STATE prosecutors handling the Villarico murder case have admitted making a mistake when they said that the court had erred in citing a rule asking for more evidence from them.

It turned out that Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 21 Presiding Judge Gil Bollozos had been correct, and the prosecutors realized rather belatedly that they were reading from an old version of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

For updates from around the country, follow Sun.Star on Twitter

Judge Bollozo's supposed mistake was carried by the Sun.Star Thursday based on statements and photocopied handouts provided by prosecutors from the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor (ORSP). This paper did not identify the prosecutors in deference to their request.

The rule in question pertains to the issuance of an arrest warrant, and when the court may issue it.

Using as basis the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which took effect in 2002, the prosecutors incorrectly assumed that the judge had gotten it wrong when he cited Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure in an October 27 order directing the panel to submit additional evidence against the suspect, PO3 Arturo Labrador, Jr.

Section 5 Rule 112 of the 2002 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure governs the manner an investigating judge may issue resolutions, including corresponding reviews not on the issue of arrest warrant.

Prosecutors counted this purported mistake as one of the grounds in saying they will contest the order.

The magistrate, however, had referred from a newer version of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure approved by the Supreme Court in 2005.

In it, the rules governing the issuance of arrest warrant is provided under Section 5 of Rule 112.

Sought for comment for the apparent mistake, the prosecutors admitted they erred due to inadvertence. They made it clear it was committed "in good faith."

They said little was known of the 2005 amendment, and that the change in numerical assignment of the provisions had been unintentionally overlooked.