Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-06-1619)
Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-06-1619)
Facts:
Jesusa Odonel Genil v. Judge Rogaciano Y. Rivera, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1619, January 23, 2006, the Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court. The complainant is Jesusa Odonel Genil, barangay captain of Amio, Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental; the respondent is Judge Rogaciano Y. Rivera of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Catalina.On May 30, 2003 a minor constituent of Genil, Nancy Silfaban, filed three criminal complaints in the MTC: two against Roderick Sales (rape and forcible abduction with rape; Criminal Case Nos. 3791 and 3792) and one against Janice Sales for violation of R.A. 7610 (Criminal Case No. 3793). Respondent did not conduct the preliminary investigation on the two rape complaints until August 13, 2003; he had not acted on the complaint against Janice Sales for months thereafter. During the August 13 hearing, Nancy (a minor) testified; Judge Orlando Velasco's investigatory report later found that she was subjected to ridicule and humiliation, that the public (including counsel and a police officer who acted as prosecutor) laughed, and that respondent even "ordered her to turn clockwise."
Complainant filed two letter-complaints on September 11, 2003 with the Office of the Chief Justice alleging respondent's misconduct and sought change of venue. The matters were referred to RTC Judge Orlando C. Velasco for investigation. Respondent filed a Comment (Oct. 9, 2003) denying that anyone laughed, defending his conduct on the ground that Nancy appeared mature and that no request to exclude the public was made; he also explained delay in acting on the cases by characterizing the evidence as weak and inconsistent. The public prosecutor (SPO4 Cadungog) and defense counsel also filed comments denying the laughing incident; defense counsel raised no objection to transfer of venue.
Judge Velasco's Investigation Report (Oct. 16, 2003) found Nancy was humiliated and that respondent had not transmitted resolutions on the rape complaints to the Provincial Prosecutor; Criminal Case No. 3793 remained unacted upon. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in a February 14, 2005 Report, recommended docketing the administrative case as regular and fining respondent P21,000 for gross ignorance of the law, noting: (1) undue delay in acting on complaints and in transmitting resolutions contrary to Rule 112 (Secs. 3 and 5); (2) allowing cross-examination and failure to protect the child-witness contrary to the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (A.M. No. 00-4-07-SC, secs. 19, 23); and (3) blatant insensitivity to a child victim. Respondent later filed a Compliance (June 3, 2005) appending the provincial prosecutor's resolution dismissing Criminal Case No. 3793. The Court required manifestations and took the matter for resolution.
Issues:
- Did Judge Rogaciano Y. Rivera commit gross ignorance of the law and procedure by permitting cross‑examination of a child-witness, failing to exclude the public, and by unduly delaying action and transmission of resolutions on the criminal complaints?
- If guilty, what administrative sanction is appropriate?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)