation of the Anti-Fencing Law (P.D. 1612) before the City Prosecution Office of Island Garden City of Samal. He filed an administrative complaint against respondents City Prosecutor Neopito Ed G. Magno and Assistant City Prosecutor Don S. Garcia, alleging they violated the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Yagong claimed that the respondents had already issued a Resolution indicting him even before he submitted his Counter-Affidavit, demonstrating bias, partiality, and engagement in a money-making scheme for a favorable resolution.
The respondents countered that they performed their duties in accordance with law and procedure. The case was raffled to Assistant Prosecutor Garcia for preliminary investigation to determine probable cause. After evaluating the evidence, Garcia found probable cause. City Prosecutor Magno, as the approving authority, then authorized the filing of the corresponding Information against Yagong. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline recommended dismissal of the complaint, which the IBP Board of Governors adopted.
ISSUE
Whether respondents City Prosecutor Magno and Assistant City Prosecutor Garcia should be administratively disciplined for alleged violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility in the performance of their prosecutorial functions.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for utter lack of merit. The Court emphasized that disbarment, or any disciplinary sanction, requires clear, convincing, and satisfactory proof. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the complainant, and lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence and regularity in the performance of their duties. Yagong failed to present preponderant evidence to overcome these presumptions.
The Court ruled that the respondents were merely performing their official functions. A preliminary investigation is inquisitorial, not adjudicatory; its sole purpose is to determine whether a crime was committed and if probable cause exists to charge the respondent. Prosecutors do not decide guilt beyond reasonable doubt but merely assess the existence of probable cause to file an information. The acts of evaluating evidence and authorizing the filing of charges, when done regularly, are within their official discretion and enjoy the presumption of regularity. No clear evidence was presented to prove bad faith, bias, or any corrupt motive. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed.