|
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Judge scolds attorney
By Grecar Nilles
Sun.Star Staff Reporter
A Manila-based lawyer yesterday drew the ire of a Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge, whom he accused of rigging the case against the lawyer’s clients.
RTC Judge Branch 15 Judge Fortunato de Gracia Jr. yesterday charged lawyer Benjamin A. Moraleda Jr. with indirect contempt, after he accused the judge of having a “hidden agenda” in the case against suspected Hong Kong Triad member Giovanni “Nanan” Gimenez and two others.
De Gracia, who was fuming when he assailed Moraleda’s motion for inhibition, challenged the lawyer to prove his accusations.
“You come in like a rescuing cavalry from Manila and malign openly, casually and freely the presiding judge. Do you do that in Manila? If you accuse me of rigging this case against your clients, you’d better prove that. You come from Manila and say that I am harboring a hidden agenda, what kind of practitioner are you?” de Gracia said.
Moraleda told de Gracia that the motion for inhibition, which called for de Gracia to give up the case, was not the right motion that should have been filed.
The lawyer said his process server brought the wrong document, although he admitted that the “right” motion was still a motion calling for de Gracia’s inhibition.
But de Gracia stressed that even if Moraleda comes from “Imperial Manila,” he ought to respect the local courts.
“I tell you Mr. Counsel, I am surprised by your Jekyll and Hyde personality.
You appear to be benign in your first nature but now you’re (not). Now, explain to me my hidden agenda. One, am I corrupted?
Two, what did I do to manipulate fraudulently this case as against your client? Still and all, we are sensitive to the insinuations and innuendos of corruption. More so for myself because I have a family name to protect,” de Gracia said.
Moraleda earlier filed a motion for inhibition. That came after de Gracia called for the presentation of evidence to resume, even with the ruling of the Court of Appeals declaring the shabu, weighing more than 300 grams, as inadmissible.
Gimenez was arrested on Sept. 7, 2000 in Barangay Kasambagan, Cebu City aboard a van where the illegal drugs were allegedly found.
Moraleda, in his motion, said that de Gracia’s order was “pregnant with hidden agenda, (which is) indicative of bias and partiality.”
He also accused de Gracia of prosecuting the case against his clients.
Inadmissible
Gimenez, his brother Jovan and driver Victor Ceniza were arrested just outside their rented apartment.
They were on board their Starex van when policemen stopped the van, searched the vehicle for drugs and allegedly seized 337.97 grams of shabu.
But the defense questioned the search, since the vehicle was no longer covered by the warrant.
The appellate court already ruled that the drugs cannot be admitted as evidence against the three accused.
It was then that Moraleda asked the court to dismiss outright the case against his clients, since the case would crumble without the drugs.
De Gracia did not grant Moraleda’s earlier motion, but instead asked both parties to continue presenting evidence.
“Such order is already a glaring manifestation of the design of the presiding judge to rig the case and…to convict the accused by the presentation of any evidence that the court may find reason to convict the accused,” Moraleda said in his motion.
Indirect contempt
The court gave Moraleda five days to convince the court why he should not be cited for indirect contempt.
“The court considers these official pleadings as a senseless affront to the integrity of the judiciary and the judicial system, when brutally fallacious premises are frankly presented in a reckless and vicious manner, accusing the presiding judge of this court of wrongdoing, and thus condemning, exposed him to ridicule and derisive comments, and directly or indirectly, by his statements, tend to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of justice,” de Gracia said in his show-cause order.
De Gracia also furnished a copy of his show-cause order against Moraleda to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines “as an initiatory step to administratively examine excesses committed by a member.”
(June 2, 2005 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
|
