Tacorda v. Clemens Digest

2.
Tacorda v Clemens
Facts:
 The instant case stems from a Complaint-Affidavit filed by Atty. Tacorda charging Judge Clemens, of RTC of
Calbayog City, for:
a. Gross ignorance of the law and
b. Alleged violation of the Child Witness Examination Rule
 Atty. Tacorda claimed that on 9 January 2012, he presented Odel Gedraga (Gedraga) as witness, then 15
years old, in a Criminal Case entitled People v. Belleza pending before the sala of Judge Clemens
o The criminal case involved the alleged murder of Beinvinido Gedraga, Gedraga s father
 Atty. Tacorda alleged that the Child Witness Examination Rule was not properly followed by Judge Clemens,
based on the following events during trial:
1. The trial in open court when Gedraga was presented lasted from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., with only
a 2-minute break
2. That in the course of the proceedings Judge Clemens made certain rulings that were not
implemented, citing a single example:
 Judge Clemen’s alleged failure to castigate defense counsel Atty. Mijares for standing
beside the witness despite Judge Clemen’s earlier order to Atty. Mijares and the court
stenographer to keep their distance
 Due to this incident, Gedraga felt humiliated and exhausted
3. Although the Calendar of Scheduled Cases showed several other cases to be heard, Judge Clemens
continued the hearing for three (3) hours, during which Gedraga was subjected to the long ordeal
and rigors of trial
4. That despite his manifestation to let the official interpreter personally interpret the questions and
answers, Judge Clemens remained passive on so many occasions. Thus, it was Atty. Mijares who
also did the interpretations.
 Atty. Tacorda attached to the Complaint the Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Gedraga
o The latter echoed therein the allegations of Atty. Tacorda
o That he was exhausted after sitting on the witness stand from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. with only a
2-minute break.
 In his Comment, Judge Clemens belied the allegations as having no basis:
o That he did not know that allowing Gedraga to testify from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. with only a
two-minute break was a violation of the Child Witness Examination Rule.
o He countered that it was Atty. Tacorda who demanded that the trial start at 8:30 a.m.
o That it was Atty. Tacorda who conducted a long direct examination.
o That the cross-examination of the witness by the defense lawyers, Atty. Mijares and Atty.
Monsanto, were in accordance with existing procedures.
o With respect to the two-minute break, it was even Atty. Monsanto, and not Atty. Tacorda, who
requested it.
o That the supposed two-minute break actually lasted 10 minutes
 Judge Clemens vehemently denied letting Atty. Mijares and the court interpreter surround Gedraga.
 Respondent judge cited the Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN):
Atty. Jerome Tacorda:

Your Honor please, may I ask the Court that the Interpreter as well as the defense counsel will not
surround the witness. The public is entitled to see the demeanor of the witness and in accordance
with the Court procedure specially that this is a child witness. The defense counsel will maintain a
distance because there might be an intimidation, your Honor.
Court:
All right, do not surround the witness.

Thank you, your Honor, for the wisdom of the court.
Atty. Allan Mijares:

Your Honor, I would like to make my manifestation that from the view point of the public, the----
(Interrupted)
I am making my manifestation, your honor. The child was not being surrounded, in fact, everyone
was supposedly facing the public and he was not intimidated, he was being aided.

There is already a ruling, your Honor.

And the intention is to aid and not to intimidate.

Your Honor, that is the intention, but my concern is the ruling of the court.
Court:
Anyway, do not cover the witness.
Atty. Alan Mijares:

Anyway, we submit your honor.
 Based on the foregoing, Judge Clemens claimed that he did not violate the Child Witness Examination Rule
because, the demand of Atty. Tacorda was granted.
 If this accusation were true, the latter could have asked the Court to hold Atty. Mijares in contempt of court
for violating the order not to surround the witness, but complainant did not.
 Judge Clemens further explained that it was not true that he let Atty. Mijares do the interpretation.
 Allegedly, when Atty. Tacorda made a manifestation to that effect, respondent Judge immediately took
appropriate action, as indicated by the TSN:

Your Honor, we request to read back the transcript your Honor, and not seek the statement from
the defense counsel, since he already closed his question your Honor.
Court:
Never mind, anyway you continue.

May I move for the record, your honor, but my purpose is in consonance with the Supreme Court
Circular that in case there is a question as to the presentation--- (Interrupted)

Actually there is no question on the statement being interpreted, only that the interpreter has a
hard time interpreting the statement in tagalog.

Your honor, our point is the court of record. What is more important that there is the official
stenographer and with this kind of machinery that it be recorded officially in accordance with
hierarchy in the plantilla of the Supreme Court.
Court:
Overruled, you continue your interpretation, we are wasting our time, there are other cases to
be tried. Continue, by the way, Rhea, do not ask the defense counsel, you interpret because that
is your duty.

I pray your honor, that the statement of the judge be duly recorded to inform the interpreter
about her duty and not to ask the defense counsel about the interpretation because it is her
duty.

Your Honor, we only have good intentions here. This representation and was just observed by
the court that I’m just trying to aid here because apparently there is an apparent lapse of
memory, so we are trying to lead only, your honor.
 Judge Clemens refused to accept any fault as to the duration of the examination
 He explained that Atty. Tacorda conducted a very long direct examination of the witness
 It was only when Atty. Monsanto had already finished her cross-examination after Atty. Mijares finished
his, that Atty. Tacorda asked for a continuance.
 The request was at first denied supposedly because Atty. Monsanto had said that her cross-examination
would be short.
 When respondent judge noticed that this proceeding was taking too long, he granted the motion for
postponement
 He cited the TSN as follows:

Your Honor, at this juncture, may I be allowed to speak and manifest that our hearing started at
8:30 o’clock in the morning and today it is closing to 11:00 and there are other cases to be heard,
and in fact this case is set to February 22, secondly your honor…’
Court:
Is your cross still long?
Atty. Vevelyn Monsanto:

Not too long, your Honor.

Secondly, your Honor, I think the witness is already exhausted, so, I move for the continuance,
with all due respect to the opposing counsel your Honor, and because there are too many
calendar of cases today, and it is already 11:00 o’clock in the morning, and we have to pave way
to the other cases.
xxxx
Court:
Continue, anyway the defense counsel is still not through and we are receiving complaints, and
also we are observing the one (1) day cross examination rule. Continue, anyway, it is not 11:00
yet.
xxxx
Atty. Jerome Tacorda

At this juncture, your Honor, I am reiterating my compassionate motion to have for the
continuance, since under the Child Witness Protection law, if the witness who is a child is
exhausted, he has been in the witness stand since 8:30 your Honor.
Court
You said your cross is short only.
Atty. Vevelyn Monsanto

That will also depend on the answer of the witness, your honor.
Court
All right, we will grant the motion for a continuance because the Court is not sure you have a
short cross examination.
Atty. Allan Mijares

Your Honor, in the interest of Justice, we would like to ask the indulgence of the Honorable Court
that the testimony of the witness be terminated today in pursuance to the mandate of the
Supreme Court on the day-witness rule and besides your honor, as we would like to be
reiterating again and again, we are hearing in this case on the petition for bail.
This witness would be the last witness for the prosecution for the purpose of the petition for bail,
and in the interest of justice, we have sufficiently heard his testimony so we will terminate his
testimony now, so that, this hearing on the petition for bail for the accused be terminated today,
so that, there will be no needless prolonging the proceeding. That is why, we are earnestly
reiterating your Honor, that this petition for bail be terminated as soon as possible, your Honor.
Court:
Denied because the counsel questions will still be long and the Court has also to try other cases
and besides, the witness had been testifying for a long time already from 8:30 to 11:00 o’clock.
 The OCA’s Report:

o Recommended that charges against Judge Clemens be dismissed
o That, aside from bare allegations, no other proof was adduced by Atty. Tacorda to substantiate his
claims
o On the other hand, respondent judge was able to establish the falsity of the claims against him.
o The TSN showed that every time Atty. Tacorda would point out an error in the conduct of the trial,
respondent judge would promptly correct the error.
 The OCA further said that, in administrative proceedings, the presumption that the respondent has
regularly performed the latter’s duties would prevail and that the complainant has the burden of proving
the contrary by substantial evidence.
 Charges based on suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.
 The OCA explained that for respondent judge to be held administratively liable for gross ignorance of the
law, the acts complained of must be gross or patent.
 To constitute gross ignorance of the law, not only must the acts be contrary to existing law and
jurisprudence, but they must also be motivated by bad faith, fraud, malice or dishonesty
 In this case, the OCA found that Atty. Tacorda failed to prove that the acts of Judge Clemens were ill-
motivated.
Issue: Whether Judge Clemens is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for supposedly violating the
Child Witness Examination Rule.
Ruling:
 NO
 The acts of Judge Clemens were far from being ill-motivated and in bad faith as to justify any administrative
liability on his part.
 A complete reading of the TSN reveals that he was vigilant in his conduct of the proceedings
 In the instances mentioned in the Complaint-Affidavit, he had been attentive to the manifestations made
by Atty. Tacorda and had acted accordingly and with dispatch
 It is doubtful that Judge Clemens failed to implement the directives he had issued during the conduct of the
trial.
 Based on the TSN, Atty. Tacorda did not have to make repeated manifestations to respondent Judge after
pointing out that the defense counsel tended to crowd the witness and/or that the court interpreter should
be the one to translate the testimony.
 Further, contrary to the allegations of Atty. Tacorda, the TSN showed that respondent Judge was very much
concerned with following the proper conduct of trial and ensuring that the One-Day Examination of Witness
Rule was followed
 But at the same time, he was sensitive to the fact that the witness was already exhausted, having testified
for almost three hours

Tacorda v. Clemens Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tacorda v. Clemens Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tacorda v. Clemens Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2.

Atty. Jerome Tacorda:

Atty. Jerome Tacorda:

Atty. Allan Mijares:

Atty. Jerome Tacorda:

Atty. Allan Mijares:

Atty. Jerome Tacorda:

Atty. Alan Mijares:

Atty. Jerome Tacorda:

Atty. Jerome Tacorda:

Atty. Allan Mijares:

Atty. Jerome Tacorda:

Atty. Jerome Tacorda:

Atty. Allan Mijares:

Atty. Jerome Tacorda:

Atty. Vevelyn Monsanto:

Atty. Jerome Tacorda:

Atty. Jerome Tacorda

Atty. Vevelyn Monsanto

Atty. Allan Mijares

 The OCA’s Report:

You might also like