Memorandum

TO: Atty. Daniel Kaffee

FROM: Atty. Viktor Kevin Rubio

RE: People of the Philippines v Henry T. Fleming

DATE: November 17, 2017

On October 21, 2017, we filed a criminal complaint against

respondent Judge Henry T. Fleming, Presiding Judge of Branch 21 of

the Regional Trial Court of Manila for the crime of qualified rape. Pre-

trial for the case was thereafter set on November 11, 2017.

During the pre-trial and upon the opening summary stipulation of

facts by the defense counsel Atty. Arthur Kirkland, a rather historic act

was done by the same. The defense counsel, in the midst of making

his statement, seemingly broke down and declared the guilt of his

client, the respondent judge. In a sudden and enraged state, Atty.

Kirkland alleged that his client was guilty of the crime. Before being

removed from the court, he even further stated that his client revealed

to him that the latter “wanted to do it again.”

News of this commotion broke out to the public soon after the

conference was suspended, and there had been relentless inquiries

made towards our office as to whether or not Atty. Kirkland’s damning

revelations could actually be used against the respondent judge.

1
While the revelation was indeed damning to the image of the

respondent judge, I’m afraid we soon have to provide a public

statement in the negative.

Rule 130, sec. 24(b) of the Rules of Court provides that an

attorney cannot, without the consent of his client, divulge any

communication made in confidence between the former and the latter.

Any such statements thus offered are disqualified because the same

are privileged communication.

In Mercado v. Vitriolo, the Supreme Court explained that the

attorney-client privilege is the duty of a lawyer to preserve his client’s

secrets, with absolute assurance that the lawyer’s tongue is tied from

ever disclosing it.

When Atty. Kirkland made the aforementioned declarations, he

certainly incriminated his client. But while the damage has been done

regarding the respondent judge’s public image, I’m afraid the same

declarations cannot be used by us as evidence. As earlier mentioned,

our office had since then been bombarded with questions regarding

this matter. Thus, I propose that we issue a public statement clarifying

the matter as soon as possible.

Having said that, I would also like to bring up a possible strategy

we could pursue that would help our case as prosecution. It has come

to the attention of our office that there are certain willing parties willing

to come forward and offer photographic and testimonial evidence that

the respondent judge has been habitually engaging in violent sexual

practices. Under Rule 130, Sec. 34 of the Rules of Court, we may offer

2
evidence to prove that he had been committing violent sexual acts;

similar to the nature of the crime he is currently accused of. I

understand that this will not directly prove his guilt. I am aware that the

presiding judge may not allow the admission thereof. But I believe it is

a risk we can definitely handle. And if it pays off, it will surely help our

case. Respectfully, I stress that I am aware of the controversial nature

of this path. However, it is of public knowledge that you yourself had

won various landmark cases through the use of similar controversial

methods. The successful conviction against Col. Nathan R. Jessup,

where you were lead prosecutor, comes to mind.