People

 v  Maqueda    
  As  to  the  admissions  made  by  Maqueda  to  Prosecutor  Zarate  and  Ray  Dean  Salvosa,  the  trial  
  court  admitted  their  testimony  thereon  only  to  prove  the  tenor  of  their  conversation  but  not  
Facts:   British   Horace   William   Barker   (consultant   of   WB)   was   slain   inside   his   house   in   Tuba,   to   prove   the   truth   of   the   admission   because   such   testimony   was   objected   to   as   hearsay.  
Benguet  while  his  Filipino  wife,  Teresita  Mendoza  was  badly  battered  with  lead  pipes  on  the   Maqueda   voluntarily   and   freely   made   them   to   Prosecutor   Zarate   not   in   the   course   of   an  
occasion  of  a  robbery.  Two  household  helpers  of  the  victims  identified  Salvamante  (a  former   investigation,  but  in  connection  with  Maqueda's  plea  to  be  utilized  as  a  state  witness;  and  as  
houseboy  of  the  victims)  and  Maqueda  as  the  robbers.  Mike  Tabayan  and  his  friend  also  saw   to  the  other  admission  (Salvosa),  it  was  given  to  a  private  person  therefore  admissible.  
the   two   accused   a   kilometer   away   from   the   house   of   the   victims   that   same   morning,   when    
the  two  accused  asked  them  for  directions.     Note:  a  distinction  between  a  confession  and  admission  has  been  made  by  the  SC:  
  Admission  of  a  party.  —  The  act,  declaration  or  omission  of  party  as  to  a  relevant  fact  may  be  
Maqueda  was  then  arrested  in  Guinyangan,  Quezon.  He  was  taken  to  Calauag,  Quezon  where   given  in  evidence  against  him.  
he   signed   a   Sinumpaang   Salaysay   wherein   he   narrated   his   participation   in   the   crime.    
According   to   SPO3   Molleno,   he   informed   Maqueda   of   his   constitutional   rights   before   he   Confession.  —  The  declaration  of  an  accused  acknowledging  his  guilt  of  the  offense  charged,  
signed   such   document.   Afterwards   he   was   brought   to   the   Benguet   Provincial   Jail.   While   he   or  of  any  offense  necessarily  included  therein,  may  be  given  in  evidence  against  him.  
was   under   detention,   Maqueda   filed   a   Motion   to   Grant   Bail.   He   stated   therein   that   "he   is    
willing   and   volunteering   to   be   a   State   witness   in   the   above   entitled   case,   it   appearing   that   he    
is  the  least  guilty  among  the  accused  in  this  case."   TEODORO  R.  REGALA  v.  SANDIGANBAYAN,  GR  No.  105938,  1996-­‐09-­‐20  
  Facts:  
Maqueda   also   admitted   his   involvement   in   the   commission   of   the   robbery   to   Prosecutor   Complaint   on   July   31,   1987   before   the   Sandiganbayan   by   the   Republic   of   the   Philippines,  
Zarate  and  to  Salvosa.   through   the   Presidential   Commission   on   Good   Government   against   Eduardo   M.   Cojuangco,  
  Jr.,  as  one  of  the  principal...  defendants,  for  the  recovery  of  alleged  ill-­‐gotten  wealth,  which  
  includes  shares  of  stocks  in  the  named  corporations  
Issue:   Whether  or  Not  the  trial  court  was  correct  in  holding  that  the  Sinumpaan  Salaysay  is   Among  the  defendants  named  in  the  case  are  herein  petitioners  Teodoro  Regala,  Edgardo  J.  
admissible  as  evidence.   Angara,  Avelino  V.  Cruz,  Jose  C.  Concepcion,  Rogelio  A.  Vinluan,  Victor  P.  Lazatin,  Eduardo  U.  
  Escueta   and   Paraja   G.   Hayudini,   and   herein   private   respondent   Raul   S.   Roco,   who   all   were  
  then...   partners   of   the   law   firm   Angara,   Abello,   Concepcion,   Regala   and   Cruz   Law   Offices  
Held:   No.   The   Sinumpaang   Salaysay   is   inadmissible   because   it   was   in   clear   violation   of   the   (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  ACCRA  Law  Firm).  
constitutional   rights   of   the   accused.   First,   he   was   not   informed   of   his   right   to   remain   silent   In   the   course   of   their   dealings   with   their   clients,   the...   members   of   the   law   firm   acquire  
and  his  right  to  counsel.  Second,  he  cannot  be  compelled  to  be  a  witness  against  himself.  At   information   relative   to   the   assets   of   clients   as   well   as   their   personal   and   business  
the  time  of  the  confession,  the  accused  was  already  facing  charges  in  court.  He  no  longer  had   circumstances.  
the  right  to  remain  silent  and  to  counsel  but  he  had  the  right  to  refuse  to  be  a  witness  and  not   As  members  of  the  ACCRA  Law  Firm,  petitioners  and  private  respondent  Raul  Roco  admit  that  
to  have  any  prejudice  whatsoever  result  to  him  by  such  refusal.  And  yet,  despite  his  knowing   they  assisted  in  the  organization  and  acquisition...  of  the  companies  included  in  Civil  Case  No.  
fully  well  that  a  case  had  already  been  filed  in  court,  he  still  confessed  when  he  did  not  have   0033,   and   in   keeping   with   the   office   practice,   ACCRA   lawyers   acted   as   nominees-­‐stockholders  
to  do  so.   of   the   said   corporations   involved   in   sequestration   proceedings.[2]...   espondent   Presidential  
  Commission   on   Good   Government   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   respondent   PCGG)   filed   a  
The   contention   of   the   trial   court   that   the   accused   is   not   entitled   to   such   rights   anymore   "Motion   to   Admit   Third   Amended   Complaint"   and   "Third   Amended   Complaint"   which  
because   the   information   has   been   filed   and   a   warrant   of   arrest   has   been   issued   already,   is   excluded    private  respondent  Raul  S.  Roco  from  the  complaint  in  PCGG  
untenable.   The   exercise   of   the   rights   to   remain   silent   and   to   counsel   and   to   be   informed   Case  No.  33  as  party-­‐defendan...  undertaking  that  he  will  reveal  the  identity  of  the  principal/s  
thereof  under  Section  12(1)  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  are  not  confined  to  that  period  prior  to  the   for  whom  he  acted  as  nominee/stockholder  in  the  companies  involved  in  
filing  of  a  criminal  complaint  or  information  but  are  available  at  that  stage  when  a  person  is   PCGG  Case  No.  33.  
"under  investigation  for  the  commission  of  an  offense."     Petitioners  ACCRA  lawyers  subsequently  filed  their  "COMMENT  AND/OR  OPPOSITION"  dated  
  October   8,   1991   with   Counter-­‐Motion   that   respondent   PCGG   similarly   grant   the   same  
Pursuant   to   Section   12(3)   of   the   Bill   of   Rights   therefore,   such   extra-­‐judicial   admission   is   treatment  to  them  (exclusion  as  parties-­‐defendants)  as  accorded  private  respondent  Roco.  
inadmissible  as  evidence.     In  its  "Comment,"  respondent  PCGG  set  the  following  conditions  precedent  for  the  exclusion  
of   petitioners,   namely:     (a)   the   disclosure   of   the   identity   of   its   clients;   (b)   submission   of   Furthermore,  under  the  third  main  exception,  revelation  of  the  client's  name  would  obviously  
documents   substantiating   the   lawyer-­‐client   relationship;   and   (c)   the   submission   of   the...   provide   the   necessary   link   for   the   prosecution   to   build   its   case,   where   none   otherwise  
deeds   of   assignments   petitioners   executed   in   favor   of   its   clients   covering   their   respective   exists.     It   is   the   link,   in   the   words   of   Baird,   "that   would   inevitably   form   the   chain   of...  
shareholdings.[9]...   respondent   Sandiganbayan   promulgated   the   Resolution,   herein   testimony  necessary  to  convict  the  (client)  of  a...  crime."[47]  
questioned,   denying   the   exclusion   of   petitioners   in   PCGG   Case   No.   33,   for   their   refusal   to   An  important  distinction  must  be  made  between  a  case  where  a  client  takes  on  the  services  of  
comply  with  the  conditions  required  by  respondent  PCGG   an   attorney   for   illicit   purposes,   seeking   advice   about   how   to   go   around   the   law   for   the  
Hence,   the   ACCRA   lawyers   filed   the   petition   for   certiorari,...   The   Honorable   Sandiganbayan   purpose   of   committing   illegal   activities   and   a   case   where   a   client   thinks   he   might   have  
committed   grave   abuse   of   discretion   in   not   holding   that,   under   the   facts   of   this   case,   the   previously...   committed   something   illegal   and   consults   his   attorney   about   it.     The   first   case  
attorney-­‐client   privilege   prohibits   petitioners   ACCRA   lawyers   from   revealing   the   identity   of   clearly   does   not   fall   within   the   privilege   because   the   same   cannot   be   invoked   for   purposes  
their  client(s)  and  the  other  information  requested  by  the   illegal.     The  second  case  falls  within  the  exception  because  whether  or  not  the  act  for  which  
PCGG.   the...   advice   turns   out   to   be   illegal,   his   name   cannot   be   used   or   disclosed   if   the   disclosure  
Issues:   leads   to   evidence,   not   yet   in   the   hands   of   the   prosecution,   which   might   lead   to  
whether   or   not   this   duty   may   be   asserted   in   refusing   to   disclose   the   name   of   petitioners'   possible    action  against  him.  
client(s)  in  the  case  at  bar.   There   are,   after   all,   alternative   sources   of   information   available   to   the   prosecutor   which   do  
Ruling:   not  depend  on  utilizing  a  defendant's  counsel  as  a  convenient  and  readily  available  source  of  
the   general   rule   in   our   jurisdiction   as   well   as   in   the   United   States   is   that   a   lawyer   may   not   information   in   the   building   of   a   case   against   the   latter.     Compelling   disclosure   of...   the   client's  
invoke  the  privilege  and  refuse  to  divulge  the  name  or...  identity  of  his  client   name   in   circumstances   such   as   the   one   which   exists   in   the   case   at   bench   amounts   to  
The  reasons  advanced  for  the  general  rule  are  well  established.   sanctioning   fishing   expeditions   by   lazy   prosecutors   and   litigants   which   we   cannot   and   will   not  
First,  the  court  has  a  right  to  know  that  the  client  whose  privileged  information  is  sought  to  be   countenance.  
protected  is  flesh  and  blood.   We  have  no  choice  but  to  uphold  petitioners'  right  not  to  reveal  the  identity  of  their  clients  
Second,   the   privilege   begins   to   exist   only   after   the   attorney-­‐client   relationship   has   been   under   pain   of   the   breach   of   fiduciary   duty   owing   to   their   clients,   because   the   facts   of   the  
established.    The  attorney-­‐client  privilege  does  not  attach  until  there  is  a  client.   instant  case  clearly  fall  within  recognized  exceptions  to  the  rule  that  the  client's  name  is...  not  
Third,  the  privilege  generally  pertains  to  the  subject  matter  of  the  relationship.   privileged  information.  
Finally,  due  process  considerations  require  that  the  opposing  party  should,  as  a  general  rule,   respondents  failed  to  show  -­‐...  and  absolutely  nothing  exists  in  the  records  of  the  case  at  bar  -­‐  
know  his  adversary.   that  private  respondent  actually  revealed  the  identity  of  his  client(s)  to  the  PCGG.  
the  general  rule  is  however  qualified  by  some  important  exceptions.   We   find   that   the   condition   precedent   required   by   the   respondent   PCGG   of   the   petitioners   for  
1)     Client   identity   is   privileged   where   a   strong   probability   exists   that   revealing   the   client's   their   exclusion   as   parties-­‐defendants   in   PCGG   Case   No.   33   violates   the   lawyer-­‐client  
name  would  implicate  that  client  in  the  very  activity  for  which  he  sought  the  lawyer's  advice.   confidentiality  privilege.  
2 Where  disclosure  would  open  the  client  to  civil  liability,  his  identity  is  privileged.   .    The  condition  also  constitutes  a  transgression  by  respondents  
3 Where   the   government's   lawyers   have   no   case   against   an   attorney's   client   unless,   by   Sandiganbayan  and  PCGG  of  the  equal  protection  clause  of  the  Constitution.[64]  It  is  grossly  
revealing  the  client's  name,  the  said  name  would  furnish  the  only  link  that  would   unfair   to   exempt   one   similarly   situated   litigant   from   prosecution  without   allowing   the   same  
form   the   chain   of   testimony   necessary   to   convict   an   individual   of   a   crime,   the   exemption  to  the  others.  
client's  name  is...  privileged.   .    Moreover,  the  PCGG's  demand  not  only...  touches  upon  the  question  of  the  identity  of  their  
there  exist  other  situations  which  could  qualify  as  exceptions  to  the  general  rule.   clients  but  also  on  documents  related  to  the  suspected  transactions,  not  only  in  violation  of  
information   relating   to   the   identity   of   a   client   may   fall   within   the   ambit   of   the   privilege   when   the   attorney-­‐client   privilege   but   also   of   the   constitutional   right   against   self-­‐
the   client's   name   itself   has   an   independent   significance,   such   that   disclosure   would   then   incrimination.     Whichever  way  one  looks  at  it,...  this  is  a  fishing  expedition,  a  free  ride  at  the  
reveal  client  confidences.   expense  of  such  rights.  
Summarizing  these  exceptions,  in   Principles:  
The   circumstances   involving   the   engagement   of   lawyers   in   the   case   at   bench,   therefore,   Rule  138  of  the  Rules  of  Court  states:  
clearly   reveal   that   the   instant   case   falls   under   at   least   two   exceptions   to   the   general   Sec.  20.    It  is  the  duty  of  an  attorney:  
rule.     First,   disclosure   of   the   alleged   client's   name   would   lead   to   establish   said   client's...   (e)   to   maintain   inviolate   the   confidence,   and   at   every   peril   to   himself,   to   preserve   the   secrets  
connection  with  the  very  fact  in  issue  of  the  case,  which  is  privileged  information,  because  the   of   his   client,   and   to   accept   no   compensation   in   connection   with   his   client's   business   except  
privilege,   as   stated   earlier,   protects   the   subject   matter   or   the   substance   (without   which   there   from  him  or  with  his  knowledge  and  approval.  
would  be  no  attorney-­‐client  relationship   Canon  17  of  the  Code  of  Professional  Responsibility  which  provides  that:  
Canon   17.     A   lawyer   owes   fidelity   to   the   cause   of   his   client     and   he   shall   be   mindful   of   the  
trust  and  confidence  reposed  in  him.  
Canon  15  of  the  Canons  of  Professional  Ethics  also  demands  a  lawyer's  fidelity  to  client:  
The  lawyer  owes  "entire  devotion  to  the  interest  of  the  client,  warm  zeal  in  the  maintenance  
and  defense  of  his  rights  and  the  exertion  of  his  utmost  learning  and  ability,"  to  the  end  that  
nothing  be  taken  or  be  withheld  from  him,  save  by  the  rules  of  law,  legally...  applied.    No  fear  
of   judicial   disfavor   or   public   popularity   should   restrain   him   from   the   full   discharge   of   his  
duty.     In  the  judicial  forum  the  client  is  entitled  to  the  benefit  of  any  and  every  remedy  and  
defense  that  is  authorized  by  the  law  of  the  land,  and  he  may...  expect  his  lawyer  to  assert  
every  such  remedy  or  defense.    But  it  is  steadfastly  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  great  trust  of  
the   lawyer   is   to   be   performed   within   and   not   without   the   bounds   of   the   law.     The   office   of  
attorney  does  not  permit,  much  less  does  it  demand  of...  him  for  any  client,  violation  of  law  or  
any   manner   of   fraud   or   chicanery.     He   must   obey   his   own   conscience   and   not   that   of   his  
client.  
An  effective  lawyer-­‐client  relationship  is  largely...  dependent  upon  the  degree  of  confidence  
which   exists   between   lawyer   and   client   which   in   turn   requires   a   situation   which   encourages   a  
dynamic   and   fruitful   exchange   and   flow   of   information.     It   necessarily   follows   that   in   order   to  
attain   effective   representation,   the   lawyer...   must   invoke   the   privilege   not   as   a   matter   of  
option  but  as  a  matter  of  duty  and  professional  responsibility.  
Justice  Benjamin  Cardoz  
Not  honesty  alone,  but  the  punctilio  of  an  honor  the  most  sensitive,  is  then  the  standard  of  
behavior,"