Wednesday, May 28, 2008 Econg wants ‘proper authority’ to rule on her decision to inhibit from Ecleo case
JUDGE Geraldine Faith Econg wants no more of the Ruben Ecleo Jr. parricide case, unless otherwise compelled, and is ignoring a motion submitted by the Philippine Benevolent Missionaries Association (PBMA) “divine master’s” lawyer, asking that she stay on.
In a single-page order, she found it “appropriate not to act or rule on the motion for reconsideration filed by (Ecleo)” and instead opted to wait for “the proper authority to rule on the propriety of the inhibition.”
“It is to be remembered that the (Regional Trial Court) Cebu City executive judge has already issued an order on the matter of (my) inhibition and that this court, together with the parties and opposing counsel, already agreed during the conference called for this matter, to refer the issue to the Supreme Court (SC) through the Office of the Court Administrator,” she said.
Inhibition
Lawyers Alfredo Sipalay and Kit Enriquez, two of the private prosecutors handling the case, moved for Econg’s inhibition early last February.
In their motion, they said Econg had lost “the appearance of impartiality” in the way she has been handling the case.
Cited as example was the way she allegedly gave “free rein” to the defense when they cross-examined prosecution witnesses but “reined in” prosecutors when they cross-examined defense witnesses.
So much so, Enriquez and Sipalay pointed out, that the transcript of stenographic notes made of the cross-examination on one witness, a doctor, reflected 140 points.
2 dates
“The cross-examination lasted two hearing dates,” Sipalay said.
Moreover, Enriquez said, Econg also shows a habit of sustaining the objections of the defense citing bases that the defense lawyers did not raise.
“The court has limited the prosecution in their cross-examination of defense witnesses. It has not only sustained frivolous/canned/repeated objections of the defense, it even sustained objections not on the grounds made by the defense but ‘on a different ground’. And when the prosecution is on a momentum in their cross-examination of defense witnesses, the court repeatedly orders them to limit their questions,” they lamented.
Econg granted the motion for inhibition last April 21 even as she denied the allegations the lawyers raised.
She said the perceived delay in her ruling on the motion is because of several factors, one of which was the unavailability of the doctor Ecleo’s lawyers asked to be subpoenaed, Dr. Roberto Anastacio, to appear in court.
Awaiting
Second, she said, the court’s authority to “revisit” the issue of bail is the subject of a petition for review on certiorari before the SC, which has yet to issue a ruling.
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.
The Ecleo camp, on the other hand, filed a motion for reconsideration, saying it did not agree with Sipalay and Enriquez’s contentions.
Moreover, Executive Judge Fortunato de Gracia Jr. denied the inhibition and wrote to the Supreme Court asking that Econg be directed to continue handling the case.
Econg, in turn, met with the parties in the case and agreed to refer the matter to the SC.
Citing the SC’s ruling in Cariaga vs. Baldado, 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. (KNR)
