Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Lawyers, judge agree to ask SC to clarify ‘inhibit’ issue
By Karlon N. Rama
Sun.Star Staff Reporter
PROSECUTION and defense lawyers in the parricide case against Philippine Benevolent Missionaries Association (PBMA) leader Ruben Ecleo Jr. yesterday agreed to bring to the Supreme Court Judge Geraldine Faith Econg’s inhibition from the case and Executive Judge Fortunato de Gracia Jr.’s reported denial of the move.
The lawyers—Fred Sipalay and Kit Enriquez for the prosecution, Orlando Salatandre for the defense—and State Prosecutor Graeme Elmido for the State, and Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Econg held a conference yesterday afternoon.
They agreed that doing otherwise may lead to hearings that will later be deemed invalid.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Cariaga vs. Baldado case, Econg said inhibitions are considered judicial matters. On the other hand, the authority of the executive judge over other judges in the same judicial region is administrative.
News reports, not in Sun.Star Cebu, earlier said the executive judge denied or reversed Econg’s order of inhibition and directed her to wrap the case up in two months.
However, during yesterday’s conference, Econg clarified that de Gracia’s May 2 “memorandum order” was merely a recommendation to the Supreme Court.
But whichever way the SC will rule, two things are certain. One, hearing on the parricide case is deemed suspended until a new judge takes over, or the case gets formally returned to Econg, and two, Ecleo remains out on bail despite a motion seeking its cancellation.
In yesterday’s conference, Econg took exception to a statement Crusade Against Violence (CAV) vice president Thelma Chiong reportedly issued over a radio station. Chiong, Econg said, claimed that her inhibition came only after the CAV filed an administrative case against her before the Office of the Court Administrator.
She told Sipalay to explain to his clients, who are supported by the CAV, that the delay was the prosecution’s doing.
By asking for time to comment on the opposition that Ecleo lawyer Salatandre filed against their motion for inhibition, an order could not immediately be handed down.
“I can cite the prosecution for contempt of this court already,” she said during the conference. None was handed down.
But even before the conference, the prosecution already filed a pleading asking RTC Executive Judge de Gracia to reconsider his reported denial of Econg’s inhibition order.
“The prosecution vehemently opposes the remark of (de Gracia) in the said memorandum order that (Econg) ought not be readily dissuaded by the casual suggestion of a party to abandon a case,” the pleading read.
“As can be gleaned clearly from court records, the numerous instances and statements the prosecution has pointed out when it filed its motion for inhibition cannot simply be deduced…as a casual suggestion,” they argued.
They said they gave much thought and deliberation before moving for Econg’s inhibition.
Econg herself, during the conference, said she fully “studied the case, slept on it and woke up in different sides of the bed” before deciding to inhibit herself.
“I will not reverse myself,” she said.
On the delay that the inhibition is foreseen to cause on the case, the prosecution said a rush “will only result in more injustice to the State, as well as the family of the victim.”
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (May 7, 2008 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here. |
