Republic of the Philippines

COURT OF APPEALS
Region VII
Cebu City

Alfred Pennyworth C.A.-G.R.No.​100000

Accused-Appellant,​

- versus -

Regional Trial Court of Cebu, and

People of the Philippines​,
Respondents​.
x----------------------------------------------x

Memorandum

The accused-appellant, by the undersigned counsel, respectfully

submits this Memorandum.

The Prologue

On October 28, 2013, around 1:00 in the afternoon, the

accused-appellant Alfred Pennyworth (hereinafter Alfred) went to Talamban
Central Elementary School to exercise his right of suffrage in the Barangay
Elections, at the same time, gossip was circulating that a certain Alfred has
been buying votes since early in the morning.

To pass some time while lines were still long, Alfred went out of the
school premises around 1:20PM and conversed with Harvey Dent. During
this conversation, the son of Prosecutor Wayne shouted, “he is the one”
pointing at Alfred. Along with ten (10) other men, he approached Alfred.

James Gordon grabbed Alfred’s belt bag that at the time was hanging
on Alfred’s left shoulder. As Alfred resisted, Jason Todd hit his back and
shoulders causing his right scapular area muscles and right middle and ring
fingers to swell. Alfred was overpowered and the assailants succeeded in
taking his belt bag and causing its strap to snap.

At 1:45PM, Alfred went to the police to report the incident. Bruce

Wayne, went to COMELEC to report the incident and later arrived at the
police station with his men and supporters, maliciously blathering fabricated
lies that Alfred was caught buying votes while showing around an envelope
with the name ”Talia al Ghul” written on it. The said envelope was taken by
the party of Bruce Wayne from inside the belt bag after they opened the
zipper.

Alfred was convicted for “vote-buying” with Attorney Lucius Wayne,

brother of complainant Bruce Wayne, as the prosecuting attorney. The
honorable judge in the Regional Trial Court of Cebu allowed into evidence
the belt bag and all its contents. The court refused to allow Alfred to present
Talia al Ghul as his witness.
.
The court relied solely on the testimony of Bruce Wayne regarding the
manner of arrest of Alfred and that they were able to do so based on reliable
information relayed to him by his political supporters and cohorts.

The Issues

1. Whether or not the representation of Attorney Lucius Wayne is

unethical
2. Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting evidence presented by
Bruce Wayne.
3. Whether or not Alfred’s constitutional right was violated by denying
his witness to take the stand.
4. Whether or not the sole testimony of Bruce Wayne is reliable enough
to warrant a conviction.

Arguments

1. Prosecuting Attorney Lucius Wayne is in violation of the Code of

Conduct for Public Prosecutors. Due to his relationship with the party
involved, he should have not accepted this case.
2. The evidence should not have been admitted on the ground of
unlawful means of acquisition.
3. Constitutional rights of the accused-appellant to present evidence
were violated.
4. The testimony of Bruce Wayne is hearsay at best.

Discussion
1. Whether or not the representation of Attorney Lucius Wayne is
unethical.

The private complainant is the former Barangay Captain Bruce

Wayne, while the prosecutor handling the case is his brother, prosecuting
attorney Lucius Wayne. He should not have taken the case, even arguing
that it was assigned to him, Part IV, Title II (B), Revised Manual for
Prosecutors1 provides:

5.5. A prosecutor should refrain from handling the inquest

proceeding, summary investigation, or preliminary
investigation of a case when a conflict of interest arises.

Part IV, Title II (B), Revised Manual for Prosecutors

“Within ten (10) days from receipt of the complaint by the

prosecutor, he/she shall:
1. inhibit himself from conducting a preliminary investigation
in a case wherein -
a. he or his wife or child is interested as heir, legatee, creditor
or otherwise; o​ r
b. he is related to either party within the 6th degree of
consanguinity or affinity or to counsel within the 4th degree;or
c. he has been named executor, administrator, guardian, trustee
or Counsel.”

The prosecuting attorney is required to inhibit himself from

conducting a preliminary investigation in a case wherein he is related to
either party within the 6th degree of consanguinity or affinity or to counsel
within the 4th degree, as it is a conflict of interest. The prosecuting attorney
in this case is the brother of the complainant Bruce Wayne, and as such, he
is strictly prohibited from representing Alfred as this prejudices the latter’s
interest. His representation of Alfred is also a violation of sec. 6 (B)
paragraph b PAO Office Order No. 137-102.

1
​ EPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CODE OF CONDUCT OF PROSECUTORS AND SUPPORT STAFF​, at 39
D
and 61 (2017).
2
Code of Conduct for Public Attorneys and Employees of the Public Attorney’s Office, PAO Office
Order No. 137-10 §6B ¶b (Aug. 27, 2010).
 SECTION 6. Norms of Conduct of Public Attorneys and
Employees. — Every Public Attorney and employee shall
observe the following standards of personal conduct in the
discharge and execution of official duties:

B. Prohibited Acts/Practices:

a. Public Attorneys shall refrain from encouraging or doing

acts contrary to law, good morals, custom, public policy and
public order; and shall avoid any act, utterances or
circumstances that can cause intrigue and sow dissension
and division in the Office;

b. Public Attorneys are strictly prohibited from representing

conflicting interests. They shall therefore refrain from
accepting, assisting or representing the opposing party of any
of the Office's clients which could prejudice the latter's interest.
Thus, once there appears to be a conflict of interest or a risk
thereof, public attorneys shall immediately inform the client
about the said conflict and cease to act for and in his behalf;
and, refer the latter to a law office or any of the organizations
providing free legal service;

Further, Section 4 (b) and (c) of R.A. 67133 or “Code of Conduct and
Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,” states that:

(b) Professionalism- Public officials and employees shall

perform and discharge their duties with the highest
degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence, and skill.
They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and
dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong
perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue
patronage.”

(c) Justness and sincerity. - Public officials and employees shall

remain true to the people at all times. They must act with
justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against
anyone, especially the poor and the underprivileged. They shall
at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from

3
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, R.A 6713 § 4 ¶ b, c.
 doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public
policy, public order, public safety and public interest. They
shall not dispense or extend undue favors on account of their
office to their relatives whether by consanguinity or affinity
except with respect to appointments of such relatives to
positions considered strictly confidential or as members of their
personal staff whose terms are coterminous with theirs.

Thus, Attorney Lucius Wayne’s representation of Alfred is a clear case of

conflict of interest, as he is Bruce Wayne’s brother. This is a violation of his
profession’s code and failure to maintain ethics of the same. In addition to
the inhibition that should have been done, he should be reminded to
endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of his role as dispensers or
peddlers of undue patronage. He has failed to maintain justness and
sincerity. His representation in this case is unethical.

2. Whether or not the trial court erred in admitting evidence presented

by Bruce Wayne.

Alfred was attacked by two of Bruce Wayne’s supporters, Jason Todd

who used force to overpower him and James Gordon who took his belt bag.
These acts are a direct violation of a basic constitutional right, under Section
1 Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution4.

Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal

offense without due process of law.

The evidence provided by the prosecution as a result of this unlawful

and unconstitutional taking of property was not a product of a lawful search
or a lawful arrest, and is therefore, the fruit of the poisonous tree and should
not be admitted into evidence, as in the case of ​People v. Villareal5.

3. Whether or not Alfred’s constitutional right was violated by denying

his witness to take the stand.

Another constitutional right was violated under Sec. 14 (1) and (2),
Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution6. The provisions are clear, no person
4
Ph. ​CONST​. art. III, § 14 ¶ 1.
5
People v. Villareal G.R. 201363 (Mar. 18, 2013).
6
Ph. C​ ONST​. art. III, § 14 ¶ 1, 2.
should be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of the
law and that it is compulsory process that he should secure the attendance of
a witness in his behalf.

Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal

offense without due process of law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed

innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right
to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy,
impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face,
and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding
the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly
notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

In the case of ​People v. Lumague7, wherein three men accused of

murder were convicted without having presented their evidence, the
Supreme Court stated that “​fundamental fairness, which is the essence of due
process, requires that the three accused should be allowed to testify on their
defenses and to present additional evidence to prove their innocence​.” In
another case, Abriol v. Homeres8, the Supreme Court stated that “​no court of
justice under our system of government has the power to deprive him of that
right​.” It is clear in the present case that the court refused Alfred a right that
is inviolate. It is the fundamental law of the land that Alfred should be
allowed to present a witness, refusal thereof is simply unconstitutional.
There is no reason why Talia al Ghul should not be allowed to take the
witness stand.

4. Whether or not the sole testimony of Bruce Wayne is reliable enough

to warrant a conviction.

In the case of W ​ aterous Drug Corporation v. National Labor

9
Relations Commission , it has been established that hearsay evidence carries

7
People v. Lumague, Jr. G.R. L-53586 (Jan. 39, 1982).
8
Abriol v. Homeres, G.R. L-2754 (Aug. 31, 1949).
9
Waterous Drug Corporation v. NLRC G.R. No. 113271 (Oct. 16, 1997).
no probative value. In ​People v. Villaran10, the Supreme Court held, when
evidence is based on what was supposedly told the witness, the same is
without any evidentiary weight being patently hearsay.

In the present case, Bruce Wayne’s testimony is hearsay and

unreliable, as his sources came from third persons. The trial court’s reliance
on this sole testimony his untenable.

Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused-appellant Alfred

Pennyworth respectfully prays before this Honorable Court to REVERSE
and SET ASIDE and NULLIFY the Consolidated Decision of the trial court
and DISMISS the conviction of vote-buying and that Attorney Lucius
Wayne be SANCTIONED for his participation in this case.

Praying for such other relief just and equitable under the premises.

Cebu City, 21st day of November 2018.

Counsel for Accused-Appellant

10
People v. Villaran, G.R. 119058 (Mar. 13, 1997).