Ronaldo C Facturan vs. Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona.
, JR WON the action of the prosecutor in delaying the progress of the
A.C. No. 11069, June 08, 2016 complaint constitute grave misconduct. (YES)
HELD:
FACTS:
The court concur with the decision of the IBP but ruled that the
On June 04, 2004 a complaint was filed against six persons, respondent has violated Rule 6.02 Canon 6 of the same code, “A
before the provincial prosecution office and was assigned for lawyer in the government service shall not use his public position to
preliminary investigation to Prosecutor Amerkhan, on October 26, promote advance his private interests, nor allow the latter to interfere
2004 the latter forwarded the records of the case together with the with his public duties.” And not that of Canon 18.
resolution recommending the prosecution of the accused and the
corresponding information to respondent for his approval and Absent any intelligent explanation as regards his lapses in the
signature. However, the respondent neither approved nor signed the handling of the case and his failure to timely return the case records
resolution, but instead removed the case records from the office of the thereof for further action, despite the directive to do so, it can only be
Provincial Prosecutor and brought them to his residence. It appears inferred that respondent not merely failed, but obstinately and
that the respondent was personally known to the accused as one of deliberately refused to perform his duties as a prosecutor. Such
them is his cousin while others were his close friends. Aggrieved the refusal, under the circumstances, evidently worked to the advantage of
complainant sought the intervention of the Department of Justice. On the respondents in I.S. No. 04-21.1 as the absence of the case records in
June 20 2005, the complainant learned that the case had been turned the office of the Provincial Prosecutor resulted in the delay in the filing
over to the Office but without Prosecutor Amerkhan’s resolution and of the appropriate criminal information in court against them. Hence, it
information. Neither did the respondent approve nor act upon the same is apparent that respondent used his public position as a prosecutor to
prompting the complainant to file this case for disbarment anchored on advance and protect the private interest of his relative, which is clearly
gross misconduct in office and dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a proscribed in the CPR.
lawyer.
Respondent's actions and omissions in this case, appear to
In his defense the respondent claims that the delay was not have been committed for the benefit of and to safeguard private
because of his alleged malicious action as he had inhibited himself from interests. As a lawyer who is also a public officer, respondent miserably
the case and so it was assigned to Prosecutor Amerkhan. he advised failed to cope with the strict demands and high standards of the legal
Prosecutor Amerkhan to conduct a clarificatory hearing instead of profession. It bears stressing that a lawyer in public office is expected
prematurely concluding the preliminary investigation. However, not only to refrain from any act or omission which might tend to lessen
Prosecutor Amerkhan failed to do so, resulting in the delay in the the trust and confidence of the citizenry in government, he must also
resolution of I.S. No. 04-211. 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
The IBP held that the respondent is administratively liable government service is a keeper of the public faith and is burdened with
violating Canon 18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Hence high degree of social responsibility, perhaps higher than her brethren
this petition. in private practice.
The Court ruled his suspension from the practice of law for a
period of one year and is sternly warned that a repetition of the act
ISSUE:
will be dealt more severely.
