Canon 6-Facturan v. Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, JR., A.C. No. 11069, PERLAS-BERNABE, J. (8 June 2016)

Philippine Supreme Court
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.:
A.C. No. 11069, June 08, 2016 - RONALDO C. FACTURAN, Complainant, v.

PROSECUTOR ALFREDO L. BARCELONA, JR., Respondent.
FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 11069, June 08, 2016
RONALDO C. FACTURAN, Complainant, v. PROSECUTOR ALFREDO L. BARCELONA,

JR., Respondent.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
The instant administrative case arose from an Affidavit-Complaint 1 for disbarment

anchored on gross misconduct or serious gross misconduct in office, dishonesty, and
conduct unbecoming of a lawyer or prosecutor filed by complainant Ronaldo C. Facturan
(complainant) against respondent Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr. (respondent)
before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
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
Aggrieved, complainant sought4 the intervention of then Department of Justice (DOJ)

Secretary Raul Gonzales (Secretary Gonzales), who, through then Chief State
Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuño (Chief State Prosecutor Zuño), endorsed 5 complainant's
concerns to State Prosecutor Ringcar B. Pinote (State Prosecutor Pinote). Unfortunately,
State Prosecutor Pinote could not take appropriate action on I.S. No. 04-211 as the
case records were still in the possession of respondent who failed to turn them over
despite the directive to do so.6
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
In his defense,8 respondent claimed that the "alleged malicious 'delaying' or the

perceived concealment of the case record[s] was neither intentional nor due to
favoritism,"9 as he had inhibited himself from I.S. No. 04-211, which was the reason
why this case was assigned to Prosecutor Amerkhan. 10 Respondent averred that as
early as October 2004, complainant already knew that he was predisposed to
disapprove the resolution prepared by Prosecutor Amerkhan, as the controversy merely
involved a boundary dispute.11 Thus, he advised Prosecutor Amerkhan to conduct a
clarificatory hearing instead of prematurely concluding the preliminary
investigation.12 However, Prosecutor Amerkhan failed to do so, resulting in the delay in
the resolution of I.S. No. 04-211,13
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
The OCA indorsed16 complainant's Affidavit-Complaint to the Integrated Bar of the

Philippines (IBP), which then set17 the case for mandatory conference on June 26, 2007.
However, only the respondent appeared, prompting the IBP to terminate the mandatory
conference and ordered the submission of the parties' position papers. 18 Unfortunately,
the parties did not submit the required position papers. 19
The IBP Report and Recommendation
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
Furthermore, respondent failed to perform his duty of approving or disapproving

Prosecutor Amerkhan's recommendation pertaining to I.S. No. 04-211. 27 As such, he is
also guilty of violating Canon 6.0128 of the CPR for his failure the case records in his
possession.29
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 Issue Before the Court
The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not grounds exist to hold
respondent administratively liable.
The Court's Ruling
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:
CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN

THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR OFFICIAL TASKS.
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
WHEREFORE, respondent Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr. is found GUILTY of

violating Rule 6.02, Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He is
hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year, effective
upon his receipt of this Decision, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to respondent's personal record as a member of

the Bar. Likewise, let copies of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in
the country for their information and guidance.
SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibrary
Leonardo-De Castro, (Acting Chairperson),** Bersamin, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.

Sereno, C.J. on leave. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

Canon 6-Facturan v. Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, JR., A.C. No. 11069, PERLAS-BERNABE, J. (8 June 2016)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Canon 6-Facturan v. Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, JR., A.C. No. 11069, PERLAS-BERNABE, J. (8 June 2016)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Supreme Court

A.C. No. 11069, June 08, 2016 - RONALDO C. FACTURAN, Complainant, v.

A.C. No. 11069, June 08, 2016

RONALDO C. FACTURAN, Complainant, v. PROSECUTOR ALFREDO L. BARCELONA,

The instant administrative case arose from an Affidavit-Complaint 1 for disbarment

Aggrieved, complainant sought4 the intervention of then Department of Justice (DOJ)

In his defense,8 respondent claimed that the "alleged malicious 'delaying' or the

The OCA indorsed16 complainant's Affidavit-Complaint to the Integrated Bar of the

The IBP Report and Recommendation

Furthermore, respondent failed to perform his duty of approving or disapproving

The Issue Before the Court

The Court's Ruling

CANON 6 - THESE CANONS SHALL APPLY TO LAWYERS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE IN

WHEREFORE, respondent Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr. is found GUILTY of

Let a copy of this Decision be attached to respondent's personal record as a member of

Leonardo-De Castro, (Acting Chairperson),** Bersamin, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.

You might also like