|
Judge sacked for immorality
By:
KIT BAGAIPO
A
municipal trial court judge was dismissed by the Supreme Court
(SC) for making sexual advances and committing lascivious
acts against two women in a public place.
The
high tribunal, in an en banc ruling, found Judge Manuel de
Castro of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Jagna
and Garcia-Hernandez, guilty of gross misconduct and immorality.
De
Castro is ordered dismissed by the high tribunal after he
was deemed to have admitted certain allegations in an administrative
complaint which accused him of rape.
The
dismissed judge is also required to show cause why he should
not be disbarred as a member of the Philippine Bar by the
SC.
While
the allegation of rape was not proven due to the execution
of an affidavit of retraction and withdrawal by the complainant,
the Court still ruled that "substantial evidence, circumstantial
and testimonial, obtain to hold respondent judge (de Castro)
liable for gross misconduct and immorality."
|
|
|
In
its decision, the Court stated that De Castro's acts
of teasing a waitress in a videoke bar about her "scant
dress," kissing her on the cheek and another waitress
behind the ear, and attempting to enter the bathroom
while one of the waitresses was inside, with his companions
egging him on and in full view of the other drinking
individuals in the bar "translate into a violation
of the Code of Judicial Conduct as they reflect upon
respondent judge's utter disregard of public opinion
of the reputation of the judiciary which he represents."
The
Court stressed that De Castro failed to conduct himself
in a way that will promote confidence and respect for
the judiciary.
|
"He
deported himself in a manner most unbecoming a judge as a
model of moral uprightness…The audacity under which the
same were committed and the seeming impunity with which they
were perpetrated shock one's sense of morality," the
high tribunal's ruling stated.
The
Court noted that while De Castro denied the charge of rape
and alleged that the said was filed for the purpose of harassing
him, he failed to prove why, how, and by whom the harassment
was done.
De
Castro never attributed to the complainant, according to the
Court, any reasonable motive for her to accuse him of rape,
nor did he categorically deny the severe allegations against
him by the two waitresses.
"Respondent
judge has made much of the affidavit of retraction and withdrawal
of complaint upon which the Prosecutor's Office of Bohol predicated
its dismissal of the underlying complaint for rape,"
said the Court, adding that such a recantation is extremely
unreliable inasmuch as it can be easily obtained from a poor
and ignorant witness.
Furthermore,
the Court stated that based on the social standing and economic
status of the complainant, the combination of both factors
"seems to explain why complainant affixed her signature
to the recanting affidavit."
|
