Complainant, For Violation Of: Lawyer's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility
Complainant, For Violation Of: Lawyer's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility
Complainant, For Violation Of: Lawyer's Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility
SUPREME COURT
MANILA
JYRUS B. CIMATU
Complainant,
A.M. No.
_________________ For Violation Of: Lawyer’s
Oath and Code of Professional
Responsibility
-versus-
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT
I, JYRUS B. CIMATU, of legal age and with residence at Unit 0469 Sun
Residence, Mayon St. corner Espana Boulevard, Sampaloc, Manila, after having
been duly sworn to in accordance with law, hereby depose and state:
1
day, the Information was filed with the Regional Trial Court of Marawi, Branch
1.
10) The Government, in light of the hold departure order issued by the
RTC of Marawi, and several issuances released by various law enforcement
agencies and security departments of other countries, engaged in the manhunt
for Abu Turaifie. This included the cancellation of their passports and posting
of their mugshots in immigration bulletin boards.
12) It was however shocking when it was discovered that the Atty.
Chicote was with Abu Turaifie in the flight to London under the manifest
of the airline company wherein he was seated beside accused. It was also
confirmed by Immigration Center of London that Abu Turaifie arrived in
Heathrow on 25 October 2018. Respondent Atty. Alfredo Chicote meanwhile
2
did not continue to London and instead stayed in Canada which is the place
where they will catch a connecting flight.
14) It must be emphasized that more than a lawyer for accused, Atty.
Chicote is also an officer of the court. As such, he owes candor, fairness, and
good faith to the court, and is duty-bound to uphold the Constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes. His conduct
fails to reflect the oath he swore before the Court which states that:
15) Despite the best efforts to locate the accused in the issuance of a
hold departure order, warrant of arrests, and look out bulletins, he never once
intimated the location of the accused despite his knowledge thereof. This is a
clear transgression of his duty as a lawyer to assist in the speedy and efficient
administration of justice under Canon 23, Chapter III of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
16) This would likewise correspond to the violation of not obeying the
Constitution, the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein, and such
other legal obligations a lawyer swore to uphold.
17) Under Section 27, Rule 138, of the Rules of Court, a lawyer may be
removed or suspended on the following grounds: (1) deceit; (2) malpractice; (3)
gross misconduct in office; (4) grossly immoral conduct; (5) conviction of a crime
involving moral turpitude; (6) violation of the lawyer’s oath; (7) willful
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (8) corruptly or wilfully
appearing as a lawyer for a party to a case without authority to do so.
18) As Atty. Chicote have known the existence of the case pending
before the Court since May 2018, he becomes duty bound not only to his client
but to the courts and the legal orders of the authorities. It would be impossible
for respondent to be innocent regarding the status of the case since it involves
3
the participation of the fugitive he aided to escape the law. The fact the he is a
member of the Bar aggravates this offense, rendering him unworthy to be part
of the profession.
19) Presidential Decree No. 1829 punishes any person who knowingly
or wilfully obstructs, impedes, frustrates, or delays the apprehension of suspects
and the investigation and prosecution of criminal cases by harbouring or
concealing or facilitating the escape of any person he knows or has reasonable
ground to suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order
to prevent his arrest, prosecution, and conviction. In conjunction thereof, the
case of Ramon Gonzales v. Atty. Arnel Alcaraz, (A.C. No. 5231 September 27, 2006)
pronounced that a lawyer’s transgression of the a penal law is reprehensible and
cannot be countenanced by this Court.
20) With these acts and omissions of Atty. Alfredo Chicote, he should
be accordingly be punished and must suffer the most serious penalty sanctioned
by law.
JYRUS B. CIMATU
Affiant
4
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
MAKATI CITY ) S.S.
VERIFICATION
JYRUS B. CIMATU
Affiant