Wednesday, October 24, 2007 High Court fires judge in Bohol for ‘immorality’ By Katrina N. Tabanao Sun.Star Staff Reporter
A JUDGE in Bohol Province was dismissed from service after he was found guilty of gross misconduct and immorality.
In a decision promulgated last Oct. 17, the High Tribunal also forfeited all the retirement benefits of Judge Manuel A. de Castro of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Jagna and Garcia-Hernandez, Bohol.
He was also banned from serving in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
De Castro must also show cause why he should not be disbarred as a member of the Philippine Bar.
Bodega incident
The dismissal of de Castro stemmed from the complaint filed by a videoke bar waitress against him.
Jane (not her real name) narrated that she was raped by the judge last March 29, 2005 at the bodega of a videoke bar in the public market of Guindulman, Bohol where she was then employed as a waitress.
She was attending to de Castro and his six companions who were drinking at that time.
But after an hour of serving them, de Castro started “acting like an uncivilized person.” He allegedly kissed and hugged Jane and her co-worker Inah and touched them in the different parts of their body.
The judge later took Jane to the bodega where the alleged abuse happened.
Reputation
Inah supported Jane’s statement.
In his counter-affidavit, the judge denied the charge of rape and described the filing of the case as a malicious attempt by some people, who had been harassing him, to destroy his reputation and image as a judge.
He did not deny his presence at the videoke bar but explained that he was there not to drink or sing, “but only to see the interior layout of the newly constructed bar” owned by his junior process server and the latter’s wife.
He admitted, however, having teased and hugged both Jane and Inah, but this was “in the spirit of fun.”
The judge also submitted an affidavit of retraction and withdrawal of complainant dated April 21, 2005 and a similar affidavit executed by Inah on the same date.
But the High Tribunal said that the “recantation is viewed with suspicion for it is exceedingly unreliable, inasmuch as it is easily secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration.”
Confidence
“Going by the social standing and economic status of the complainant, and as the records tend to indicate, the mix of both factors seem to explain why complainant affixed her signature to the recanting affidavit,” read the decision.
For the SC, it is logical to conclude that the judge has failed to promote confidence in and respect for the judiciary.
“He deported himself in a manner most unbecoming a judge as a model of moral uprightness. We need not repeat the narration of the lustful acts committed by him, in order to conclude that he is indeed unworthy to remain in office,” the court said in its judiciary.
“The audacity under which the (acts) were committed and the seeming impunity with which they were perpetrated shock one’s sense of morality,” it added.
