People v Sandiganbayan
PEOPLE V. SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. Nos. 115439-41
July 16, 1997
DOCTRINE:
To prevent a conniving counsel from revealing the genesis of a crime which was later committed pursuant to a conspiracy, because of the objection thereto of his conspiring client, would be one of the worst travesties in the rules of evidence and practice in the noble profession of law.
EMERGENCY VERSION:
Paredes, a Provincial Attorney, applied for a free patent. It was granted by later on cancelled as it was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentations, as the land had been designated and reserved as a school site. A case for perjury was filed against him, and the Tanodbayan issued a recommendation for criminal prosecution. In all these cases, Atty. Sansaet was the counsel for Paredes. They filed a motion for reconsideration on the recommendation for the Tanodbayan attaching falsified documents, making it appear that a criminal prosecution would bring about double jeopardy. Later on, a case before the Sandiganbayan was filed against Paredes, Atty, Sansaet, and another for violation of R.A. 3019. The issue in this case is whether Atty. Sansaet can be discharged as a state witness. The Sandiganbayan refused saying that it was against attorney client privilege, but the court held that Sandiganbayan erred as there was no such privilege in conspiring to do unlawful acts.
FACTS:
CASE #1, FREE PATENT: In 1976, respondent Paredes (a Provincial Attorney) applied for a free patent over a certain lot. His application was approved and, pursuant to a free patent granted to him, an original certificate of title was issued in his favor for that lot which is situated in the poblacion of San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. However, the Director of Lands filed an action for the cancellation of the patent and certificate of title since the land had been designated and reserved as a school site in the aforementioned subdivision survey. The trial court rendered judgment nullifying said patent and title after
G.R. Nos. 115439-41
July 16, 1997
DOCTRINE:
To prevent a conniving counsel from revealing the genesis of a crime which was later committed pursuant to a conspiracy, because of the objection thereto of his conspiring client, would be one of the worst travesties in the rules of evidence and practice in the noble profession of law.
EMERGENCY VERSION:
Paredes, a Provincial Attorney, applied for a free patent. It was granted by later on cancelled as it was obtained through fraudulent misrepresentations, as the land had been designated and reserved as a school site. A case for perjury was filed against him, and the Tanodbayan issued a recommendation for criminal prosecution. In all these cases, Atty. Sansaet was the counsel for Paredes. They filed a motion for reconsideration on the recommendation for the Tanodbayan attaching falsified documents, making it appear that a criminal prosecution would bring about double jeopardy. Later on, a case before the Sandiganbayan was filed against Paredes, Atty, Sansaet, and another for violation of R.A. 3019. The issue in this case is whether Atty. Sansaet can be discharged as a state witness. The Sandiganbayan refused saying that it was against attorney client privilege, but the court held that Sandiganbayan erred as there was no such privilege in conspiring to do unlawful acts.
FACTS:
CASE #1, FREE PATENT: In 1976, respondent Paredes (a Provincial Attorney) applied for a free patent over a certain lot. His application was approved and, pursuant to a free patent granted to him, an original certificate of title was issued in his favor for that lot which is situated in the poblacion of San Francisco, Agusan del Sur. However, the Director of Lands filed an action for the cancellation of the patent and certificate of title since the land had been designated and reserved as a school site in the aforementioned subdivision survey. The trial court rendered judgment nullifying said patent and title after