Tag: Department of Justice

Criminal law, News, Rules of Court

Altering evidence for cover-up, Atimonan killings

News peg: “Police fired fallen passengers’ guns in Atimonan shootout — NBI report xxx  Policemen involved in the January 6 bloodbath that left 13 people dead at a checkpoint in Atimonan, Quezon were seen firing the fallen men’s guns – ‘one by one into the air and other directions.’ “ 

Without prejudice to the filing of complaints/ charges upon a finding of prima facie case for any acts of premeditated killings or killings with treachery, or superior strength,  or with armed men,  or by weakening the defense of persons to afford impunity (murders, for each count) or homicide if not attended by any of the circumstances constituting murder, the following provisions are also pertinent for the acts of contaminating the crime scene, e.g.,  one count for each alteration of the evidence, i.e., one count for each firing of the weapons that are evidence or part of the crime scene (each count punishable with six years prison)

PD 1829, Obstruction. “Section 1. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period, or a fine ranging from 1,000 to 6,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by committing any of the following acts:

xxx

“(b) altering, destroying, suppressing or concealing any …  object, with intent to impair its verity, authenticity, legibility, availability, or admissibility as evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;

xxx

“(f) making, presenting or using any …  object with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to affect the course or outcome of the investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal cases;

xxx

“(i) giving of false or fabricated information to mislead or prevent the law enforcement agencies from apprehending the offender or from protecting the life or property of the victim; or fabricating information from the data gathered in confidence by investigating authorities for purposes of background information and not for publication and publishing or disseminating the same to mislead the investigator or to the court.

“Section 2. If any of the foregoing acts is committed by a public official or employee, he shall in addition to the penalties provided thereunder, suffer perpetual disqualification from holding public office. xXxx”

 

 

Rules of Court

The Practice: The lawyer of the Alabang boys takes the fall and keeps the highest fidelity to the attorney-client relationship

dojprosecutors

   photo rightclicked from the DOJ websited used here for educational and non-commercial purposes.             

            Pañero Atty. Felisberto Verano is taking the fall for the entire scenario of an attempt to get a release order of his clients  signed, he had conversations with the DOJ secretary in December and had coursed the order-for-signature through the office of  his brod, DOJ Undersecretary Blancaflor,  but to the end he had kept  silent and vague and will keep silent  and vague about the rest of it; everything else  and all other communication being  perhaps covered by the privileged nature (or confidential nature) of the attorney-client relationship (the exception to this rule is in regard to the commission of future crimes: privilege can be waived) and all communication with other lawyers as public officials and government lawyers under the general cloak of confidentiality of “attorney-work product” (geez, i’m actually pulling that out), which includes communication between and among co-counsel and lawyers (except in regard to the commission of future crimes; privilege can be waived.)

       Did i actually just say that? Yes i did. Lawyers will carry the contents of certain conversations to their  grave, those born and arising from the attorney-client relationship, which includes not just conversations with the client  but with other lawyers; and when you look at that, it is in keeping with the highest fidelity to their client’s cause.

       There were many conversations and communication that took place before  the release order landed on the DOJ secretary’s hands, documents don’t walk by themselves.  As everybody knows, before any sheaf of paper lands on your boss’s desk, it goes through his staff or at the very least his executive secretary. Before his staff/ executive secretary reads and entertains it, it must be brought there by authorized persons. In this case, it was brought there by the staff of Usec Blancaflor. As everybody knows, before your staff  (the usec’s staff) brings any sheaf of papers to your boss’s desk , they will clear it with you (the usec). And as everybody knows, you don’t put any sheaf of papers that’s marked “through your (the usec’s) office”,  and therefore  in your name on your boss’s desk without having read it (of course! It’s your boss’s desk!) or at the very least without knowing the contents. If you’re out of town, you usually have it emailed (so easy, three seconds) or read to you over the phone because it’s in your name,  it’s coursed through your office. Nobody issues a blanket order to their secretary, “bring everything on my desk to the boss’s desk”; “or “Every document on my desk that’s for the boss, goes there”. Nobody does that. You read it first or have it read to you. 

       As the Supreme Court has held in many cases, intent is determined not  from what a person says as explanation after the fact; we do not determine it by trying to read the mind of the person; rather, intent is determined from the overt acts of the person.

     Here, the release order was marked, “through the undersecretary”, the staff was asked to bring it to the desk of the DOJ secretary, it was brought there; there was even a scribbled note on the Manila envelope: no other conclusion can be had there but that, the undersecretary himself wanted the DOJ secretary to sign the release order. Of course! Your boss’s name is there for his signature and you authorize your staff to put the release order there, you authorized the procurement of your boss’s signature, you authorized the procurement  of  the signing for  the release of the Alabang boys.

      The writing of drafts is part of law practice. In certain jurisdictions in the U.S., when a lawyer files, say, a Motion to Dismiss, he/ she is allowed to attach to the motion, a proposed order; and the same goes to the Opposition of opposing counsel, he/she is allowed to attach a proposed order.

         Writing of drafts (or ghostwriting) by lawyers, by itself, without more, is not necessarily unethical; in fact, in certain cases when the lawyer himself does not know how the draft will be used, (some lawyers tell their clients not to tell them how the draft will be used, to shield themselves), the lawyer manages to shield himself/herself from whatever it is that he/she wants to shield himself/herself. Naive, but it can somehow protect the lawyer.

       In this case however pañero did not shield himself because his clients needed his connections, and, as most or all lawyers in his position do, he used all his connections  for his client’s cause.

       And so therefore, in a twisted turn of my head and in my imperfect world, Atty. Verano’s taking the fall to keep and hold sacred the privileged nature of any and all communication arising from the attorney-client relationship might, perhaps in the planet Saturn, be the highest form of fidelity to the clients’ cause, therefore in keeping with the fiduciary nature of such relationship as required by the attorney-client relationship.

     On my planet earth, the media spin to pin down pañero is a coverup for the big fishes.

        When you talk to a lawyer and it is in regard to furthering the client’s cause, you can be sure the lawyer will hold the sacredness of that conversation forever.