Criminal Procedure Re: Crisostomo v. Singh OCA IPI No. 04-1625-MTJ July 4, 2005 FACTS: A Complaint-Affidavit dated 13 September 2004, was filed by Estrella V. Crisostomo charging Presiding Judge Maria Filomena Singh-Paulite with knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, gross inefficiency and gross ignorance of the law relative to Criminal Case No. 108982 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Armi Candelaria" for violation of Presidential Decree No. 651 (requiring registration of facts concerning the civil status of persons). Eventually, and after several postponements, all upon the instance of the prosecution, the decision dated 17 August 2004 of the respondent was promulgated on 07 September 2004 which acquitted Armi Candelaria and dismissed the Case for insufficiency of evidence. Before this Court, complainant avers that the promulgation of the assailed decision was postponed several times and that prior to the actual promulgation, the Branch Clerk of Court, presumably upon orders of the respondent judge, served "advance copies" of the said decision to the parties. On the allegation that "advance copies" of the decision were dubiously released on 02 September 2004 or five (5) days prior to the actual promulgation, respondent judge contends that the release was made precisely to assure the parties that the promulgation was not being deliberately delayed, notwithstanding the several postponements, and that the case was in fact already resolved. She said copies of the decision were simultaneously released to and received by all the parties as shown in the acknowledgement receipt. ISSUE: Was such absence of the Public Prosecutor a valid reason for the deferment of promulgation? RULING: YES. It should be noted that nowhere under Rule 120 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure is there any mention of the presence or absence of the prosecution. In fact, Section 6 of Rule 120 clearly lays down the rule for promulgation of the judgment in absentia, when the same may proceed even in the absence of either or both the accused and the accused's counsel, without any word regarding the presence or absence of the prosecution. Jurisprudence abounds on the issue of absence of the accused and/or accused's counsel during promulgation of judgment (cf Pascua vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. no. 140243, 14 December 2000, 348 SCRA 197, and related cases), but none directly deals with the question of the necessity of the Public Prosecutor's participation in such promulgation. In the absence of a specific rule on the matter, therefore, reference must be made to the general rule found in Section 5 of Rule 110 which requires that "(A) 11 criminal actions commenced by complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor." In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Beriales (G.R. No. L39962, 17 April 1976, 70 SCRA 361), the Supreme Court defined this role of the Trial Fiscal, thus: "In the trial of criminal cases, it is the duty of the public prosecutor to appear for the government. As stated by this Court, 'once a public prosecutor has been entrusted with the investigation of a case and has acted thereon by filing the necessary information in court, he is by law duty bound to take charge thereof until its final termination, for under the law he assumes full responsibility for his failure or success since he is the one Criminal Procedure more adequately prepared to pursue it to its termination.' (Salcedo vs. Liwag, L-21068, November 29, 1963, 9 SCRA 609)." There can be no doubt that the "final termination" of a criminal prosecution referred to is the promulgation of judgment in the case. The presence of the Public Prosecutor during promulgation of judgment is therefore indispensable. This supports the common practice and the policy of trial courts of promulgating their judgments in criminal cases always in the presence of the assigned Public Prosecutor. The soundness of the rule is anchored on the equal opportunity that must be afforded to the State, which has an immutable interest in the prosecution of criminal actions, specially in a case such as Criminal Case No. 108982 which involved a supposed false entry in the Civil Registry. Public interest must at all times be safeguarded in the same manner that the rights of the accused are studiously protected.
