What can you say about this practice of some judiciaries in the Philippines?

I have a friend who was accused in a court of law herein the Philippines. After going through the very litigating process of trials, her resolution came out 6 years after the hearing was terminated. Interestingly, she found out that the signatory of the resolution of her case was not the original prosecutor who tried and heard the whole case. I know that it is a common practice herein the Philippines. But is it morally and legally right for another prosecutor to sign a resolution that he or she did not tried or heard? How can another prosecutor sign a resolution if he or she did not witnessed anything about the trial? I'm not a lawyer but I do know that besides documentary evidences, gestures of witnesses presented on the witness stand are also important especially during examinations and cross examinations. Gestures, without the use of polygraph machines, would also show if the witness presented was telling the truth or not. Secondly, is it really moral and legal that another prosecutor be made to sign a resolution he or she did not had a direct participation without first informing the respondent or the counsel of the respondent that the original prosecutor was already replaced? If this practice is prevalent in some courts of law herein the Philippines, I think this is the time we should do something about it. What can you say about this practice of some judiciaries in the Philippines? Care to comment and give a legal basis? Thank you very much.