|
Thursday, December 30, 2004
SC dismisses judge
By Grecar Nilles, Sun.Star Staff Reporter
LESS than a month before his retirement, Barili Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Ildefonso Suerte was ordered dismissed after he was found guilty of gross misconduct in office, gross ignorance of the law and incompetence.
In a 29-page en banc resolution, the Supreme Court (SC) also forfeited Judge Suerte’s retirement benefits and privileges, and disqualified him from holding any public office.
Suerte is due to retire on Jan. 23, 2005. He will contest the ruling.
“I know someone is behind this. But the penalty imposed on me is just too harsh, inhumane and cruel,” Suerte said.
He added that judges can only be dismissed if they commit any of the following offenses: bribery, immorality and grave abuse of authority due to ignorance of the law.
The SC found the judge guilty of violating Administrative Order (AO) 36-2004, issued in March this year, which stripped him of all authority to act on newly filed cases in his court.
It said he erred in handling a homicide case that could affect the Ecleo parricide trial; the annulment of marriage of a government prosecutor; and an estafa case that was dismissed a year before the affidavit of desistance was filed.
Devinadera case
Even if he was no longer allowed to handle cases, Suerte reportedly still acted on five annulment petitions, one special proceeding and the homicide case against Cedrick Devinadera.
Devinadera had claimed he helped kill Alona Bacolod-Ecleo, wife of former mayor Ruben Ecleo Jr. Ecleo who is facing a separate parricide case, filed in 2002, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
“(Suerte) was clearly bereft of any authority to take cognizance of said case. Despite his awareness of AO 36-2004 and, worse, despite knowledge on his part of the pendency of another case in RTC Cebu, which involves the same subject matter, (Suerte) convicted Devinadera on the sole basis of a sworn extra-judicial confession and sentenced him accordingly,” the ruling read.
Deputy Court Administrator Christopher Lock, in his memorandum to the SC, noted several irregularities in Suerte’s handling of the Devinadera case.
Why did the private complainant, a cousin of Alona, file the case when Alona was survived by her three brothers?
“During the arraignment, Suerte did not have the supposed extra-judicial confession identified or authenticated in open court,” the SC ruled.
Question him
He should have questioned Devinadera to make sure his confession was voluntary and true, the High Court added.
The SC also suspected that Suerte could have a personal interest in several cases he resolved swiftly, despite the fact that his court was clogged with 170 cases that remained dormant for some time.
“(Suerte’s) conduct in said case not only mocked the entire judicial institution, but likewise breached the sanctity of the judicial process itself,” the ruling read.
“The natural instinct for the preservation of this institution leaves no room for such a corrupt member who, despite being at the threshold of his years of service in the judiciary, shows very little, or maybe none at all, reverence and respect for the institution,” the ruling read.
It was not just the Devinadera case that got the judge in trouble, though.
The SC added that in the estafa case against People vs. Conag, Suerte ordered the dismissal of the case last Feb. 26, 2003 on the ground that the complainant filed an affidavit of desistance.
Interest
But during the audit headed by lawyer Rullyn Garcia, the team found out that the affidavit of desistance was executed only on March 4, 2004, or more than a year after the case was dismissed.
“Most glaring indication of personal interest by Judge Suerte is in the nullity of marriage case of (Talisay City Prosecutor Mary Ann) Castro-Roa vs. Roa, which he decided in record time of 67 days. This decision became final 23 days later when Judge Suerte himself issued the entry of final judgment,” the SC ruling read.
Lastly, Suerte reportedly decided on a nullity of marriage case of Santos vs. Santos based on a fabricated transcript of stenographic notes.
But Suerte, in the same interview, suspected that the SC could have been swayed by the media to get a share of the limelight Ecleo’s parricide case has been getting.
“But I am not worried at all. If this is the will of God and if this is my destiny, then I cannot do anything anymore but to move on,” Suerte said. (GN)
(December 30, 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
|
