Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ethics Report 3
Ethics Report 3
RONALDO C. FACTURAN v.
PROSECUTOR ALFREDO L.
BARCELONA, JR.
FACTS
Complainant filed a complaint for qualified theft against
Mendoza, et al. and the case was assigned for
preliminary investigation to Prosecutor Amerkhan.
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 (Prosecutor Barcelona).
Respondent did not approve or sign the resolution and,
instead, removed the case records from the office of the
Provincial Prosecutor and brought them to his residence.
Mendoza, et al., it appears were personally known to
respondent.
FACTS
Complainant sought the intervention of the DOJ
Secretary, who endorsed the complainant's
concerns to State Prosecutor Pinote. State
Prosecutor Pinote could not take appropriate
action on the case because the case records
were still in the possession of respondent who
failed to turn them over despite the directive to
do so.
FACTS
On July 20 2005, the complainant learned that
the case records had been turned over to the
Provincial Prosecution Office but without
Prosecutor Amerkhan's Resolution and
Information. The respondent did not approve or
act upon the same.
FACTS
Complainant filed for disbarment. Respondent claimed that
the alleged malicious delaying or the perceived concealment
of the case records was neither intentional nor due to
favoritism, as in fact he inhibited himself from the case.
Respondent averred that the complainant knew he was
predisposed to disapprove the resolution prepared by
Prosecutor Amerkhan, as the controversy merely involved a
boundary dispute. He advised Prosecutor Amerkhan to
conduct a clarifactory hearing instead of prematurely
conlcuding the preliminary investigation, but Prosecutor
Amerkhan failed to so, thus the reason for the delay of the
case resolution. Furthermore, respondent averred that he was
no longer aware of any development in the case because he
subsequently detailed elsewhere.
FACTS
The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP
found respondent to have violated Canons 18 and
18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
recommended that he be suspended from the
practice of law for a period ranging from 6 months
to 2 years upon the discretion of the IBP Governing
Board. The Commission found that the respondent
removed the case records from the office, failed to
timely return the records, upon order of the State
Prosecutor Pinote, and failed to perform his duty of
approving or disapproving Prosecutor Amerkhan's
recommendation pertaining to the case.
ISSUE
WON grounds exist to hold respondent
administratively liable.
RULING
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.