|
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Dismissed judge slapped P40,000 fine
By Grecar Nilles
Sun.Star Staff Reporter
Bad luck seems to keep hounding dismissed Barili Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge Ildefonso Suerte.
In a recent en banc decision, the Supreme Court (SC) found Suerte guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics for not allowing a person he had cited in contempt to post bail.
The SC slapped Suerte with a P40,000 fine for the offense.
Since Suerte has already been dismissed from the service and all his retirement benefits forfeited, the SC said the penalty shall be deducted from his accrued leave credits.
If his leave credits are not sufficient to cover the fine, Suerte is given 10 days to pay the amount.
Pointing out the “seriousness” of the offense, the SC said this was Suerte’s “second time to be found guilty of a similar infraction.”
The High Court said, however, that the dismissed judge can still be fined “for gross ignorance of the law and violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics committed while in office.”
Suerte was dismissed from service for convicting Cedrick Devinadera, who claimed to have helped in the killing of Alona Bacolod-Ecleo, without interrogating him on his guilty plea, and for nullifying the marriage of Assistant City Prosecutor Mary Ann Castro, even if neither spouse lives in Barili, among other cases.
In the recent case, complainant Silas Y. Cañada filed in November 2003 an administrative case against Suerte for arbitrary detention and violation of the anti-graft law and the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
Cañada said Suerte cited him in direct contempt and ordered his arrest without giving him the opportunity to post bail.
Based on the contempt case, Suerte had Silas arrested by Badian policemen on Aug. 5, 2003. He wrote “no bail recommended” in the arrest warrant he issued against Cañada.
Despite efforts of Cañada’s counsels to have him released, Suerte refused.
Cañada was only released 14 days after, when Suerte received an order from the Court of Appeals (CA) for his provisional liberty.
Suerte also slapped Cañada’s lawyer with a P3,000 fine.
In his defense, Suerte said that before his arrest, Cañada was one of the most wanted drug pushers and owners of illegal firearms.
Suerte said Cañada was legally arrested and lawfully detained.
But the SC, through Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, found Suerte guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
They said an RTC judge can only impose an imprisonment term of not more than 10 days, a fine not more than P2,000, or both.
“(Suerte’s) order directing (Cañada’s) arrest did not specify the period within which the latter should be imprisoned. Worse, it is not disputed that (Cañada) was detained for 14 days, four days beyond what the rule allows. Were it not for the writ of habeas corpus issued by the CA, (Cañada) would not have been released from detention,” the ruling said.
The ruling said Suerte denied Cañada his right to post bond “as provided for under the Rules of Court, by indicating in the arrest warrant he issued that the complainant is not entitled to bail.”
“In doing so, (Suerte) unduly deprived (Cañada) of his prized and fundamental right to liberty, a right which is protected and guaranteed by our Constitution,” the ruling said. (GN)
(November 12, 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
|
