ARCHIVING CRIMINAL CASES WITHOUT A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OR PUBLIC

ATTORNEY A GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW?

Four Judges and seventy court employees charged Judge A with multiple counts of
Gross Ignorance of the Law when she archived a criminal case docketed as M-PSY-23-
45678901-CR and other similar cases without the presence of the Public Prosecutor
or/and Public Attorney. Judge A grossly violated Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure to quote:

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. However, in Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts when
the prosecutor assigned thereto or to the case is not available, the offended party, any
peace officer, or public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated may
prosecute the case. This authority shall cease upon actual intervention of the prosecutor
or upon elevation of the case to the Regional Trial Court.

and Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to quote:
Sec. 6. Duty of court to inform accused of his right to counsel. Before arraignment, the
court shall inform the accused of his right to counsel and ask him if he desires to have
one. Unless the accused is allowed to defend himself in person or has employed
counsel of his choice, the court must assign a counsel de officio to defend him.

Sec. 7. Appointment of counsel de officio. The court, considering the gravity of the
offense and the difficulty of the questions that may arise, shall appoint as counsel de
officio such members of the bar in good standing who, by reason of their experience
and ability, can competently defend the accused. But in localities where such members
of the bar are not available, the court may appoint any person, resident of the province
and of good repute for probity and ability, to defend the accused.

Is Judge A liable for multiple counts of Gross Ignorance of the Law? The answer is in
the negative.

The archiving of a criminal case without a public prosecutor or a public attorney is

allowed. A trial court can motu proprio or upon motion of any party archive a criminal
1
case in any of the grounds stated under Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92 (Guidelines
in the Archiving a Case), the construction of which is liberal. A judge owes it to himself
and his office to know basic legal principles by heart and to harness that knowledge
correctly and justly, failing which publics confidence in the courts is eroded (Lucero vs.
Bangalan, A. M. No. MTJ-04-1534, September 7, 2004, 437 SCRA 542). A motu proprio
is Latin for "on his own impulse". In the Philippines, it is upon its own instance, like a
trial court moving for an action to archive to decongest courts docket without the
intervention of others like a public prosecutor or a public attorney or any private lawyer
in a legal setting.

The actual case is OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ Judge Bibiano Colasito, Vice Executive
Judge Bonifacio Pascua, Judge Restituto Mangalindan Jr. , Judge Catherine Manodon,
Miguel Infante, Emma Annie Arafiles, Racquel Diano, Pedro Doctolero Jr., Lydia Casas,
Auxencio Clemente, Ma. Cecilia Gertrudes R. Salvador, Zenaida N. Geronimo, Virginia
D. Galang, Elsa Garnet, Amor Abad, Emelina J. San Miguel, Maxima C. Sayo, Romer
H. Aviles, Froilan Robert L. Tomas, Dennis M. Echegoyen, Norman Garcia, Noel Labid,
Eleanor N. Bayog, Leilani A. Tejero Lopez, Ana Maria V. Francisco, Soledad J.
Bassig, Marissa Mashhoor Rastgooy, Marie Luz M. Obida, Evelyn P. Depalobos,
Joseph B. Pamatmat, Zenaida N. Geronimo, Benjie V. Ore, Fortunato E. Diezmo,
Nomer B. Villanueva, Edwina A. Jurok, Fatima V. Rojas, Eduardo E. Ebreo, Ronalyn T.
Almarvez, Ma. Victoria C. Ocampo, Elizabeth Lipura, Mary Ann J. Cayanan, Manolo
Manuel E. Garcia, Petronilo C. Primacio Jr., Edward Eric Santos, Armina B. Almonte,
Elizabeth G. Villanueva, Erwin Russ B. Ragasa, Bien T. Camba, Marlon M. Suligan,
Chanda B. Tolentino, Ferdinand R. Molina, Lanie F. Aguinaldo, Jasmine L. Lindain,
Emilio P. Domine, Arnold P. Obial, Ricardo E. Lampitoc, Jerome H. Aviles, Ana Lea M.
Estacio, Cristina E. Lampitoc, Melanie DC Begasa, Evangeline M. Ching, Karla Mae
Pacunayen, Ronaldo S. Quijano, Domingo H. Hocosol, Edwin P. Ubana, Marvin O.
Balicuatro, Ma. Luz D. Dionisio, Maribel A. Molina, Sevilla B. Del Castillo, Aida Josefina
Ignacio, Benigno A. Marzan, Ignacio Gonzales, Lawrence D. Perez, and Edmundo
Vergara vs. Judge Eliza B. Yu
The Philippine Supreme Court sustained the legal arguments of Judge Eliza B. Yu.