A.C. No. 10333 - CORNELIO V. YAGONG, COMPLAINANT, VS. CITY PROSECUTOR NEOPITO ED G. MAGNO AND ASSISTANT CITY PROSECUTOR DON S. GARCIA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , the instant complaint filed against respondents­ City Prosecutor Neopito Ed G. Magno and Associate City Prosecutor Don S. Garcia is hereby DISMISSED . RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. On September 24, 2016, the IBP Board of Governors passed Resolution No. XXII-2016-542, [3] which adopted the foregoing recommendation, hence: RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner dismissing the complaint. The Court's Ruling The Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the findings and recommendation of the IBP that the instant administrative complaint must be dismissed. Disbarment is the most severe form of disciplinary sanction and, as such, the power to disbar must always be exercised with great caution, only for the most imperative reasons, and in clear cases of misconduct affecting the standing and moral character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. As a rule, an attorney enjoys the legal presumption that he is innocent of the charges proffered against him until the contrary is proved, and that, as an officer of the court, he has performed his duties in accordance with his oath. In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof is upon the complainant and the Court will exercise its disciplinary power only if the former establishes its case by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Considering the serious consequence of disbarment, this Court has consistently held that only a clear preponderant evidence would warrant the imposition of such a harsh penalty. It means that the record must disclose as free from. doubt a case that compels the exercise by the court of its disciplinary powers. The dubious character of the act done, as well as the motivation thereof, must be clearly demonstrated. [4] Here, Yagong miserably failed to discharge said burden. Indubitably, Magno and Garcia were only performing their official duties of ascertaining whether or not probable cause exists in the case before them, and filing the necessary Information if probable cause is found present. A preliminary investigation is merely inquisitorial. It is often the only means of discovering the persons who may be reasonably charged with a crime, to enable the prosecutor to prepare his Complaint or Information. It is not a trial of the case on the merits and has no objective except that of determining whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the respondent is guilty thereof. In the conduct of preliminary investigation, the prosecutor does not decide whether there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of respondent. A prosecutor merely determines the existence of probable cause, and to file the corresponding information if he finds it to be so. In the exercise of their powers and in the discharge of their functions and responsibilities, prosecutors enjoy the presumption of regularity. This presumption of regularity includes the public officer