|
Monday, May 31, 2004
Nalzaro: Loopholes on Suerte’s decision
By BOBBY G. NALZARO
I OBTAINED court records on the controversial decision of Barili RTC Judge Ildefonso Suerte in convicting Cedrick Devinadera as an accessory to the crime of murder for his participation in the killing of Alona Bacolod Ecleo.
One does not need to be a lawyer to notice some loopholes in the procedure: from the handling of the case from the prosecutor’s office, up to the filing in court, where the accused pleaded guilty to a much lesser offense.
In several media interviews, the honorable presiding judge of Branch 60 claimed that he was “misled by government prosecutors and private lawyers that Devinadera’s case was separate and distinct from the parricide case filed against PBMA supreme master Ruben Ecleo Jr.,” accused of killing his wife Alona, now pending before the sala of Judge Anacleto Caminade.
But based on court records, Judge Suerte cannot claim ignorance of the Ecleo case because in the affivadit of the complainant Jaime Bacolod, who claimed to be Alona’s relative, it was stated that “Ecleo stands trial for parricide for the gruesome murder of Alona.”
Had the judge carefully examined the affidavit of the complainant, he could have noticed that the person whom he was about to convict was committing the same offense Ecleo is accused of. Judge Suerte cannot claim that he was not aware of the existence of the Ecleo case considering the media coverage generated by this high profile and very controversial case.
If people outside Cebu are aware and have been following the case through the media, how much more the honorable judge who just lives in Badian and holds office in Barili. Cebu-based radio stations can be heard in both towns, and local papers are available in these areas.
Based on court transcript of records, it was lawyer Luis Salazar, counsel of Devinadera, who argued most of the time by convincing the judge that his client was willing to plead guilty to a lesser offense of homicide and enter into a plea-bargaining as accessory to the crime, while Provincial Prosecutor Napoleon Alburo kept silent all the while. His only remarks based on the transcript was: “For the state your Honor, I am authorizing the private prosecutor to enter into a plea bargaining agreement.”
Alburo did not even bother to object when Salazar asked the court to lower the degree of the penalty, claiming his client already pleaded guilty and surrendered to authorities in General Santos City and taking into consideration all the other mitigating circumstances.
If there was an attempt from the prosecutor’s side to shortcut the process in the filing of the case, for whatever reason, the judge, through his vigilance and fairness, could have prevented and exposed that evil intention by private counsels and prosecutor to railroad the proceedings.
Is it not highly anomalous that when the accused pleaded guilty and entered into a plea-bargaining, the judge did not consult or get the consent of the offended party and the prosecutor? In the re-arraignment and promulgation last May 7, the complainant, Jaime Bacolod, even failed to attend.
But in his decision, Judge Suerte said: “…with the consent of the complainant Jaime Bacolod and his counsel Atty Jose Neil Nunez and with the approval of the provincial prosecutor, the accused with the assistance of counsel, was re-arraigned and thereupon entered a plea of guilty as an accessory to the crime of murder.”
But nowhere in the transcript of records did Judge Suerte consult Jaime Bacolod and Prosecutor Alburo about the intention of Devinadera to plead guilty to a lower offense. And yet he stipulated in his decision that it was with the “consent” of the complainant. You were not misled, Mr. Judge, you misled the public.
And now it seems that you are washing your hands in your highly irregular and anomalous decision. In claiming that he was misled, I viewed Judge Suerte’s statement as tantamount to admitting that he erred in his decision. Now, can he correct the injustice he has done to the Bacolod family? This is really a very dangerous precedent.
(e-mail: Bobby@sunstar. com.ph, text: 09193181404)
(May 31, 2004 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
