SUBJECT: Legal

Profession

TOPIC:

Date Made: March

14, 2016

Digest Maker:
Ruth F. Melicor

CASE NAME: People vs. Sandiganabayn

PONENTE: Regalado, J.
Case Date: July 16, 1997
Case Summary:
Paredes, a former governor, abused his position by applying for a free patent of land and
claiming its title through fraudulent means. 4 cases were filed against him one after the
other. The first one was a case nullifying his title. The second and 3rd one was for perjury.
The counsel in both these cases is co-respondent Sansaet. The 2nd case however was
dismissed due to prescription. Same thing happened to the 3rd case. Afterwards a fourth
case was filed upon evidence that the counsel and the accused submitted falsified
documents in the 3rd perjury case to make it appear like there was an arraignment in the
2nd case in order to strengthen their double jeopardy claims. The prosecution wished to
let the counsel Sunsaet testify, but this was denied by the Sandiganbayan due to
attorney-client privilege.
The court ruled that when it comes to past crimes the privilege covers it, but when it
comes to legal advice sought for future crimes the privilege does not apply. The privilege
only extends to lawful purposes. The court also ruled that he could be a particeps
criminas (one who has share in the crime), because he met the requisites.
Rule of Law:
Detailed Facts:
Respondent Paredes, the Governor of Agusan del Sur applied for a free patent
over a lot. His application was approved and a title was issued to him.
Director of lands filed an action to cancel the title since land was already reserved
as a school site. The trail court nullified it when it found that Paredes obtained this
through fraudulent misrepresentation.
Perjury was filed against Paredes, but the proceedings was terminated due to
prescription (Respondent Sansaet was the counsel for Paredes in this case)
Paredes was again investigated by the Tanodbayan, since it was believed he
abused his position as former provincial attorney to influence the Bureau of Lands
officials to act on his application for free patent (Sansaet still counsel)
Criminal case was filed before the Sandiganabayan charging Paredes, however a
motion to quash was granted due to prescription.
A taxpayer, Gelacio, initiated perjury charges against Paredes, claiming that he
along with Sansaet and Honrada (clerk of court), all respondents in this case.
Gelacio claimed that they falsified and submitted these documents, which were
transcripts of stenographic notes during the arraignment of the previous perjury
charge. These were used in Paredes previous case to support his contention that it
would be double jeopardy
There was no notice of arraignment received by the fiscal in Agusan for the perjury
case, and a certification of Presiding Judge said that the perjury case did not reach
the arraignment stage because is was suspended.
Sansaet claimed that he only did it upon the instigation and inducement of
respondent Paredes.
Ombudsman approved the filing of falsification charges. People filed a motion to
discharge Sansaet as a state witness
BLOCK D 2019 1

Sandiganbayan, invoking attorney client privilege, resolved to deny it

WoN the projected testimony of respondent Sansaet, as proposed state witness is barred
by attorney-client privilege. No
WoN , as a consequence thereof, he is eligible for discharge to testify as a particeps
criminis. Yes
Holding:
WoN the projected testimony of respondent Sansaet, as proposed state witness is barred
by attorney-client privilege
Privilege cannot apply in this case because it falls under the exception.
It may be assumed that information was passed regarding the first falsification
case, and this is expected since Sanseat was the counsel. The privilege covers any
form of communication, whether witten or verbal.
However, the falsified documents were filed by the counsel himself. A distinction
must be made between confidential communication relating to past crimes already
committed and future crimes intended to be committed by the client. An
announcement of an intention to commit a crime in not included under the
privilege.
In so far as the past crimes are concerned, it was committed in the past, but the
date to consider is the date when the privileged communication was made by the
cluent to the attorney in relation to the crime committed. If client seeks lawyers
advice after he does a crime, this info is protected, however if he seeks legal
advice about committing a crime in the future this is not covered.
In the present case, the testimony desired from Sansaet are the communications
made to him when they were about to falsify, or in the process of falsifying the
documents which were filed by counsel at the Tanodbayan. (Crim was not yet
committed.
Furthermore, counsel was himself a conspirator. The privilege only extends to a
lawful purpose
WoN as a consequence thereof, he is eligible for discharge to testify as a
particeps criminas
Sandiganabayan did not pass upon this question. The consolidation of three cases
have joined it and thus causing the loss of separate identities.
The rule is that in a conspiracy the act of one is act of all. To be a state witness
one of the requirements is that he does not appear to be the most guilty.
In past cases, the Court took into account the gravity and the nature of the acts,
and not just the penalty (since in conspiracy it is equal).
He may be presented as a witness since other requirements are also present : he
is the only cooperative eyewitness (absolute necessity), testimony can be
substantially corroborated on its material point by reputable witnesses, and it
does not appear that he has been convicted of a offense involving moral
turpitude.
Ruling
Petition Granted
Other Opinions:
None.

BLOCK D 2019 2

BLOCK D 2019 3