RATERTA, ZANDRINA ANN F LEGAL COUNSELING

2017400180

Chapter 1 – Burried Bodies: Robert Garrow and His Lawyers

This chapter is quite interesting because it was able to put to test the boundaries by
which lawyers should walk on. While it is true that the confidentiality rule is quite
important, we always have to remember that it has to be balanced with the interests
of the other stakeholders in the justice system such as the courts and the society in
general. In this case, lawyers Frank Armani and Francis Belge faced a dilemma with
regard to the confidentiality rule in legal ethics. They were appointed to represent
and defend Robert Garrow, a convicted rapist, accused molester, and suspected
serial killer.

Their dilemma started when the accused narrated to the said lawyers the events
which led to the commission of series of crimes, particularly the rape and murder of
Alicia Hauck, the murder of Daniel Porter, the kidnapping, rape and murder of Susan
Petz and the murder of Phil Dombleswki. The new knowledge they had caused them
to question whether they need to divulge the information to the police or just abide
by the confidentiality rule. They chose the latter. They concealed the pieces of
evidence they knew and they necessarily covered up for Robert Garrow.

According to Canon 21 of the CPR, A lawyer shall preserve the confidence and
secrets of his client even after the attorney-client relation is terminated. As per Rule
21.01, the exceptions are:
1. When authorized by the client after acquainting him of the consequences of the
disclosure.
2. When required by law.
3. When necessary to collect his fees or to defend himself, his employees or
associates or by judicial action.
This Canon is taken so closely with Sec. 24, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which
says that in order to be eligible for the privileged Communication between Attorney
and Client, the following should concur:
1. There is an attorney and client relationship or a kind of consultancy relationship
with a prospective client.
2. The privilege is invoked with respect to a confidential communication between
them made in the course of or with view to professional employment and
3. The client has not given consent to the attorney’s testimony thereon; or if the
attorney, attorney’s secretary, stenographer, or clerk is sought to be examined, that
both the client and the attorney have not given their consent thereto.
These provisions of the law were made in order to encourage clients to divulge
everything to their lawyers without fear of being pre-judged.

The confidentiality rule is important especially amongst lawyers and clients, because
the fiduciary duty of a lawyer to his clients is of a very delicate, exacting character
that requires a very high degree of fidelity and good faith. Also, as per the case of
Regala vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 105938, Sept. 20, 1996, the strict sense of
fidelity of a lawyer to his client distinguishes him from any other professional in the
society and that this conception is entrenched and embodies centuries of
established and stable tradition.

In my opinion, although it is commendable that Frank Armani and Francis Belge

were able to put their personal biases aside, their act of concealing the location of
the victims’ dead bodies is unlawful in the Philippine context. As stated a while ago,
the confidentiality rule has exceptions. It should not be upheld when it is not
unlawful, just like in this particular case.

According to Presidential Decree 1829, a person who is "harboring or concealing, or

facilitating the escape of, any person he knows, or has reasonable ground to believe
or suspect, has committed any offense under existing penal laws in order to prevent
his arrest prosecution and conviction" may be penalized for obstruction of justice.
As lawyers, they should have know that their primordial duty is to promote justice.
Although they also have a duty to be loyal to the cause of their client, such duty is
not absolute. The goal of lawyers should not always be about winning. It should
always be about being able to contribute to the greater welfarw of society.

Chapter 2 – Another Day Representing the Guilty

The gist of this case is as follows. Simeon “Richie” Richewski was tasked by the
court to represent Kirk Hopman on three counts of child abuse with great bodily
injury. Allegedly, he struck his girlfriend’s three-year old child several times and even
threw her against the wall once. His girlfriend was likewise charged, however, the
District Attorney believes that Hopman is the most guilty between the two. After
meeting his client in a jail conference room, Atty. Richie had the incling that his client
is guilty due to the inconsistencies in his statements. Thereafter, he was faced with
the moral dilemma as to how he would be able to properly represent his client with
zealousness when he believes deep inside that he his guilty. Eventually, Atty. Richie
chose to set aside his personal beliefs and did his best to have a best defense for
Kirk Hopman.

In my opinion, what Atty. Richie did is his highly commendable. According to Canon
18 of the Philippine’s Code of Professional Responsibility, A lawyer shall represent
his client with zeal within the bounds of the law. Once a lawyer has already accepted
a case and there is already an attorney-client relationship, the lawyer’s personal
biases and interests should already take a backseat. According to Section 1, Article
III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the law.” The first rights guaranteed in our Bill of Rights are the rights to
due process and equal protection of the law and even the accused has these rights.
This is the very reason why we have the principle of presumption of innocence.
Every man is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
The lawyer should not pre-judge the client and should let the legal proceedings take
its course. As per the case of Legarda vs. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 418, 1991, a
lawyer should present every remedy or defense authorized by law in support of his
client’s cause, regardless of his personal views. In so doing, Canon 11 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility says that he shall observe and maintain the respect
due to the Courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by
others. A lawyer should be able to effectively balance this duty to the court to his
duty to his clients.

In balancing the interests of the stakeholders, we have to remember that there are
two types of guilt: factual guilt and legal guilt. The issue of factual guilt or the
question as to whether or not you are actually guilty will not be discussed during the
trial. Legal guilt is what is important before the eyea of the court. This is the one
proved by the evidence presented before the courts and the determinant of whether
or nor there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.

It is the job of the court to assess the merits of the evidence presented, not the
lawyer’s. On the other hand, it is the duty of lawyers to exhaust all possible remedies
that are within the bounds of law, to protect the interests of clients, even the
accused.