Case Digest Prepared by: Sheila

Case Title
TOPIC

Court Second Division

Citation OCA IPI No. 04-1625-MTJ
Date July 4, 2005
Petitioner Estrella V. Crisostomo
Respondent Presiding Judge Maria Filomena Singh-Paulite of the MTC, Branch 31, Quezon City
Ponente
Doctrine

General Rule: criminal actions commenced by complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the
direction and control of the prosecutor.
o This role was defined as “the duty of the public prosecutor to appear for the government.”
o 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 more adequately prepared to pursue it to its termination.
▪ “Final termination” refers to promulgation of judgment → Presence of Public Prosecutor during
promulgation of judgment is indispensable.
o The rule is based on the common practice and policy of trial courts of promulgating their judgments in
criminal cases always in the presence of the assigned Public Prosecutor – anchored on equal
opportunity that must be afforded to the State.

Case Summary

Crisostomo filed an administrative case on gross inefficiency against Judge Paulite after she rendered a
decision 20 days after the assigned date of promulgation of judgment. The reason for the said delay was
due to the absence of the prosecutor and the sickness of the respondent’s son.
The Court determined that delay of the promulgation of judgment due to the absence of the prosecutor was
a valid act because of the duty of the prosecutor to be present at the final termination of the case they are
handling. The Court found that the circumstances presented were outside the will of the respondent, and it
was absent of malice, bad faith, ignorance or inexcusable negligence, or bad faith, malice, corrupt purpose
or a deliberate intent to do an injustice.

FACTS
 Crisostomo discovered that her husband has an illegitimate child with Armi Candelaria whose birth
was registered with the Office of the Civil Registrar
 The birth certificate declared that her husband and Candelaria were married on July 8, 2000 in
Cotabato City
 The Criminal Case: Crisostomo filed a case against Candelaria for violation of PD651 [Requiring the
Registration of Births and Deaths in the Philippines which occurred from January 1, 1974 and
thereafter] which required the registration of facts concerning the civil status of persons. Candelaria
was acquitted and the case was dismissed.
 The Administrative Case: Crisostomo filed against Judge Paulite, alleging that the dismissal is against
the evidence on record and that the decision was postponed several times. She also alleged that the
judge has served “advance copies” of the said decision to the parties.
 The case was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Judge Paulite stated that:
o The administrative complaint is not the proper remedy to review or reverse the judgment of
acquittal in the criminal case
o The complainant did not allege or submit any evidence of malice, bad faith, ignorance or
inexcusable negligence, and the presumption that the respondent judge has regularly
performed her duties prevails
 o
As a settled principle, a judge may not be administratively charged for mere errors of
judgment, absent any showing of bad faith, malice, corrupt purpose or a deliberate intent to do
an injustice; and
o The respondent’s decision to acquit the accused was proper, considering the absence of proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
 On the allegations of serving “advance copies,” these were printed to assure the parties that the
decision was not deliberately delayed by the judge.

ISSUE - HELD - RATIO:

ISSUE # 1 HELD
WON Respondent Judge knowingly rendered an unjust judgment NO
RATIO
 This issue is judicial in nature and involves the appreciation of evidence by the respondent.
 A trial judge’s impression on the testimony of witnesses and his appreciation of evidence presented
before him are binding on the Court in the absence of a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion of
an obvious misapprehension of facts.
 It must be shown indubitable that the judgment was made with a conscious and deliberate intent to do
an injustice, and that it was done with bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other like motive

ISSUE - HELD - RATIO:

ISSUE # 2 HELD
WON Respondent judge is guilty of gross inefficiency by reason of a delay in the NO
promulgation of the judgment.
RATIO
 The delay in the release of the decision was due to circumstances that are not the fault of the
respondent.
o Absence of the public prosecutor for two sessions
o Hospitalization of respondent’s son
 The only reason for releasing the advance copies was to assure them that the promulgation was not
being deliberately delayed and that the case has been resolved.
 The release of the copies were made to both parties simultaneously and was not made to favor one
party over the other. [20 days after the original set date for its promulgation]

Sub-issue: WON the absence of the public prosecutor was a valid reason for the deferment of promulgation?
[YES]
 No specific rule requiring the presence of the public prosecutor during promulgation of judgment
o Judgment in absentia [Rule 120] shows promulgation of judgment even if [one or both of the]
parties are absent. This is the closest.
 In the absence of a specific rule, reference must be made to the general rule
 General Rule: criminal actions commenced by complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the
direction and control of the prosecutor.
o This role was defined as “the duty of the public prosecutor to appear for the government.”
o 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 more adequately prepared to pursue it to its termination.
▪ “Final termination” refers to promulgation of judgment → Presence of Public
Prosecutor during promulgation of judgment is indispensable.

2
 o The rule is based on the common practice and policy of trial courts of promulgating their
judgments in criminal cases always in the presence of the assigned Public Prosecutor –
anchored on equal opportunity that must be afforded to the State.

 Prosecutor himself executed an affidavit stating his absence during the hearings. Thus, the petitioner
[who was the complainant in the criminal case] cannot object if proceedings are reset at the request
of the prosecutor himself.
 The delay here was too insubstantial to qualify as “inefficiency” [not even gross]. Inefficiency implied
negligence, incompetence, ignorance and carelessness. There is the showing that the respondent
judge is even remotely guilty of this.
 Judge was ready within the 30-day period required under the applicable rule negates such charge.
 SC ruled no gross inefficiency in other cases with much longer delays on the basis of “considering the
heavy case load of the courts within the National Capital Judicial Region. There is nothing on record
that will show the delay was done maliciously or was caused with deliberate intent to inflict damage”
 Judge should not have sent the advance copies prior to the release of the decision. She should have
waited for its promulgation before sending out copies to avoid any anomalous consequences that may
arise on account of its early release.

RULING:
We agree in the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator, save the premature release of the subject
decision for which this Court ADMONISHES Judge Maria Filomena Singh-Paulite.
SO ORDERED.
[3 pages case, 3 pages din digest. Maliliit yung font, pramis TT^TT]