MARY ROSE A. BOTO, Complainant, v. SR. ASST. CITY PROSECUTOR VINCENT L.

VILLENA

FACTS:

Boto charged respondents Villena, Manabat and De Dios with gross ignorance of the law for filing the
information for libel before the MeTC and for opposing the motion to quash despite the knowledge that
the said first level court had no jurisdiction over the case. Boto averred that she had previously filed a
libel case against one Tizon (the "godson" of Senator Allan Peter Cayetano) and others, but the said case
was dismissed by Villena without conducting an investigation; however, when Tizon filed a complaint for
libel against her, his complaint was immediately acted upon by the Taguig City prosecutors;

Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Vincent L. Villena contended that "the court had already determined
probable cause when it issued the warrant of arrest, thus, it has effectively mooted the resolution of any
issue concerning jurisdiction, venue and sufficiency of evidence against the complainant."

Assistant City Prosecutor Patrick Noel P. De Dios, the investigating prosecutor, averred that the
information for libel against complainant was filed before the MeTC due to inadvertence.
City Prosecutor Archimedes V. Manabat, the City Prosecutor who approved the Information, stated that
the libel was filed based on the uncontroverted evidence of the complainant therein;

RULING:

Villena is found liable for Ignorance of the Law and is FINED in the amount of P10,000.00 with a
warning. De Dios, for his negligence, is REPRIMANDED with a warning. Manabat is admonished to be
more careful and circumspect in the review of the actions of his assistants. Boto was adversely affected
not because the MeTC immediately issued a warrant for her arrest, but because the prosecution of the
case, meritorious or not, was considerably delayed. As a responsible public servant, a prosecutor's
primary duty is not to simply convict but to see that justice is done. He should not initiate or continue
prosecution, or shall make every effort to stay the proceedings when it is apparent that the court has no
jurisdiction over the case. This is where Villena failed.

De Dios did not proffer any justification or explanation for the error. In the Court's view, it was plain
carelessness.
Manabat, on the other hand, should have been more cautious and careful in reviewing the report and
recommendation of his subordinate. As the head of office, he should be admonished to be more careful as
his office is in the forefront in the administration of criminal justice.

Villena cannot invoke the defense of inadvertence. His dismal failure to apply the basic rule on
jurisdiction amounts to ignorance of the law and reflects his lack of prudence, if not his incompetence, in
the performance of his duties.