Piñote v.
Ayco (2005): Judge Ayco of RTC South Cotabato allowed The Office of the Court Administrator cited Section 5, Rule 110 of the
the defense in "People v. Vice Mayor Salvador Ramos" to present
evidence, even in the absence of State Prosecutor Pinote who was
undergoing medical treatment at the time. In the subsequent
hearings, the latter refused to cross-examine the witnesses since the
previous proceedings were allegedly void. He later filed a
Manifestation, explaining why he was absent before and citing Judge
Ayco’s acts as irregular and erroneous. He further claimed that he
should not be coerced to cross-examine the witnesses for the same
reasons. However, Judge Ayco treated this as a waiver of the
prosecution’s right to cross-examine which triggered an
administrative complaint against him. Judge Ayco also said in his
Comment that petitioner only sought "to save his face and cover up
for his incompetence and lackadaisical handling of the prosecution."
Finally, respondent cited the petitioner in contempt since no prejudice
was suffered by the prosecution and was permitted to cross examine
the two defense witnesses but it refused to do so.
Revised Rule on Criminal Procedure, and found respondent to have
breached said rule and accordingly recommended that he be
reprimanded, with warning that a repetition of the same or similar act
shall be dealt with more severely. Hence, all criminal actions shall
be prosecuted under the control and direction of the public
prosecutor in general. A private prosecutor may be assigned if
there are no public prosecutors or the schedule of the same is
hectic. Bear in mind that violation of criminal laws is an affront to the
People of the Philippines as a whole. It is on this account that the
presence of a public prosecutor in the trial of criminal cases is
necessary to protect vital state interests. Respondent's intention to
uphold the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of the case
cannot justify a breach of the Rules. If the accused is entitled to due
process, so is the State. Lastly, his lament about petitioner’s failure to
inform him beforehand about the absences is only mitigating but does
not absolve him from his transgression.