Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Canon 6-Facturan v. Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, JR., A.C. No. 11069, PERLAS-BERNABE, J. (8 June 2016)
Canon 6-Facturan v. Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, JR., A.C. No. 11069, PERLAS-BERNABE, J. (8 June 2016)
Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2016 > June 2016 Decisions > A.C. No.
11069, June 08, 2016 - RONALDO C. FACTURAN, Complainant, v. PROSECUTOR
ALFREDO L. BARCELONA, JR., Respondent.:
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
The Facts
Complainant alleged that on June 4, 2004, he filed a complaint for qualified theft
against Pilar Mendoza (Mendoza), Jose Sarcon @ Jo (Sarcon), Elezar Barcelona
(Elezar), Rodrigo Arro (Arro), and Joseph Montero (Montero; collectively, Mendoza, et
al.) before the Provincial Prosecution Office of Alabel, Sarangani Province. The case was
docketed as I.S. No. 04-211 and assigned for preliminary investigation to Prosecutor
Faisal D. Amerkhan (Prosecutor Amerkhan). 2
Thereafter, or on October 26, 2004, Prosecutor Amerkhan forwarded the records of the
case, together with his Resolution recommending the prosecution of Mendoza, et
al. and the corresponding Information, to respondent for his approval and signature.
However, respondent neither approved nor signed the resolution. Instead, he removed
the case records from the office of the Provincial Prosecutor and brought them to his
residence, where they were kept in his custody. It appears that the respondents in I.S.
No. 04-211 were personally known to respondent, as Elezar is his cousin, while
Mendoza, Sarcon, Arro, and Montero are his close friends. 3
On July 20, 2005, complainant learned that the case records had been turned over to
the Provincial Prosecution Office but without Prosecutor Amerkhan's Resolution and
Information. Neither did respondent approve nor act upon the same, prompting
complainant to file the present complaint for disbarment against him. 7
Furthermore, respondent asseverated that, except for the fact that a criminal
information had been filed on September 8, 2006, he was no longer aware of any
development in I.S. No. 04-211, having been subsequently detailed to the DOJ in
Manila and recently, to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Marikina City. 14 He asserted
that complainant and Prosecutor Amerkhan manipulated the filing in court of I.S. No.
04-211 through the original resolution prepared by the latter. 15
In a Report20 dated March 20, 2014, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP,
through Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr. (Commissioner Villadolid), found
respondent to have violated Canons 1821 and 18.0322 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility (CPR) and recommended that he be suspended from the practice of law
for a period ranging from six (6) months to two (2) years upon the discretion of the IBP
Governing Board.23
The IBP found that the case records of I.S. No. 04-211 were removed by respondent
from the office of the Provincial Prosecutor and kept in his possession. 24 Records also
show that he failed to timely turn over the said case records upon order of State
Prosecutor Pinote.25 In fact, the case records remained in his possession even after he
had been detailed to the DOJ in Manila in February 2005. From the foregoing,
respondent's neglect to perform his duty was apparent. 26
In a Resolution30 dated December 13, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors adopted and
approved the foregoing recommendation and suspended respondent from the practice
of law for a period of one (1) year.
The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not grounds exist to hold
respondent administratively liable.
The Court concurs with the IBP's factual findings and recommendation to hold
respondent administratively liable, but not for violating Rule 18.03, Canon 18 of the
CPR, but instead, of Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the same Code. The pertinent rules provide:
xxxx
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
promote or advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public
duties.
Generally, a lawyer who holds a government office may not be disciplined as a member
of the Bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. He
may be disciplined by this Court as a member of the Bar only when his misconduct also
constitutes a violation of his oath as a lawyer. 31 In this regard, Rule 6.02 above-quoted
is particularly directed to lawyers in the government service, enjoining them from using
one's public position to: (1) promote private interests; (2) advance private interests; or
(3) allow private interests to interfere with public duties. 32
In Ali v. Bubong,33 the Court recognized that private interest is not limited to direct
interest, but extends to advancing the interest of relatives.
In this case, respondent's accountability regarding I.S. No. 04-211 has been duly
established. When Prosecutor Amerkhan forwarded to respondent the case records of
I.S. No. 04-211, together with the resolution recommending the filing of the
appropriate information in court, respondent failed to take action thereon, as records
are bereft of evidence showing that he either approved or disapproved it. As the IBP
had correctly opined,34 if respondent did not concur with the findings and
recommendation of Prosecutor Amerkhan, who conducted the preliminary investigation
of the case, respondent should have timely disapproved his recommendation to enable
complainant to take the appropriate remedy to challenge the disapproval. Moreover,
the Court notes respondent's defense35 that complainant was already aware beforehand
that he (respondent) was inclined to disapprove the resolution prepared by Prosecutor
Amerkhan, whom he ordered to conduct a clarificatory hearing on the case. However, if
such was the case, then nothing could have prevented respondent from proceeding to
disapprove the resolution. Yet, as the records bear out, he absolutely took no action
thereon.
Worse, respondent removed the case records from the office of the Provincial
Prosecutor and, when directed to turn them over, failed to do so notwithstanding his
assignment to the DOJ in Manila in February 2005. As a result, no further action had
been taken on I.S. No. 04-211 in the meantime. In fact, as of June 30, 2005,
respondent still had not complied with State Prosecutor Pinote's directive to return not
only the case records of I.S. No. 04-211, but all the cases previously assigned to him as
well.36 Needless to state, respondent ought to have known that without the case
records, no further action could be taken on any of those cases. His assignment to the
DOJ in Manila in February 2005 should have even prompted him to turn over the case
records of I.S. No. 04-211 for appropriate action, but he still failed to do so, without
any plausible reason.
Absent any intelligent explanation as regards his lapses in the handling of I.S. No. 04-
211 and his failure to timely return the case records thereof for further action, despite
the directive to do so, it can only be inferred that respondent not merely failed, but
obstinately and deliberately refused to perform his duties as a prosecutor. Such
refusal, under the circumstances, evidently worked to the advantage of the respondents
in I.S. No. 04-21.1 - which included respondent's cousin, Elezar - as the absence of the
case records in the office of the Provincial Prosecutor resulted in the delay in the filing
of the appropriate criminal information in court against them. Hence, it is apparent that
respondent used his public position as a prosecutor to advance and protect the private
interest of his relative, which is clearly proscribed in the CPR.
Indeed, respondent's actions and omissions in this case, i.e., his failure to resolve I.S.
No. 04-211 and to turn over the case records thereof despite orders to do so, appear to
have been committed for the benefit of and to safeguard private interests. As a lawyer
who is also a public officer, respondent miserably failed to cope with the strict demands
and high standards of the legal profession.37 It bears stressing that a lawyer in public
office is expected not only to refrain from any act or omission which might tend to
lessen the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government, he must also uphold the
dignity of the legal profession at all times and observe a high standard of honesty and
fair dealing. Otherwise said, a lawyer in government service is a keeper of the public
faith and is burdened with high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than her
brethren in private practice.38 Accordingly, the Court finds that suspension for a period
of one (1) year,39 as recommended by the IBP, should be meted upon respondent. chanrobleslaw
SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibrary