|
Friday, October 10, 2003
SC raps Cebu judge on ‘illegal’ arrest
By Giovannie A. Nilles
THE Supreme Court dismissed an administrative complaint against Barili Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Ildefonso Suerte but admonished him “to be more circumspect in his official and personal deportment.”
It found without basis the administrative complaint filed by Romeo Ejercito, who had accused Suerte of ordering his arrest in December 1997 using an invalidated warrant of arrest issued by the Court of Appeals.
Ejercito had charged Suerte with rendering an unjust, illegal or unlawful order of arrest, usurpation of a case already decided by another court, ignorance or willful defiance of the law, and violation of due process.
He also had charged the judge with falsification of public document, violation of the Constitution for putting a person in jeopardy for the same offense, grave abuse of authority, and conduct unbecoming of a public official.
From Ejercito’s complaint, it was known that the families of Ejercito and Suerte harbored grudges against each other.
With Philip Medel Jr. and Angel Cang as his witnesses, Ejercito had alleged that Suerte was behind his arrest in Barili town even if the judge knew that the warrant was already invalidated.
Suerte had denied the charges, saying these were baseless, whimsical, preposterous and absurd.
He said the charges were designed to harass and molest him and meant to destroy his image and reputation as an officer of the court.
Ejercito was charged in the 1970s with falsification of public documents before Branch 17 of the Cebu City RTC. He was convicted, fined P500, and sentenced from one to three years and six months.
The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision and issued a warrant of arrest, which Ejercito had evaded.
Consequently, RTC Judge Jose Burgos issued an alias warrant of arrest on March 31, 1991.
After about a year, Ejercito sought reconsideration. The execution of the decision was set aside and the warrant invalidated.
On Oct. 16, 1997, a news item, together with his picture, was published in a local paper. It said a warrant of arrest against him was still pending.
On Dec. 12 that same year, SPO1 Renato Vergara and SPO3 Andres Alpas finally arrested Ejercito and brought him before Judge Burgos, who eventually released him.
Ejercito then filed the complaint against Suerte, saying the judge actually caused his arrest. He said Suerte’s family and his have bad blood.
But the High Court’s 2nd Division dismissed Ejercito’s complaint, saying the pieces of evidence he submitted were insufficient to hold Suerte administratively liable.
“(Judge Suerte) may, at most, be sternly warned to be more circumspect in his official and personal deportment. A judge is the visible representation of the law and the embodiment of the people’s sense of justice. He should constantly keep himself away from any act of impropriety, not only in the performance of his official duties but also in his everyday actuations,” the ruling read in part.
The decision said the “record is replete with ample showing that the charges (against Suerte) are just another episode in what appears to be the acrimonious history between the parties’ families.”
Besides, another man executed an affidavit saying it was him who caused Ejercito’s arrest.
“(Ejercito’s) arrest was effected not so much because (Judge Suerte) ordered this but because the policemen were ill-informed about the subsequent developments (of the case against Ejercito),” the ruling also read.
(October 10, 2003 issue)
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[ return
to top ]
[ home
]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
