Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 140 views

    Iglesia Ni Kristo v. Gironella

    Uploaded by

    ida_chua8023
    Judge Leopoldo B. Gironella was admonished for using inappropriate language in an opinion that offended the Iglesia ni Cristo religious sect. Specifically, the judge characterized the sect's assistance to a witness as a "gimmick", implying insincerity. While the judge claimed he was honestly evaluating evidence, using language that insults or casts doubt on a religious group is unacceptable. The Court acknowledged the judge's right to give opinions but also the need to be careful of language that could offend individuals or groups. The majority ruled an admonition was sufficient in this case given not all judges have an extensive English vocabulary to avoid misusing words.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Iglesia Ni Kristo v. Gironella

    Uploaded by

    ida_chua8023
    140 views3 pages
    Judge Leopoldo B. Gironella was admonished for using inappropriate language in an opinion that offended the Iglesia ni Cristo religious sect. Specifically, the judge characterized the sect's assistance to a witness as a "gimmick", implying insincerity. While the judge claimed he was honestly evaluating evidence, using language that insults or casts doubt on a religious group is unacceptable. The Court acknowledged the judge's right to give opinions but also the need to be careful of language that could offend individuals or groups. The majority ruled an admonition was sufficient in this case given not all judges have an extensive English vocabulary to avoid misusing words.

    Original Description:

    full text

    Original Title

    137. Iglesia Ni Kristo v. Gironella

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Judge Leopoldo B. Gironella was admonished for using inappropriate language in an opinion that offended the Iglesia ni Cristo religious sect. Specifically, the judge characterized the sect's assistance to a witness as a "gimmick", implying insincerity. While the judge claimed he was honestly evaluating evidence, using language that insults or casts doubt on a religious group is unacceptable. The Court acknowledged the judge's right to give opinions but also the need to be careful of language that could offend individuals or groups. The majority ruled an admonition was sufficient in this case given not all judges have an extensive English vocabulary to avoid misusing words.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    140 views3 pages

    Iglesia Ni Kristo v. Gironella

    Uploaded by

    ida_chua8023
    Judge Leopoldo B. Gironella was admonished for using inappropriate language in an opinion that offended the Iglesia ni Cristo religious sect. Specifically, the judge characterized the sect's assistance to a witness as a "gimmick", implying insincerity. While the judge claimed he was honestly evaluating evidence, using language that insults or casts doubt on a religious group is unacceptable. The Court acknowledged the judge's right to give opinions but also the need to be careful of language that could offend individuals or groups. The majority ruled an admonition was sufficient in this case given not all judges have an extensive English vocabulary to avoid misusing words.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    EN BANC

    [A.M. No. 2440-CFI : July 25, 1981.]


    IGLESIA NI CRISTO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE LEOPOLDO B. GIRONELLA, COURT OF
    FIRST INSTANCE OF ABRA, Respondent.
    RESOLUTION
    FERNANDO, J.:
    It is easily understandable why Mr. Teofilo C. Ramos, Sr. on behalf of the Iglesia ni Cristo
    would take umbrage on the portion of the opinion of respondent Judge Leopoldo B. Gironella
    in the course of acquitting the defendants accused of Triple Rape. Thus: "it will also be
    observed that Florencio Ola was released on July 27, 1979, yet no action was taken by him
    from July 28, 1979, to August 21 to denounce to the proper authorities what allegedly had
    happened to his wife Merlinda Ola. Merlinda Ola, however, is a member of the Iglesia ni
    Cristo. Her husband Florencio Ola and her in-laws were still in the process of being
    convinced to become members of the Iglesia ni Cristo. As testified to by complainant
    Merlinda Ola, she also consulted her brothers of the Iglesia ni Cristo as it was thru their
    assistance that made possible the institution of this action. Her husband and in-laws are
    now members of the Iglesia ni Cristo. It cannot, therefore, be discarded that the filing of the
    charge was resorted to as a gimmick of showing to the community of La Paz, Abra in
    particular and to the public in general that the Iglesia ni Cristo unhesitatingly helps its
    member of his/her problem." 1 There was absolutely no need for the last sentence therein
    being included. Respondent judge was charged with ignorance of the law and conduct
    unbecoming a member of the bench. While the offending portion of such opinion is not
    impressed with such gravity, disciplinary action nonetheless is warranted.
    As noted in the report of Court Administrator Lorenzo Relova, adopting the memorandum of
    Deputy Court Administrator Romeo D. Mendoza: "Respondent judge, in his comment dated
    January 20, 1981, alleged that the charges made against him by herein complainant are
    unfair and unfounded as the decision rendered by him in Criminal Case No. 2003, acquitting
    the three (3) accused of Triple Rape, was prepared by him in the honest conviction that the
    evidence adduced at the trial of said case was not sufficiently clear to establish the guilt of
    the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Respondent judge further contended that the
    statements complained of are his honest appraisal and evaluation of the evidence for the
    prosecution, particularly the statement of the complainant witness (Merlinda Ola), in
    addition to the fact that she had always been accompanied in court during the trial by
    Ministers of the Iglesia ni Cristo and numerous members of the sect." 2 There was a reply
    on the part of complainant, Teofilo Ramos, Sr. who, according to the report, "claimed that
    the statement made by the herein respondent judge that the complaining witness had
    always been accompanied in court during the trial by Ministers of the Iglesia ni Cristo and
    numerous members of said sect, was uncalled for and intended to further malign the Iglesia
    ni Cristo, thereby seriously putting under doubt respondent judge's competency and
    integrity as a magistrate of the law. He also claimed that the inconsistencies in the
    testimony of the rape victim in the said criminal case were minor matters that did not
    disprove the commission of the crime of rape by the members of the police authorities as
    well as their identities. Complainant proferred as an excuse for said inconsistencies the fact
    that the victim is a simple and unlearned housewife and no malicious motive or evil intent
    had been shown at the trial which had impelled said victim to point an accusing finger
    against the three (3) accused in the subject criminal case." 3 In the state of the record, it
    c ranad

    c ranad

    c ranad

    was submitted in such report that "on the basis of the pleadings and other documents of
    record, respondent judge's liability or lack of it can already be determined without need of
    further investigation. Accordingly, the undersigned finds it unnecessary to refer this case to
    a Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation. This Court, in the case of Sta. Maria. v.
    Ubay, held that 'cumbersome, time-consuming procedure of investigation need not be
    resorted to if the allegations in the complaint, the comments thereon, and the documents
    presented provide ample basis for a resolution of the complainant's charges.'" 4
    This administrative complaint, therefore, is ripe for resolution. The use of the word
    "gimmick" could offend the sensibilities of the members of Iglesia ni Cristo. It is not
    inaccurate to state that as understood in the popular sense, it is not exactly complimentary.
    It may indicate lack of sincerity. It is a ploy or device to persuade others to take a course of
    action, which without it may not be acceptable. While it would be going too far to assert
    that intentional deceit is employed, it could have that effect. The Latin maxim, Suggestio
    falsi est suppressio veri, comes to mind. It is to be expected that a religious sect accused of
    having to resort to a "gimmick" to gain converts would certainly be far from pleased.
    Freedom of religion 5 implies respect for every creed. No one, much less a public official, is
    privileged to characterize the actuation of its adherents in a derogatory sense. It should not
    be lost sight of either that the attendance at a trial of many members of a religious sect
    finds support in the Constitution. The right to a public trial is safeguarded by the
    fundamental law. 6 No adverse implication can arise from such an occurrence. It goes
    without saying that if their presence would create disorder, it lies within the power of a trial
    judge to maintain the proper decorum.
    The Court, however, takes into consideration the fact that the right of a court to give
    expression to its views is equally deserving of protection. At any rate, it is not an affront to
    rationality if note be taken that not all members of the bench are possessed of such an
    extensive vocabulary in the English language that the misuse of a word is to be followed
    automatically by reprisal of a severe character. While under the circumstances, some
    members of the Court are of the opinion that censure is warranted, it is the view of the
    majority that an admonition would suffice.
    WHEREFORE, Judge Leopoldo B. Gironella is hereby admonished to be much more careful in
    the use of language likely to offend an individual or religious sect.
    Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad
    Santos, De Castro and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes
    1. Rollo, decision, 10-11.
    2. Report dated July 6, 1981, 2.
    3. Ibid, 2-3.
    4. Ibid, 4. Sta. Maria v. Ubay, Adm. Matter No. 595-CFI, December 31, 1978, in reported in 87
    SCRA 179.
    5. According to Article IV, Section 8 of the Constitution: "No law shall be made respecting an
    establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and
    enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
    forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
    6. According to Article IV, Section 19 of the Constitution: "In all criminal prosecutions, the
    accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to

    be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
    against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, . ."
    c ra

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy