Sunday, May 04, 2008 Econg faces admin rap for being ‘pro-Ecleo’
DAYS before Judge Geraldine Faith Econg inhibited herself from the parricide case against former Dinagat mayor Ruben Ecleo Jr., an administrative complaint was lodged against her for alleged violations of the code of judicial conduct.
And while her April 21 inhibition eventually dampened the Crusade Against Violence’s desire to follow up the complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Cebu Regional Trial Court Executive Judge Fortunato de Gracia Jr.’s denial of Econg’s inhibition from the Ecleo case is seen to revive that intent.
“By and large, no matter how we look at the situation, Econg appears biased and manifesting favor toward (Ecleo). She has indeed debased the judicial cannons befitting of a judge and has failed to administer justice impartially and without delay,” the complaint, received last April 17, read.
Let go
At their end, lawyers representing the late Alona Bacolod-Ecleo’s family yesterday expressed their intent to file a motion for reconsideration against de Gracia’s denial.
“If the judge has already expressed her intent to inhibit, even if she did not admit that she was biased in favor of (Ecleo), she should be allowed to let go,” said lawyer Fritz Quiñanola yesterday.
Econg refused to comment on the administrative complaint in an interview with Sun.Star Cebu yesterday. She added that she has not received any notice regarding the matter from the Office of the Court Administrator.
But on the denial of her motion for inhibition, she said it came unexpected, as she was doing it for the complainants.
“I have sent notices to the parties for a chamber conference. I want us to discuss our views on the matter and how to resolve it. Even I don’t know what the remedy is,” she said.
Always fair
She said she has always been fair in her handling of the case. In fact, she made it a point to make all proceedings open to the public.
De Gracia, in a two-page ruling, did not find merit in Econg’s decision to inhibit herself from the case, which she has presided over since November 2004.
De Gracia instead directed Econg to continuously try the case for the next 60 days and then have it submitted for resolution, taking note of the fact that other judges had similarly let go of the case, leading to delays in the proceedings.
Those who handled the case before her were Galicano Arriesgado, who issued the original warrant for Ecleo’s arrest; Olegario Sarmiento Jr., who denied the motion to quash it; Generosa Labra, who granted Ecleo bail; Anacleto Caminade, who signed the release order; and Ireneo Gako Jr., who was the first to begin hearing the case with Ecleo out of jail.
Being the executive judge, de Gracia oversees all matters pertaining to the assignment and re-assignment of cases.
Quiñanola and lawyers Fred Sipalay and Kit Enriquez earlier described Econg’s inhibition as a “victory.”
They described her handling of the trial as lopsided—she supposedly failed to act on the motion to cancel bail that they filed and then gave the defense much leeway in the presentation of their case while strictly limiting the prosecution’s right to raise objections.
The April 17 complaint before the OCA alleged the same thing.
“Since Aug. 11, 2006, or for one year and seven months already, Econg, in a brazen show of partiality and delay in the administration of justice, has not acted nor resolved the prosecution’s formal offer of exhibits-motion (to cancel bail),” it read.
These were accusations that Econg denied in her April 21 ruling.
She said the perceived delay in her ruling over the motion is because of several factors, one of which was the unavailability of the doctor Ecleo’s lawyers asked to be subpoenaed to appear in court.
Second, she said, the court’s authority to “revisit” the issue on bail is the subject of a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, which has yet to issue a ruling.
“It would be an unwarranted conclusion to say that this court, or at least this presiding judge, merely sat on the prosecution’s motion because the truth of the matter is that it was not acted upon,” she said.
On the issue of giving the defense too much leeway in its cross-examination, she said the same latitude was granted to the prosecution when it was their turn to present their case.
In fact, she said, she has constantly reminded the defense to stick to the commitment made during pre-trial that they would only present 10 witnesses.
On the other hand, she allowed the prosecution to present “several witnesses who were not even named in the pre-trial order.”
“Lest it be thought or perhaps even imagined that the undersigned’s refusal to inhibit from further hearing this case is borne out of an interest in the outcome of this case, she is now voluntarily inhibiting from further hearing the case,” she said. (KNR)
