A.C. No. 11069 - Facturan vs. Barcelona, Jr.

Complainant Ronaldo C. Facturan filed an Affidavit-Complaint for disbarment against respondent Prosecutor Alfredo L. Barcelona, Jr.
The complaint was grounded on allegations of gross misconduct or serious gross misconduct in office, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of a lawyer or prosecutor.

On June 4, 2004, Facturan initiated a complaint for qualified theft against Pilar Mendoza, Jose Sarcon (also known as Jo), Elezar Barcelona, Rodrigo Arro, and Joseph Montero (collectively referred to as Mendoza, et al.).
The case, docketed as I.S. No. 04-211, was referred to for preliminary investigation under the supervision of Prosecutor Faisal D. Amerkhan at the Provincial Prosecution Office of Alabel, Sarangani Province.

On October 26, 2004, Prosecutor Amerkhan forwarded the case records along with his Resolution recommending the prosecution and the corresponding Information to respondent for approval and signature.
Instead of endorsing the resolution, respondent neither approved nor signed it; he removed the case records from the office and kept them at his residence.
It was noted that the respondents in I.S. No. 04-211 were personally connected to the respondent, with Elezar being his cousin and the others being his close friends.

Complainant sought the intervention of then Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Raul Gonzales, which led to involvement by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. ZuAo and State Prosecutor Ringcar B. Pinote.
Despite State Prosecutor Pinote’s directive to respond and act upon the forwarded resolution, respondent failed to turn over the case records timely.
By July 20, 2005, complainant learned that the case records had been returned to the Provincial Prosecution Office; however, they were incomplete as they lacked Prosecutor Amerkhan’s Resolution and Information.

Respondent claimed that the alleged malicious delay or concealment of the case records was neither intentional nor due to favoritism, asserting that he was predisposed to disapprove Prosecutor Amerkhan’s resolution since the matter involved a boundary dispute.
He argued that he had advised Prosecutor Amerkhan to hold a clarificatory hearing rather than prematurely concluding the investigation, a step that was not taken.
Additionally, respondent noted that apart from the filing of a criminal information on September 8, 2006, he was not aware of further developments due to his subsequent assignments within the DOJ and later to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Marikina City.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) endorsed complainant’s Affidavit-Complaint to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
A mandatory conference was set for June 26, 2007; however, with only respondent’s appearance and failure by both parties to submit position papers, the IBP proceeded with the process.
On March 20, 2014, the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the IBP, through Commissioner Leland R. Villadolid, Jr., found respondent in violation of Canons 18 and Rule 18.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, recommending suspension ranging from six (6) months to two (2) years.
Subsequently, in a Resolution dated December 13, 2014, the IBP Board of Governors approved the recommendation and suspended respondent for one (1) year.
Key points included the respondent’s removal of case records and failure to comply with directives, which directly affected the progress of case I.S. No. 04-211, thereby hindering the filing of the appropriate criminal information.

Whether respondent’s failure to act upon the forwarded resolution and removal of the case records from the office constitutes administrative neglect.
Whether the omission to approve or disapprove the resolution by respondent amounted to a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Whether respondent’s actions reflect an abuse of his public position to safeguard his private interests, particularly in favor of a relative, thereby violating Rule 6.02, Canon 6.
Whether the disciplinary action imposed, specifically the suspension from practice of law, is justified given the established facts and applicable rules.