ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
LLB 110 – LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. VENUS A. CUABO
V. PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND PRACTICE OF LAW
PEOPLE v. CASTAÑEDA Jr., et al.
G.R. No. 208290 | December 11, 2013
Facts: Private respondents Myrna M. Garcia and Custodio
Mendoza Vestidas, Jr. were charged before the CTA for
violation of Section 3602 in relation to Sections 2503 and 2530
(f) (i) and 1, (3) (4) and (5) of the Tariff and Customs Code of
the Philippines, as amended. The information reads:
Myrna M. Garcia and Custodio Mendoza Vestidas, Jr. as
owner/proprietress and broker of Plinth Enterprise was charged of
conspiring and confederating with each other, with intent to defraud
the government, and willfully, unlawfully and fraudulently importing
into the Port of Manila, 858 cartons of 17,160 pieces of Anti-Virus
Software Kaspersky Internet Security Premium 2012, subject to
customs duties, by misdeclaration, filed with the Bureau of Customs
(BOC),covering One Forty Footer (1x40) container van shipment
which was falsely declared to contain 40 pallets/1,690 cartons of CD
kit cleaner and plastic CD case.
In a hearing held on August 1, 2012, Garcia and
Vestidas Jr. pleaded "Not Guilty" to the charge. Subsequent to
the presentation of witnesses, the prosecution filed its Formal
Offer of Evidence.
Garcia and Vestidas, Jr. filed their Omnibus Motion to
File Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of Court to Cancel
Hearing Scheduled on January 21, 2013, which was granted by
the CTA. Thereafter, they filed the Demurrer to Evidence,
claiming that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond
reasonable doubt for the following reasons:
a) The pieces of documentary evidence submitted by the
prosecution were inadmissible in court;
b) The object evidence consisting of the allegedly misdeclared
goods were not presented as evidence; and
c) None of the witnesses for the prosecution made a positive
identification of the two accused as the ones responsible for
the supposed misdeclaration.
Despite opposition, the CTA dismissed the case against
Garcia and Vestidas Jr., for failure of the prosecution to
establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
According to the CTA, "no proof whatsoever was
presented by the prosecution showing that the certified true
copies of the public documents offered in evidence against
both accused were in fact issued by the legal custodians." It
cited Section 26, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, which
provides that "when the original of a document is a public
record, it should not generally be removed from the office or
place in which it is kept." As stated in Section 7, Rule 130, its
contents may be proven using secondary evidence and such
evidence may pertain to the certified true copy of the original
document issued by the public officer in custody thereof.
Hence, the CTA wrote that the certified true copies of the
public documents offered in evidence should have been
presented in court.
Anent its offer of private documents, the prosecution
likewise failed to comply with Section 27, Rule 132 of the Rules
of Court, which reads, "an authorized public record of a private
document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy
thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an
appropriate certificate that such officer has the custody."
Considering that the private documents were submitted and
filed with the BOC, the same became part of public records.
Again, the records show that the prosecution failed to present
the certified true copies of the documents.
The CTA noted that, in its Opposition to the Demurrer, the
prosecution even admitted that none of their witnesses ever
positively identified the accused in open court and that the
alleged misdeclared goods were not competently and
properly identified in court by any of the prosecution
witnesses.
The prosecution filed its motion for reconsideration, but
it was denied by the CTA, stressing, among others, that to grant
it would place the accused in double jeopardy.
On July 24, 2013, the Run After the Smugglers (RATS)
Group, Revenue Collection Monitoring Group (RCMG), as
counsel for the BOC, received a copy of the July 15, 2013
Resolution of the CTA ordering the entry of judgment in the
case.
Issue: WON there was failure on the part of the prosecution
to present the certified true copies of the documentary
evidence as provided under Section 7, Rule 130 and Section
127, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court.
Held: Yes, the Supreme Court agrees with the disposition of
the CTA.
The display of patent violations of even the
elementary rules leads the Court to suspect that the case
against Garcia and Vestidas Jr. was doomed by design from the
start. The failure to present the certified true copies of
documentary evidence; the failure to competently and
properly identify the misdeclared goods; the failure to identify
the accused in court; and, worse, the failure to file the petition
for certiorari on time challenging a judgment of acquittal, are
tell-tale signs of a reluctant and subdued attitude in pursuing
the case. This stance taken by the lawyers in government
service rouses the Court’s vigilance against inefficiency in the
administration of justice. Verily, the lawyers representing the
offices under the executive branch should be reminded that
they still remain as officers of the court from whom a high
sense of competence and fervor is expected. The Court will
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
LLB 110 – LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. VENUS A. CUABO
not close its eyes to this sense of apathy in RATS lawyers, lest
the government’s goal of revenue enhancement continues to
suffer the blows of smuggling and similar activities.
Even the error committed by the RATS in filing a
motion for reconsideration with the CTA displays gross
ignorance as to the effects of an acquittal in a criminal case
and the constitutional proscription on double jeopardy. Had
the RATS been eager and keen in prosecuting the respondents,
it would have, in the first place, presented its evidence with
the CTA in strict compliance with the Rules.
The Court deems it proper to remind the lawyers in
the Bureau of Customs that the canons embodied in the Code
of Professional Responsibility equally apply to lawyers in
government service in the discharge of their official tasks.
Thus, RATS lawyers should exert every effort and consider it
their duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice.
PIMENTEL JR. v. LLORENTE and SALAYON
A.C. No. 4680 | 2000-08-29
Facts: This is a complaint for disbarment against
respondents Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon for
gross misconduct, serious breach of trust, and violation of the
lawyer's oath in connection with the discharge of their duties
as members of the Pasig City Board of Canvassers in the May
8, 1995 elections. Salayon, then election officer of the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC), was designated
chairman of said Board, while Llorente, who was then City
Prosecutor of Pasig City, served as its ex oficio vice-chairman
as provided by law. The third member of the Board, Ceferino
Adamos, now deceased, was the Clerk of Court of the Pasig City
Metropolitan Trial Court. Complainant, now a senator, was
also a candidate for the Senate in that election.
Complainant alleges that, in violation of R.A. No.
6646, Section 27(b). [SEC. 27. Election Offenses. In addition to
the prohibited acts and election offenses enumerated in
Section 261 and 262 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881, as amended,
the following shall be guilty of an election offense.
....
(b) Any member of the board of election inspectors or board of
canvassers who tampers, increases, or decreases the votes received
by a candidate in any election . . . . ]
Complainant alleged that respondents tampered with
the votes received by him, with the result that, as shown in the
Statements of Votes (SoVs) and Certificate of Canvass (CoC)
pertaining to 1,263 precincts of Pasig City, (1) senatorial
candidates Juan Ponce Enrile, Anna Dominique Coseteng,
Gregorio Honasan, Marcelo Fernan, Ramon Mitra, and Rodolfo
Biazon were credited with votes which were above the number
of votes they actually received while, on the other hand,
petitioner's votes were reduced; (2) in 101 precincts, Enrile's
votes were in excess of the total number of voters who actually
voted therein; and (3) the votes from 22 precincts were twice
recorded in 18 SoVs. Complainant maintains that, by signing
the SoVs and CoC despite respondents' knowledge that some
of the entries therein were false, the latter committed a
serious breach of public trust and of their lawyers' oath.
Respondents denied the allegations against them.
They alleged that the preparation of the SoVs was made by the
12 canvassing committees which the Board had constituted to
assist in the canvassing. They claimed that the errors pointed
out by complainant could be attributed to honest mistake,
oversight, and/or fatigue.
In his Consolidated Reply, complainant counters that
respondents should be held responsible for the illegal padding
of the votes considering the nature and extent of the
irregularities and the fact that the canvassing of the election
returns was done under their control and supervision.
The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines, which recommended the dismissal of the case for
lack of merit. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but
was denied in a resolution of the IBP Board of Governors.
Hence, this petition.
It appears that complainant likewise filed criminal
charges against respondents before the COMELEC for violation
of R.A. No. 6646, Sec. 27(b). In its resolution dated January 8,
1998, the COMELEC dismissed complainant's charges for
insufficiency of evidence. However, on a petition for certiorari
filed by complainant, the Court set aside the resolution and
directed the COMELEC to file appropriate criminal charges
against respondents. Reconsideration was denied on August
15, 2000.
Issue: WON the respondents are guilty of misconduct.
Held: Yes, the respondents are guilty of misconduct.
A lawyer who holds a government position may not
be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the
discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if the
misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of
Professional Responsibility or the lawyer’s oath or is of such
character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows
moral delinquency on his part, such individual may be
disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct.
In the case at bar, by certifying as true and correct the
SoVs in question, respondents committed a breach of Rule
1.01 of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not
engage in “unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”
By express provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to
 ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY – COLLEGE OF LAW
LLB 110 – LEGAL ETHICS | ATTY. VENUS A. CUABO

lawyers in the government service. In addition, they likewise

violated their oath of office as lawyers to “do no falsehood.”
It may be added that, as lawyers in the government
service, respondents were under greater obligation to observe
this basic tenet of the profession because a public office is a
public trust.
Respondents’ participation in the irregularities herein
reflects on the legal profession, in general, and on lawyers in
government, in particular. Such conduct in the performance of
their official duties, involving no less than the ascertainment of
the popular will as expressed through the ballot, would have
merited for them suspension were it not for the fact that this
is their first administrative transgression and, in the case of
Salayon, after a long public service. Under the circumstances,
a penalty of fine in the amount of P10,000.00 for each of the
respondents should be sufficient, with a warning that
commission of similar acts will be dealt with more severely.