AAA AND BBB, COMPLAINANTS, VS. HON. SUWERTE L. OFRECIO, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 6, FAMILY COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.

AAA and BBB versus Judge Ofrecio

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by AAA, a thirteen-year-old minor, and her mother BBB, against Presiding Judge Suwerte L. Ofrecio of the Family Court, Branch 6, Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. The complainants charge the judge with gross misconduct, abuse of authority, usurpation of authority, and gross ignorance of the law arising from her conduct in the criminal case for violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610, where AAA was the child complainant. The case matters because it fixes the standard of judicial temperament toward child witnesses and confirms that a judge who humiliates a child victim in open court commits gross misconduct, not mere error of judgment.

Procedural History

The complainants first filed a Motion to Inhibit before the Family Court, which Judge Ofrecio had already announced she would deny. The complainants then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which in its Decision dated July 26, 2022 held that the Motion for Inhibition lacked the conformity of the public prosecutor and that there was no clear and convincing evidence of a valid ground for inhibition. The administrative complaint was referred to the Judicial Integrity Board. Its Office of the Executive Director, in a Report and Recommendation dated January 18, 2024, dismissed the complaint as premature. The Judicial Integrity Board itself, in its Report dated October 8, 2024, found Judge Ofrecio guilty of gross misconduct and recommended dismissal from the service. The administrative matter then came before the Supreme Court, which adopted and approved the findings and recommendation of the Judicial Integrity Board.

Facts

AAA and BBB were the private complainants in a criminal case for violation of Section 5(b) of Republic Act Number 7610, which was raffled to the sala of Judge Ofrecio. The court set the arraignment and pre-trial conference for September 3 and 10, 2019. On September 3, 2019, before the arraignment even began, Judge Ofrecio remarked to BBB that the presentation of the child was weak because the two allegedly had a relationship, and that the accused would be acquitted. When BBB protested, the judge insisted that a child over twelve years of age requires lack of consent, and observed that the accused had already been in jail for seventeen days.

After the arraignment, the judge called AAA for direct examination, which lasted about two and a half hours. The judge took over the questioning from the public prosecutor and propounded sexually graphic, accusatory, and humiliating questions, asking why the child did not bite the accused's penis, why she kept meeting him, and whether she enjoyed the acts. BBB, though outside the courtroom, heard the judge raise her voice and interfere with the prosecution's examination. When BBB asked that the child be allowed a break, the judge replied dismissively. AAA cried profusely after leaving the courtroom.

BBB filed a Motion to Inhibit on September 9, 2019. On September 10, 2019, the judge announced her intention to deny it and called a police officer for direct examination instead of the scheduled cross-examination of AAA; on September 12, 2019, she called another police officer who was not among the prosecution witnesses. When the complainants engaged a private prosecutor, the judge sent everyone out of the courtroom. AAA later underwent a psychological assessment, and the psychologist found her suffering from moderate to severe emotional trauma fitting the criteria for Acute Stress Disorder, traceable to her courtroom experience.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge Ofrecio should be held administratively liable for gross misconduct, abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law.
• Whether or not the 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability applies retroactively to the administrative case.
• Whether or not the judge's acts constituted gross misconduct through flagrant disregard of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of the General Provisions of the 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability provides:

SECTION 1. Transitory clause. – The Code shall be applied to all pending and future cases, except to the extent that, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, its retroactive application would not be feasible or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were filed shall govern.

This provision authorizes the Court to apply the new Code to the pending administrative case.

Section 19 of A.M. No. 00-4-07-SC, the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, provides:

Section 19. Mode of questioning. - The court shall exercise control over the questioning of children so as to (1) facilitate the ascertainment of the truth, (2) ensure that questions are stated in a form appropriate to the developmental level of the child, (3) protect children from harassment or undue embarrassment, and (4) avoid waste of time.

The court may allow the child witness to testify in a narrative form.

This is the rule the judge flagrantly disregarded in her questioning of AAA.

Canon II, Section 2 of the 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability provides:

SECTION 2. Fealty to the role as a judge. — A judge shall be faithful to one's role in the administration of justice. In the discharge of official functions, a judge shall ensure that one's conduct is above reproach and is perceived to be so.

This canon binds the judge to conduct that is above reproach in the discharge of official functions.

Canon III, Section 2 of the same Code provides:

SECTION 2. Appearance of impartiality. — In the discharge of duties, a judge shall not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial to a reasonable observer, who is referred to as a reasonable, fair-minded, and informed person.

This canon is violated by the judge's pre-judgment and bias against the child complainant.

Canon III, Section 10 of the same Code provides:

SECTION 10. Prohibition against improper comments. — During the pendency of a case or when there is a likelihood that a case could come before them, a judge shall not knowingly make any comment in and out of court that could reasonably be expected or perceived to affect its outcome, impair the fairness of the process, or diminish the public's confidence in the court's impartiality.

This canon is violated by the judge's remark, made before arraignment, that the accused would be acquitted.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held Judge Ofrecio administratively liable for gross misconduct constituting violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Misconduct is a transgression of an established and definite rule of action, particularly unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. It is gross when substantial evidence shows corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. The Court found that the judge's acts met these requisites under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

On the second issue, the Court ruled that the 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability governs the case, finding no circumstance rendering its retroactive application unfeasible or unjust.

On the third issue, the Court found a deliberate and conscious disregard of judicial duty. First, the judge's remark before the hearing showed a predetermined belief in the accused's innocence. Second, her sexually graphic and humiliating questions to a thirteen-year-old child betrayed a deliberate choice to confront the minor with degrading insinuations of consent and moral blame. Third, as a Family Court judge she is presumed to know the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, and her continued explicit questioning showed conscious defiance of it. Fourth, even after the child showed distress, the judge dismissed the request for a recess. Fifth, the psychological assessment confirmed trauma traceable to the courtroom experience. Taken together, these acts showed willful intent to violate the law and flagrant disregard of established judicial standards.

Doctrine

A judge must possess not only legal competence but the highest judicial temperament, marked by sobriety, equanimity, and self-restraint, and must conduct himself or herself so as to uphold the dignity of the court and inspire public confidence. Misconduct is gross when substantial evidence shows corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. Intent, though internal, may be inferred from conduct, context, and attendant circumstances. Under Section 19 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, the court must control the questioning of children to protect them from harassment or undue embarrassment; a judge who propounds sexually explicit and humiliating questions to a child victim flagrantly disregards this rule and commits gross misconduct.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Ofrecio guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed her from the service, with forfeiture of all or part of her benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations, without forfeiture of accrued leave credits.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a judge who humiliates a child witness with sexually explicit questions flagrantly disregards the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness and commits gross misconduct. Examiners use this case to test judicial temperament, the protection of child witnesses, and the retroactive application of the 2025 Code of Judicial Conduct and Accountability.