Facturan v. Barcelona

Facturan v. Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr., A.C. No.
11069, June
08, 2016
FACTS: On June 4, 2004, complainant FACTURAN filed a complaint for qualified theft against 5
persons before the Provincial Prosecution Office of Alabel, Sarangani. It was assigned to Prosec
Amerkhan for PI.Thereafter, Prosec Amerkhan forwarded the RECORDS of the case, together with
his RESOLUTION, and the corresponding INFORMATION, to the respondent BARCELONA for his
approval and signature. However, the respondent neither approved nor signed the resolution.
Instead, he removed the case records from the office and brought them to his residence. It appears
that the respondents in the qualified theft case filed by the FACTURAN were personally known to
BARCELONA, as Eleazar Barcelona is his cousin, while the other 4 are his close friends. Aggrieved,
FACTURAN sought the intervention of the DOJ through the State Prosecutor. Unfortunately, State
Prosecutor could not take appropriate action as the case records remain in the possession of
BARCELONA who failed to turn them over despite the directive to do so. On July 20, 2005, the
complainant learned that the cased record had been turned over but without the corresponding
resolution and information. Neither did the respondent approve or act upon the same, prompting the
complainant to file the present complaint for disbarment against Barcelona.
ISSUE:WON there are grounds to hold Prosecutor Barcelona administratively liable when he failed
to resolve the criminal case and turn over the case records despite being directed to do so.
HELD: Yes. Prosecutor Barcelona violated Rule 6.02 of Canon 6 of the CPR.Canon 6 applies to
lawyers in government service in the discharge of their official tasks.Rule 6.02 provides that 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 theBar only
when his misconduct also constitutes a violation of his oath as alawyer.Rule 6.02 enjoins
lawyersfrom using one’s public position to: 1) promote private interests; 2) advance private interests;
or 3) allow private interest to interfere with public duties.Moreover, the Court recognized that such
private interest is NOT limited to direct interest, but extends to advancing the interests of relatives.In
the case at bar, Prosecutor Barcelona’s accountability in the Qualified Theft complaint has been duly
established when Prosec Amerkhanforwarded to him the case records, together with the resolution
recommending the filing of the appropriate information.The Court notes respondent’s defense that
the complainant was already aware beforehand that he was inclined to disapprove the resolution
ofProsec Amerkhan. However, if such was the case, then nothing should have prevented him from
proceeding to disapprove the resolution. Yet, the records show that he absolutely took no action
thereon.Worse, the respondent removed the case the records from the office of theProvincial
Prosecutor and, when directed to turn them over, failed to do so notwithstanding his assignment to
the DOJ in Manila. His assignment to theDOJ in Manila should have even prompted him to turn over
the case record for appropriate action, but still failed to do so, without any plausible
reason.Therefore, the Court held that absent any intelligent explanation, it can only be inferred that
the respondent not merely failed, but ostensibly and deliberately refused to perform his duties as a
prosecutor.
His actions and omissions in this case appear to have been committed for the benefit of and to
safeguard private interests.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
to the government, but also uphold the dignity of the legal profession at all times. 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 that other lawyers in private practice.Wherefore, the respondent
is found guilty of violating Rule 6.02. he is suspended for 1 year, and is sternly warned that repetition
of similar acts be dealt with more severely.

Facturan v. Barcelona

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facturan v. Barcelona

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Facturan v. Barcelona

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facturan v. Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr., A.C. No.

You might also like