SC suspends judge for humiliating questions to child witness
The Supreme Court (SC) has suspended a female family court judge in Laguna for one year without pay due to sexually graphic and humiliating questioning of a 13-year-old rape complaint witness, which indicated prejudgment and bias.
The SC en banc, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting and dated 10 June 2026, found Judge Suwerte Ofrecio of the Family Court, Regional Trial Court, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, guilty of gross misconduct and suspended her for one year and one day. The court warned the judge that repeating the same or a similar offense would warrant a more severe penalty.
Records showed that the case stemmed from a complaint filed by a child and her mother—the private complainants in a criminal case—who alleged that Ofrecio’s questions caused the then 13-year-old minor severe emotional trauma.
In its decision, the SC approved the findings and recommendations of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) regarding Ofrecio’s liability for gross misconduct, stating that several acts showed "a deliberate and conscious disregard of judicial duty." The court noted that during the child’s testimony, Ofrecio "persistently propounded sexually graphic, accusatory, and humiliating questions." According to the high bench, these questions were neither meant to clarify nor necessary to establish the elements of a crime.
"Rather, they betrayed a deliberate choice to confront a minor with degrading insinuations of consent and moral blame. The repeated use of explicit sexual language in interrogating a 13-year-old child-victim cannot be excused as overzealousness; it constitutes the intentional infliction of embarrassment and a willful disregard of the Court’s duty to protect a child witness," the SC declared.
Furthermore, the SC stated that Ofrecio’s remarks regarding the presentation of the child prior to the hearing demonstrated a predetermined belief that the accused was innocent and an intent to discredit the complainant’s case. "Such a remark, made prior to arraignment, evidences conscious prejudgment and bias—a grave deviation from the duty of neutrality," the court added, noting that the judge also displayed reckless indifference to the child's visible distress.
The court observed that the psychological assessment showing the child's moderate-to-severe emotional trauma was a direct and natural consequence of the questioning. These circumstances, the SC ruled, manifest a pattern of behavior revealing bias, prejudgment, and deliberate insensitivity rather than mere inadvertence. Judge Ofrecio’s words and actions displayed a willful intent to violate the law and a flagrant disregard of established judicial standards, thus meeting the requisites of gross misconduct under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
However, the high bench agreed with the JIB's finding that Ofrecio was not liable for abuse and usurpation of authority or gross ignorance of the law.
In her defense, the judge told the JIB that she only asked apt and necessary clarificatory questions, ensured the minor was treated well, and conducted gender-sensitive proceedings. Ofrecio claimed she even called the minor "anak" (child) and showed her leniency, adding that there was no basis for allegations that she made unnecessary utterances prior to arraignment. She also contended that the complaint was filed only after the Court of Appeals denied their petition seeking her inhibition from the case.
Rejecting her defense, the court concluded:
"Accordingly, the Court finds respondent Presiding Judge Suwerte L. Ofrecio, of Branch 6, Family Court, Sta. Cruz, Regional Trial Court, Laguna, guilty of gross misconduct constituting violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct under Rule 140, Section 14(a), of the Rules of Court. The Court imposes upon Judge Ofrecio the penalty of suspension from office without salary and other benefits for a period of one year and one day. She is likewise sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely."