|
Thursday, March 30, 2006
SC fines resigned judge for ignorance of law
The Supreme Court found a Cebu-based Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge guilty of ignorance of the law and, in a decision penned by Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, fined the judge P10,000.
It is not known if the penalty can be served though, as RTC Judge Anacleto Caminade resigned from the judiciary early this month. He has since stopped reporting to court, leaving no word why he quit.
The penalty, which stemmed from the judge’s handling of a fraternity-related murder case, was not Caminade’s first.
He was suspended for six months in 2004 for a sexual harassment complaint and, in 2005, was charged before the Office of the Court Administrator with a similar complaint.
Caminade’s latest penalty, based on the decision, stemmed from the complaint filed by the mother of the alleged murder victim the complaint alleged with the Office of the Court Administrator “gross misconduct and knowingly rendering an unjust judgement and gross ignorance of the law”.
Murder case
The complaint came after Caminade’s ruling in the murder case against Sherwin Que, Anthony John Apura and company.
Caminade, in an order, allegedly refused to issue a warrant of arrest against the respondents and denied a motion for reconsideration filed by Imelda Enriquez, mother of Mark James Enriquez, the student the respondents allegedly killed.
The judge also quashed the information against the two and remanded the case to the Office the Cebu City Prosecutor for proper preliminary investigation.
According to Caminade, the filing of the charges against the two was premature because the case was filed without waiting for the 15-day period, wherein the respondents may file a motion for reconsideration, to elapse.
Enriquez, in her complaint, said Caminade “was grossly mistaken” when he made the ruling.
She maintained that nowhere in the rules does it say that an investigating prosecutor cannot charge a person in court without waiting for the time allotted to file a motion for reconsideration to elapse.
Caminade, in his comment, said the investigators handling the case failed to furnish Apura and Alvarez their copy of the resolution, depriving them of due process. He said the order was “in accordance with law and jurisprudence” and cited, among others, the High Tribunal’s ruling in the Sales case.
Due process
The Sales case rules that preliminary investigation is part of due process and a motion for reconsideration is an integral part of a preliminary investigation.
“(A) respondent who is not given the opportunity to file the same is in effect deprived of his right without due process of law,” the ruling says.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended Caminade to be cited guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended further that his penalty be the maximum fine of P40,000 because this was not his first offense.
“The court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the OCA but reduces the penalty to a fine of P10,000,” the SC ruling, however, said.
According to Justice Panganiban, the official acts of judges on a case, as a matter of policy, are not subject to disciplinary action as long as he acts in good faith.
“Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned,” he said.
And there was no evidence of this in the charge against Caminade. (KNR)
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (March 30, 2006 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
|
