By JOSEPH G. LARIOSA

(© 2011 Journal Group Link International)

Former Filipino Priest’s Sentence of 200 Years in Prison Will Become the Record for Filipino Convicts in the United States

C HICAGO, Illinois (jGLi) – Convicted Filipino defrocked-priest Rodney Lee Rodis has until Feb. 15, 2011, to file an appeal before the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., if he wants to escape from his 200 years of imprisonment.

The Supreme Court of Virginia in Richmond refused to entertain his appeal last Nov. 17, 2010, to dismiss the embezzlement case filed against him by the Commonwealth of Virginia, even after the Filipino priest invoked his First-Amendment right on the separation of church and state.

In an e-mail to this reporter, his lawyer, John “Jack” R. Maus, said, “The Virginia Supreme Court refused to consider Fr. Rodis’ appeal. That’s as far as we can go at the state court level. While Fr. Rodis is able to seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court, my appointment as his lawyer in the state court system does not include a federal appeal. As far as I know, he can’t afford to hire a lawyer.”

If Fr. Rodis can find a lawyer or if he files as a “pro se” (act as his own lawyer), “he has until Feb. 15, 2011, to file a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court,” according to Brian Gottstein, director of Communication of the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia.

Rodis is “currently serving a federal sentence in a federal prison in Butner, North Carolina. He is scheduled for release on March 22, 2012, from Butner, and will then be transferred to Virginia Department of Corrections custody, where he will serve a sentence of 200 years imprisonment with 187 suspended for 13 active years. His Virginia restitution is $432,629.37,” Gottstein added. “There is no parole in the federal system or in Virginia. If the federal and state restitution involved the same losses, Rodis could not be required to pay twice. Otherwise, we believe, he’s liable for both his state and federal restitutions.”

In his appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court, Rodis, 54, and a native of Cagayan de Oro city in the Philippines, said the Court of Appeals of Virginia “erred in affirming the trial court’s denial” of his right against prosecution barred by Virginia Code as a subsequent prosecution for the same criminal acts.

He also cited the United States Supreme Court ruling in Watson v. Jones (1871) that “it is impermissible for secular courts, such as those of the Commonwealth of Virginia, to get involved in disputes that involve the interpretation of church law relating to internal governance, doctrine, etc.”

Commonwealth Attorney Eugene Murphy, who led in the prosecution of Rev. Rodis, did not even file an answer to Rev. Rodis’ brief before the Virginia Supreme Court.

Saying that secular courts do not have jurisdiction to hear his case, Rodis thru his lawyer John “Jack” R. Maus invoked the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court that “whenever the questions of discipline or faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them, in their application to the case before them.”

Rodis also asked the court to rule if the funds that he received were property of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, who was his employer, or those of two parishes to which the checks were made payable and which Rodis served.

Settling the checks ownership will determine who was the actual “victim” of embezzlement without delving into church law,” Rodis explained.

A case similar to Rodis’ was the State v. Burckhard (1999) that involved a Catholic parish priest being charged with embezzlement of more than $100,000 of funds contributed to St. Catherine’s Church in Valley City, North Dakota. This favored Fr. Buchard as the North Dakota Supreme Court “could not resolve the issue of Burckhard’s authority without impermissibly delving into matters relating to church governance and interpretation and application of church (canon) law.”

Accused of Embezzling a Million Dollars from Church Collections

R odis was accused of embezzling nearly $1-million from collections from St. Jude Catholic Church in Mineral and Immaculate Conception Church in Bumpass, both in Virginia, and both under the Diocese of Richmond.

Rodis was prosecuted by a Commonwealth Attorney for 10-count indictment for embezzling $1-M. In the middle of his prosecution by the Commonwealth Attorney, the federal prosecutors charged him with 13-count indictment. When he was sentenced by federal court to 13 years in prison, parishioners protested his imprisonment as lenient and does not warrant the gravity of his crime.

When the Commonwealth Attorney that prosecuted Rodis was re-elected, he re-indicted Rodis.

As a result, after the two-day jury trial on Oct. 29 and 30, 2008, before the Louisa County Circuit Court, Rodis was found guilty of all 10 counts of indictment and recommended the maximum possible sentence, that is, 20 years on each count, for a total of 200 years. # # #

Editor’s Note: To contact the author, readers may please e-mail him at lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net.