Cavite judge dismissed from service over error in hazing case
Marc Andre Marcos CONTRIBUTED PHOTO
The Supreme Court has dismissed from service a Cavite Regional Trial Court Judge after she was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law for recalling her order of arrest of members of San Beda-based Lex Leonum fraternity over the hazing rites that led to the death of first year law student Marc Andrei Marcos and eventually dismissing the case against them.
Ordered dismissed from service was Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller, Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court Branch 90 of Dasmariñas City in Cavite.
The high court also forfeited her retirement benefits and prohibited her re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and -controlled corporations.
In its 18-page per curiam decision, the high court affirmed the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCAD) that Judge Cabrera-Faller is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and for violating Rule 1.01 and Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The high court, however, modified its recommendation. Instead of imposing a six-month suspension from the service without salary as recommended by the OCA, the Court held that the respondent judge should be dismissed from the service.
The case stemmed from the complaint filed by retired Judge Martonino R. Marcos, grandfather of law student who died during the initiation rites of Lex Leonum Fraternitas on July 29, 2012 at the Veluz Farm in Dasmariñas, Cavite.
READ: Hazing kills another San Beda law student
After a preliminary investigation was conducted, the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) recommended the prosecution of several members of Lex Leonum for violation of R.A. No. 8049 (Anti Hazing Law). The OCP also recommended that Cornelio Marcelo, the person assigned to be the buddy or “angel” of Marc Andrei during the initiation rites, be discharged as state witness.
Thereafter, an Information for violation of R.A. No. 8049 was filed against accused Jenno Antonio Villanueva, Emmanuel Jefferson Santiago, Richard Rosales, Mohamad yzee Alim, Chino Daniel Amante, Julius Arsenio Alcancia, Edrich Gomez, Dexter Circa, Gian Angelo Veluz, Glenn Meduen, alias Tonton, alias Fidel, alias E.R., and alias Paulo, before the RTC.
Judge Cabrera-Faller issued an Order dated June 3, 2013 directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest and, at the same time, the archiving of the entire record of the case until the arrest of the accused.
But on June 13, 2013 Judge Cabrera-Faller issued another Order directing the recall of the warrants of the three accused: Rosales, Alim, and Amante, which she claimed were issued inadvertently.
On August 15, 2013 acting on the separate motions for the determination of probable cause and to withhold issuance of warrants of arrest and an extremely urgent motion to quash warrant of arrest, Judge Cabrera-Faller quashed, lifted and set aside the warrant of arrest dated June 3, 2013 and dismissed the case in so far as all the accused named in the information is concerned.
Judge Marcos thus filed this administrative complaint against Judge Cabrera-Faller.
In dismissing the case, Judge Cabrera-Faller, explained that she found no probable cause to indict the accused for violation of R.A. No. 8049 as the statement of Marcelo and those of the other accused failed to show that the accused conspired to inflict fatal initiation rites injuries on Marc Andrei.
The high court, in its ruling said “without a quibble, Judge Cabrera-Faller demonstrated lack of knowledge and understanding of the basic rules of procedure when she issued the questioned orders.”
The high court said the Judge abdicated her judicial function when she “inadvertently recalled the warrants of arrest.”
“It could only mean that she failed to comply with her constitutional mandate to personally determine the existence of probable cause before ordering the issuance of the warrants of arrest,” the high court said.
The Court pointed out, “[m]ost probably, she did her duty to examine and analyze the attached documents but because she took pity on the young accused (never mind the victim), she chose to ignore or disregard them.”
READ: Raps junked vs frat men in hazing death; kin stunned
In dismissing the case, the high court said they cannot ignore Judge Cabrera-Faller’s lack of prudence in such hasty dismissal because it is “the Court’s duty to protect and preserve public confidence in our judicial system.”
The Court stressed “the judge’s action must neither impair the substantial rights of the accused nor the right of the State and the offended party to due process of law.”
The high court reminded judges of their duty “to render just, correct, and impartial decisions at all times in a manner free of any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality, or integrity. Public confidence in the Judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of judges. The appearance of bias or prejudice can be as damaging to public confidence and the administration of justice as actual bias or prejudice.” IDL
