SC sacks judge in US Marine slay case

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed a Makati City judge whose decision in the 2012 killing of a United States Marine had dismayed the US embassy in Manila.

In a 13-page decision, the high court dismissed from service Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 59 Judge Winlove Dumayas over his July 2, 2014 verdict that downgraded the charge against Crispin de la Paz and Galicano Datu III from murder to homicide.

Records showed that Major George Anikow, then a Makati Bel-Air resident, and four men figured in a brawl on the night of Nov. 24, 2012, after the latter demanded access through a gate going to Rockwell complex. A reportedly drunk Anikow was beaten and stabbed to death.  

Apart from dismissal, the SC also ordered the forfeiture of Dumayas’ retirement benefits with prejudice to re-employment in government. Dumayas is supposed to retire this year.

The SC found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct, saying Dumayas committed “oppressive disregard of the basic requirements of due process” and “misused powers” granted to him by law when he found De la Paz and Datu guilty of only homicide supposedly due to a finding of self-defense as mitigating circumstance even without the accused invoking and proving it in their defense.

The ruling was promulgated on March 6 but obtained by reporters only yesterday.

The SC also did not buy the judge’s finding that the voluntary surrender of the two accused served as ordinary mitigating circumstance.

“It was not shown from the evidence presented that the accused intended to surrender and admit the commission of the criminal; they did not even invoke self-defense during trial,” it explained.

Apart from his verdict, the High Court also cited Dumayas’ sentence of imprisonment of four years, two months and one day to six years, which made the accused eligible for probation.

Lastly, the SC pointed out that 13 other administrative cases were filed against Dumayas from 2003 to 2016, noting that these serve as “evidence of respondent’s stubborn propensity not to follow the rule of law and procedure in rendering judgments and orders.”