|
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Castro fined P5,000 for filching court photo
A judge cited Assistant Cebu City Prosecutor Mary Ann Castro in contempt of court yesterday, following a filching incident more than a week ago.
Castro was fined P5,000, payable within five days. If she fails to pay, she risks imprisonment of not more than a month.
Judge Rosabella Tormis of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Branch 4 said she was not satisfied with the prosecutor’s explanation when she took a picture from the court records without permission last Aug. 12.
Castro was quick to file a motion for reconsideration of the order yesterday afternoon and questioned the P5,000 fine. Tormis’ order came out in the morning.
Castro took the picture of Jake Yu, whom she charged, along with his brother Nanak, with malicious mischief and grave slander by deed before the said court.
Personnel from MTCC Branch 4 were surprised when Castro detached Yu’s photo and rushed out of the office.
When asked about the missing picture, Castro said, “Basin gitangag sa ilaga (Perhaps a rat took it).”
The picture was reportedly for a motion she was going to submit to the Regional Trial Court Branch 19 for a libel case she filed against Nanak and his lawyer Vicente Fernandez.
“The court does not see any relevant connection between the photos attached to the bail bond of Jake Yu in the case pending before this court and that of the case before the RTC Branch 19,” read Tormis’ order.
Since Tormis’ order did not specify whether she has been cited for direct or indirect contempt, Castro had defense for both.
Granting she was cited for direct contempt, Castro said the court “grievously erred” in imposing a fine of P5,000.
Invoking Rule 71, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which states that a person adjudged in contempt of court may be “punished by fine not exceeding P10 or imprisonment not exceeding one day or both, if it be an inferior court (MTCC).”
If the order pertains to an indirect charge, Castro said that Section 3 of the same rules states that such could only be punished “after charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the accused to be heard by himself or counsel...”
Tormis clarified that the order was for indirect contempt of court, and refuted Castro’s stance that a complaint should be filed first and a hearing be conducted before she be cited in contempt.
Tormis said, the fact that she issued a “show cause” order last Aug. 12 for Castro to explain why she should not be cited in contempt means that there was a complaint from the court and her side has been heard.
Castro filed a compliance report on Aug. 18.
Further, Tormis said in her order that two pictures of Yu were missing during the filching incident. And while Castro immediately returned the “left side view” photo of Jake, the “front view” is still missing.
Feeling “hostility” between her and the court, Castro said she is contemplating on filing a motion for inhibition against Tormis. (JGA)
(August 23, 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
|
