Mission and Vision

Of
University of Caloocan City (UCC)
Vision
A high quality of learning that will bring forth a high
quality of life, more particularly in Caloocan City.

Mission
To maintain and support an adequate system of tertiary
education that will help to promote the economic growth
of the country, strengthen the character and well-being of
its graduates as productive members of the community.

Prosecutors office Mission and

Vision
Mission
Serves as an effective personal competent support
complement of the prosecutor of the Caloocan
prosecutors office in the expeditious resolution of cases
and action on all matters brought for its consideration
especially in the fulfillment of its primary duty to render
justice to all.

Vision
To constitute as a competent and effective personnel
complement in the pursuit by the Caloocan prosecutors
office of its primary duty to render impartial justice to all.

History of Department Of Justice

The prosecutors office of Caloocan city is under the supervision of the
department of justice. The Department of justice traces its beginnings at the
revolutionary assembly in Naic, Cavite on April 17, 1987. The establishment
of a regime of law was tasked to Don Severino Delas Alas who was headed
the Department of Grace and Justice. Shortly after the proclamation of the
independence in Kawit, Cavite on June 12, 1898, President Emilio Aguinaldo
issued a decree on September 26, 1898 recognizing the department.
A year later, the American military forces established the Office of the
attorney of the Supreme Court place of the department. On June 11, 1901,
the new office was renamed the office of the Attorney General and on
September 1, 1901, the office became the Department of Finance and
Justice.
In 1916, government reorganization became separate entity and was
given executive supervision over all courts of first instance and other interior
courts.
Under Japanese occupation, the department was made a Commission.
The civilian government established by the Japanese in 1943 changed it to
ministry. After the war of 1945, the government of the Philippine government
was re-established and the Department of Justice was re-activated. The
Department continued in this form under Philippine Republic.
Presidential Degree No. 1 during Martial Law reorganized the Executive
Branch of the National Government. Letter of Implementation No. 20 of
December 31, 1972 organized the department proper into the Office of
Secretary, financial and Management Service, the Administrative Service,
Technical Staff, the Prosecution Staff, the Legal Staff and the Judiciary

Division; the Commission of Immigration and Deportation, the National

Bureau of Investigation, the office off the Government Corporate Counsel;
the Board of Pardons and Parole; the Bureau of Prisons; and the Citizens
Legal Assistance Office.
Under the 1973 Philippine Constitution, department became a Ministry
of Justice. The 1986 People Power Revolution ushered in the Contemporary
Department of Justice with the adaptation of the 1987 Constitution and the
administrative code of 1987 (executive order No, 292), the Department of
Justice was named as the Principal law agency of the Republic of Philippines
serving as its legal counsel and prosecution arm.
Today, the DOJ continue to pursue its primary mission To Uphold the
Rule of Law with its Justice for All motto. The Office of Secretary
(OSEC) is composed of the National Prosecution Service, the Legal Staff,
the Administrative, Financial, Technical, and Planning and Management
Services and the board of Pardons and Parole. The constituent and attached
agencies include National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Bureau of
Immigrations (BI), Public Attorneys Office (PAO), Office of the Solicitor
Generals (OSG), Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC), Bureau
of Corrections (BuCOr), Parole and Probation Administration (PPA),
Presidential Commission on Good Governance (PCGG) and the Land
Registration Authority (LRA).

Legal Mandate
The Department of Justice (DOJ) derives its mandate primarily from the
Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292). It carries out this
mandate through the Department Proper and the Department's attached
agencies under the direct control and supervision of the Secretary of Justice.
Under Executive Order (EO) 292, the DOJ is the government's principal
law agency. As such, the DOJ serves as the government's prosecution arm
and administers the government's criminal justice system by investigating
crimes, prosecuting offenders and overseeing the correctional system.
The DOJ, through its offices and constituent/attached agencies, is also
the government's legal counsel and representative in litigations and
proceedings requiring the services of a lawyer; implements the Philippines'
laws on the admission and stay of aliens within its territory; and provides
free legal services to indigent and other qualified citizens.
DOJ functions under other laws and other executive issuances:
In addition to performing its mandate under E.O. 292, the Department is
significantly involved in the implementation of the following penal,
national security, and social welfare laws:

The Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act (R.A. 6981),

which mandates the DOJ to formulate and implement a Witness
Protection, Security and Benefit Program for the admission and protection

of witnesses;

Implementation of the Victims Compensation Program through the

Board of Claims created under the DOJ (RA 7309);

Administrative Order No. 99 (1988), designated DOJ as lead

implementer of Justice System Infrastructure Program (JUSIP) that was
tasked to construct/rehabilitate decent office buildings for judges,
prosecutors, public attorneys, probation officers, and registers of deeds;

Executive Order 180 (1987), which created the Public Sector Labor
Management Council, of which the Secretary is a member, to provide
guidelines for the exercise of the right of government employees to
organize;

The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165),

which created the Dangerous Drugs Board to see to policy-making and
strategy-formulation on drug prevention and control and designated the
Secretary or his representative as ex-officio member of such Board;

The Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001 (R.A. 9160), which

created the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) to which the DOJ is a
support agency through the investigation of money laundering offenses
and the prosecution of offenders. With the DOJ Anti-Money Laundering
Desk (DOJ-AMLD), the DOJ works in close coordination with the AMLC in
its task of combating money laundering and financing of terrorism;

The Human Security Act of 2007 (RA 9372) which created and
designated the Secretary as ex-officio member thereof. Relative to this
and under EO 292, the Secretary is also an ex-officio member of the

National Security Council (NSC), which advises the President with respect
to the integration of domestic, foreign, military, political, economic,
social, and educational policies relating to national security;

The Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998 (RA

8505), which mandated the DOJ to participate in inter-agency efforts to
establish Rape Crisis Centers in every city or province for the purpose of
rendering assistance to rape victims;

The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 (R.A. 9208), which

mandates the prosecution of persons accused of human trafficking and
for that purpose, created the Inter-Agency Council on Trafficking
(IACAT), of which the Secretary is Chairman;

The Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of

2004 (RA 9262), which designated the Department as a member
agency of the Inter-Agency Council on Violence Against Women and their
Children (IACVAWC), the monitoring body of government initiatives to
counter violence against women and children;

Executive Order 53 (2011) amending EO No. 275 pursuant to

the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation,
and Discrimination Act (RA 7610), designating the DOJ Secretary as
the Chairperson of the Committee for the Special Protection of Children;

Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009 (IRR of RA), designating the

Secretary of Justice as member of Inter-Agency Council Against Child
Pornography that is tasked to coordinate, monitor and oversee the
implementation of Anti-Child Pornography Act;

Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (RA 10175), the Office of

Cybercrime within the DOJ designated as the central authority in all
matters related to international mutual assistance and extradition;

Executive Order 45 (2011), which designated the DOJ as

competition authority that investigates all cases involving violations of
competition laws and prosecute violators to prevent, restrain and punish

monopolization, cartels and combinations in restraint of trade;

Administrative Order 35 (2012), which designated the Secretary of

Justice as Chairperson of the Inter-Agency Committee on Extra-Legal
Killings, Enforced Disappearances, Torture and Other Grave Violations on
the Right to Life, Liberty and Security of Persons, the body that
undertakes inventory of cases mentioned perpetrated by state and nonstate forces;

Memorandum Circular No. 68 (2014), creating an Inter-Agency Task

Force to Strengthen the Implementation of RA 8049 otherwise known as
the Anti-Hazing Law, with the DOJ Secretary as Chairperson.
Other tasks falling within the multifarious duties of the executive
branch to administer the laws devolve upon the Department through
the Secretary, to wit:

The Anti-Dummy Law (Commonwealth No. 108), as amended by

Presidential Decree 715, whereby the Secretary is empowered to
authorize the employment of aliens as technical personnel in the
management of a franchise, business or enterprise expressly reserved by
law to Filipino citizens or corporations or associations whose equity at
least 60% of which is owned by Filipinos;

The Local Government Code (Section 187 of RA 7160) which

vests in the Secretary appellate jurisdiction over the constitutionality or
legality of municipal tax ordinances and revenue; measures;

Executive Order 643 (2007) which vests the DOJ with administrative
supervision over the Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG).
The Secretary is also an ex-officio member of the Judicial and Bar
Council (JBC) [Section 8(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution],
the Committee on Privatization [AO 48 (1987)], and the National
Water Resources Board (NWRB) (EO 123, series of 2002). He is also

an ex-officio director of the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities

Management (PSALM) Corporation (RA 9136, otherwise known as
Electric Power Industry Reform Act of 2001). Under EO 648, series of
1981, an undersecretary of the DOJ is designated as an exofficio Commissioner of the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB).

Accomplishment Report
National Prosecution Service (NPS)
The NPS is mandated to assist the Secretary of Justice in the performance of
powers and functions of the Department relative to its role as the
prosecution arm of the government, particularly the investigation and
prosecution of criminal offenses. The said mandate and present NPS
organization is contained under RA No. 10071, the Prosecution Service Act of
2010.
As of the end of CY 2015, besides the NPS Prosecution Staff in the DOJ main
office, the NPS has 14 regional offices with 223 functional constituent offices
and 87 sub-offices for the 80 provinces and 143 cities nationwide. In the
same year, the NPS was manned by 2,018 prosecution officers (prosecutors
and prosecution attorneys) and 1,814 administrative support staff.

As shown in Table 1, authorized prosecution officer positions increased from

2,416 in 2013 to 3,675 by end of 2015 (in line with implementation of RA
10071), hence raising the overall vacancy rate from 23% to 45%. For the
support staff, vacancy rate decreased from 20% in 2011 to 13% in 2015.
Despite this, support staff remained severely deficient in most prosecution
offices especially with the creation of new cities, which require the
establishment of prosecution offices.

Table 1. NPS Staffing Statistics, 2010-2015

Particulars
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

Prosecution Officers*

Authorized Positions
2,410
2,411
2,412
2,416
3,484
3,675
Filled Positions
1,863
1,836
1,850
1,858
1,857
2,018
Vacant Positions
547
575
562
558
1,627
1,657
Vacancy Rate
23%

24%
23%
23%
47%
45%
Support Staff*

Authorized Positions
1,945
1,945
1,945
1,945
1,946
2,075
Filled Positions
1,602
1,558
1,629
1,688
1,719

1,814
Vacant Positions
343
387
316
257
227
261
Vacancy Rate
18%
20%
16%
13%
12%
13%
Other Support Staff**

LGU-provided
882
1,027

1,009
1,018
912
942
Other agencies
23
39
27
29
29
21
Other sources
6
3
3
3
9
2
Total
911
1,069
1,039
1,050
950
965

Investigation and Prosecution Services

Based on available statistics in 2015 as of report preparation, the NPS

handled 399,096 complaints for preliminary investigation (PI) and resolved
322,588 cases, which constitute the bulk of the workload of prosecution
officers. Annual disposition rate progressively increased from 74.6% in 2010
to 80.6% by end of 2015.
On the average, one prosecutor handled 196 and resolved 158 PI cases for
the entire year. This prosecutor caseload does not include special pleadings
and reopened/reinvestigated/reviewed cases through motions, petitions and
court orders, among others. Table 2 shows that average case load per
prosecutor continuously grew from 179 in 2010 to 218 per prosecutor in
2014. In 2015, the average caseload per prosecutor decreased to 196 with
the increased number of prosecutors.

Table 2. NPS Preliminary Investigation Case Load and Disposition, 2010-2015

Particulars
2010
2011
2012
2013

2014
2015

Case Load

Cases Handled
334,398
342,537
353,647
389,565
404,613
394,527
Filled Positions
1,863

1,830
1,850
1,858
1,857
2,018
Average per Prosecutor
179
187
191
210
218
196
Disposition

Resolved Cases
249,550
262,977
271,292
305,016
325,868

318,028
Disposition Rate
74.6%
76.8%
76.7%
78.3%
80.5%
80.6%
Pending Cases
84,848
79,560
82,355
84,549
78,745
76,499

With regard to investigation aging, available data in Table 3 shows that there
is a 3% increase in nationwide backlog (complaints pending beyond 120 days

 maximum reglementary period prescribed in the 2008 Revised

Prosecutors Manual) from 55.2% in 2014 to 58.5% in 2015.

Table 3. Aging of Complaints Pending Resolution in the NPS, 2010-2015

Particulars
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

Within the reglementary period

39.9%
46.4%
48.6%
42.5%
44.8%
41.5%

60 days and below

24.1%
27.9%
26.6%
26.8%
27.8%
26.3%
More than 60 days up to 120 days
15.9%
18.5%
21.9%
15.8%
17.0%
15.2%

Beyond the reglementary period

60.1%
53.6%
51.4%
57.5%
55.2%
58.5%

More than 120 days up to 1 year

23.3%
20.3%
23.6%
24.2%
23.6%
21.2%
More than 1 year
36.8%

33.3%
27.8%
33.3%
31.6%
37.3%

Besides the above investigation workload, there were 813,596 criminal cases
in the first and second level trial courts attended to by prosecutors
nationwide for 2015 based on the Criminal Case Inflow and Outflow Report
from the Supreme Court. On the average, a prosecutor handled around 403
court cases in that year. This figure does not include civil and family court
cases that have been handled by prosecutors. Table 4 shows the total
number of criminal cases in the lower courts and average case load per
prosecutor from 2010 to 2015.
Table 4. Criminal Cases in Lower Courts, 2010-2015
Particulars
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

2015

Criminal Cases in Lower Courts*

705,569
732,870
741,748
751,904
780,019
813,596
Filled Positions
1,863
1,830
1,850
1,858
1,857
2,018
Average per Prosecutor
379
400

401
405
420
403
Prosecution Success Rate
68.2%
65.3%
71.2%
68.3%
72.9%
71.9%

*Source: Supreme Court Court Management Office (2011-2015 updated

data as of May 11, 2016)
Based on available reported statistics from the NPS, prosecution success rate
in 2015 was at 71.9%, which is higher than the 68.2% in 2010 but about 1%
lower than the 72.9% in 2014. Prosecution success rate is calculated as
convictions as a percent of total convictions and acquittals. Dismissals and
archivals are not considered since the causes thereof are beyond the control
of prosecutors (e.g. non-appearance of complainants/witnesses/accused,
successful court mediation, desistance of complainants).

There are various organizational challenges and constraints that hamper the
performance of the NPS particularly on investigation and prosecution. These
include severely inadequate support staff in many prosecution offices
nationwide and lack of capital funding for infrastructure and office
equipment/amenities, resulting to continued dependence on local
government provision. There are also internal management
constraints/weaknesses including systems and procedures, information
dissemination, case management, reporting and performance monitoring,
resource management, personnel development.

Other Functions, Programs, Projects and Activities

Besides their regular investigative and prosecutorial functions, provincial and
city prosecutors are deputized by the Offices of the Solicitor General and
Ombudsman, act as ex-officio legal counsel of LGUs, serve as the vice chair
of the election board of canvassers, and sometimes act as local Register of
Deeds.
The DOJ Prosecution Staff and Regional Prosecution Offices administer the
Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Program and Victims Compensation
Program. They also have lead role in regional anti-trafficking in persons task
forces and implementation of Administrative Order No. 35 (Creating the InterAgency Committee on Extralegal Killings, Enforced Disappearances, Torture
and Other Grave Violations on the Right to Life, Liberty and Security of
Persons).
The NPS 2016-2022 Strategic Roadmap
The NPS has formulated a 6-year strategic plan with two (2) main goals:
Build an independent NPS for greater operational effectiveness; and
Elevate prosecutorial performance to global standards.
Core Strategies
Push for new legislation making NPS an autonomous constituent agency of
the Department;
Pursue policy and procedural reforms to eliminate backlog and increase
prosecution success rate.
Support Strategies

Realize the ideal court-prosecutor ratio of two (2) prosecutors per court for
efficient caseload management;
Institutionalize a continuous learning program for the prosecution service by
setting-up an DOJ Academy fully functional by 2022;
Embed critical support functions at the regional operations level by having
an approved and filled regional staffing structure; and
Develop technology solutions that form part of a knowledge management
(KM) system and the National Justice Information System (NJIS).

Financial Strategies
Regionalize budget allocation for and monitoring of MOOE, targeting full
budget utilization among all regional offices for programmed activities
yearly; and
Secure additional funding under the General Appropriations Act (GAA) to
eliminate LGU support.

Success Indicators/Measures
Increased successful prosecution rate; and
Higher public trust and confidence based on:
Reduced filing of administrative or criminal cases related to the performance
of function filed against prosecutors;
Increased filing of criminal complaints/cases before NPS;
Reduction in the number of petitions for review; and
High net trust rating of NPS (i.e. through third party survey).

Expected results of successful implementation

From prosecutors that are adequately performing, to highly competent and
professional advocates of justice;

From prosecution offices that are not conducive for work, to modern and
presentable spaces with healthy working relationships among employees and
between offices;
From inadequately motivated and trained administrative staff, to highly
skilled/motivated partners of prosecutors as advocates of justice;
From a semi-LGU-dependent in terms of logistical capacity, to an NPS that is
insulated from LGU influence; and
From financially slow and centralized, to regionalized, responsive and
efficient NPS.

Documentation

What Have You Learned?

Being an On-The-Job trainee, I have so many things that I have learned
in the Office of the Prosecutors. Although it was hard to work in this office, I
have so much fun because I have gained more experience and I have
learned a lot working with the prosecutors and their secretaries.
As an OJT-Student for more than a month, first I have improved myself
as a man that has self-confidence to do a job more efficient and fewer
mistakes. I have also improved myself for not getting late. Although this was
not important, not getting late improved me as a student. I have also learned
that when working with a prosecutor you should not commit error in your
work and you must double check your in order to make your boss to happy
because you were helping her to get her job more faster. I have also learned
how the prosecutor worked in her job. She worked seriously in the case that
she needs to resolve. She was working according to her own will and under
the rule of law. She equally and not being bias to the case that she needs to
submit.
When working with the prosecutor together with his secretary, she
taught me how make a subpoena that has been given to the respondents
and complainants. This subpoena is an invitation for their upcoming
Preliminary Investigation which was conducted inside the Prosecutors office
investigate and to interrogate to their case. In front of the City Prosecutor,
the complainant/s shall discuss his thoughts regarding to the case that
he/she filed to the respondents. The respondents shall answer the case that
the complaint filed to him/her. After the Preliminary Investigation, the

prosecutor will analyze and give the judgments according to his/her own will
and under the due process of law. I was also taught how to assist the
prosecutor in making his Information and Resolution in the case that is
needed to submit to the Chief Prosecutor. An information is an accusation in
writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the prosecutor and
filed with the court and Resolution is the decision to the case after the
preliminary investigation, whether the case is dismissed or not and to be
submitted to the chief prosecutor for review. My task is to type what is
needed to edit in the said Info or Reso. It was hard because the writings of
the prosecutor are hard to understand. For a month of training, I was able to
understand it and I was able to work efficiently and less mistakes.
The most important things that I have learned in my OJT (On the Job
Training), I was able to communicate not only with the personnel in the
Prosecutors Office but also to my co-OJT. I know communication is the way
to interact with others. With this, we can learn a lot of things; we can have
more friends that are sometimes needed in finding a job in government
offices. Second one is to become fair and not to become bias. Inside the
office, there are situation that emotion is not needed. We must work
according to the rules and must not be affected by our emotion because it
will not become fair to others.
The things that I have learned in my On-The-Job-Training I can use it in
my future job. This training prepared us for our future job, to know what life
is when we graduated in college and to become a productive employee.

Problems Encountered
There are some problems that I encountered during my OJT. In the
office, some of the staffs are not wearing their prescribe uniform. It was hard
to determine whether that person is personnel or not. There are also
problems that some of the staffs are innuendos or saying something immoral
with each other and some of the staffs are disobeying the rules of the office.
I have also observed that some of the prosecutors are getting late on
Tuesday to Friday. They are not late because Monday is Flag Raising
Ceremony and attendance is a must. They were also not following the office
hours. In my office were I worked as a trainee, the prosecutor always arrived
late and leaves her office late.
In myself, I have also problems that I need to resolve. I was not able to
arrive at the office on time. I was so tired every Monday, Tuesday and Friday
assisting the prosecutor in her job. I was also late to go home because my
prosecutor is workaholic person. She was working from day to night without
watching the clock in the office.
I had some problems concerning emotion, this as persons undergoing
preliminary investigation show a wide range of emotions. Some are even going as far
as kneeling and begging the other party to desist from the complaint while sobbing
in the presence of his/her child. It is very emotionally taxing as it is but natural for
a human to feel yet, one must restrain emotions so as not to compromise judgment
and logic, and one must also stick with the facts and not the drama.

The problem above is my observation in my On-The-Job Training that is

needed to resolve.

Recommendation to Solve the

Problem
I recommend that the staffs inside that office must respect each other
because respect is of the key to have a peaceful life that is needed to work
efficiently and effectively. Some of the staff must wear their prescribed
uniform so that they can easily recognize as a personnel working in the
prosecutors office. To the City Prosecutors, they should need to work in their
office on time so that they can do their job faster. And lastly, the Staffs and
Prosecutors must follow the rules and regulations that are conducted in the
offices.
In myself, I need to organize my time or time management so that I
was not able to become late when I go to my work training. I will ask
prosecutor that I will go home at exactly 5pm. In this method, I would able to
my other assignments and my other readings in school on time.
Regarding to my emotions in the Preliminary Investigation conducted
inside the Office, we must restrain our emotion and must not compromise
the judgments given by the prosecutor. It must stick to the evidences and
facts not in emotion.

Function and Duties as an OJT

Being an On-The-Job trainee, there are certain functions and duties
that I need to apply in this kind of training. As an OJT/Trainee, I should need
to follow all the rules and regulations that are being implemented inside the
agencies that I work. I should also work with discipline in performing my work
while on my training. As an OJT-student, I should need to finish the hours that
is indicated in our practicum.