1

MEMORANDUM

TO: Atty. John Doe, Senior Associate

FROM: Ruby Rose Faith G. Moreno, Legal Aid

RE: Application of Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence

People vs. Henry Fleming

DATE: November 18, 2017

ISSUES

Whether the revelation by the defense counsel be used as

evidence to prove the guilt of the accused Judge Henry Fleming under

the Philippine laws and jurisprudence.

If the defense counsel’s exposé is inadmissible, what legal action

could be initiated against the accused?

BRIEF ANSWER

No, the revelation of the defense counsel cannot be used as

evidence against the accused. An admission by third-party cannot

prejudice the right of the accused except if the admission was by a co-

partner, conspirator, privies, or by himself or his silence1. Furthermore,

the defense counsel, being the representative of the accused, is

disqualified to testify against him2. Hence, such testimony is

inadmissible as evidence.

—
1Sec. 28, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
2Sec. 24(b), Rule 130, Rules of Court.
 2

Regardless of the inadmissibility of the defense counsel’s

exposé, the accused could still be prosecuted for the crime of rape.

Rape is essentially an offense of secrecy which could commence

solely on the word of the offended woman and conviction invariably

turns upon her credibility as the single witness of the actual

occurrence3.

FACTS

Defense Attorney Arthur Kirkland was requested to defend

Judge Henry Fleming, who allegedly raped and assaulted a young

woman. Kirkland had always publicly loathed Fleming due to prior

disputes. Considering this, Fleming assumes that having Kirkland

defend him will be to his advantage. Kirkland took the case. However,

upon his meeting with another client, Carl Travers, he was presented

photos of Fleming engrossed in a sexual masochist act with a

prostitute. Kirkland showed the photos to Fleming who deliberately

admitted his guilt of raping the victim. During the opening of the trial,

Kirkland declared his client guilty.

DISCUSSION

Defense Counsel’s Revelation

A revelation made by a defense counsel against the accused is

an inadmissible evidence due to the violation of the res inter alios acta

rule and the attorney-client privilege. The rule on res inter alios acta

provides that the rights of a party cannot be prejudiced by an act,

—
3People v. Molleda, G.R. No. 153219, December 1, 1993, 417 SCRA 53.
 3

declaration, or omission of another4. Following this rule, the revelation

of Attorney Kirkland cannot prejudice the right of Judge Fleming. It

would not only be manifestly unjust, that a man should be bound by

the acts of mere unauthorized strangers. Furthermore, a party should

not to be bound by the acts of strangers, neither should their acts or

conduct be used as evidence against him5.

Moreover, the preservation and protection of the confidence

between the attorney and his client encourages the latter to entrust his

legal problems to the former, which is of paramount importance to the

administration of justice6. Hence, an attorney is to keep inviolate his

client’s secrets or confidence and not to abuse them. In the instant

case, the exposé of Kirkland explicitly violated the attorney-client

privilege which is a disqualifying rule under the Rules of Court,

precluding an attorney from testifying against his client without the

latter’s consent.

Prosecution’s Legal Action

Rape is an offense of secrecy, which, more often than not,

happens in a private setting involving only the accused and the victim.

By such reason, regardless of the inadmissibility of the defense

counsel’s revelation, the accused may still be prosecuted for the crime

of rape based on the testimony of the victim. In fact, the victim’s

testimony is the most important factor to prove that the felony has been

—
4Id., at p. 1.
5Tamargo v. Romulo, G.R. No. 177727, January 19, 2010.
6Hilado v. David, G.R. No. L-961, September 21, 1949.
 4

Committed7. In the instant case, the young woman’s testimony is a

compelling and admissible evidence against Judge Fleming. The

rationale for such, as held by the Court in People v. Oliva8, is that the

degree of humiliation and disgrace befalling a rape victim who decides

to come forward must be taken into consideration. Generally, no

person would be willing to undergo the humiliation of a public trial and

to testify on the details of her ordeal were it not to condemn an injustice.

For these reasons, the testimony of the young woman, even if

uncorroborated, can lead to the conviction of the accused, hence, it is

a sufficient ground for a legal action against Judge Fleming.

CONCLUSION

From the instant case, the following are deduced. First, that the

defense counsel’s revelation is an inadmissible evidence against the

accused for it is violative of the res inter alios acta rule. Second, the

same is inadmissible because an attorney is barred from testifying

against his client with information acquired from the latter. Lastly, that

the prosecution may still initiate a legal action prosecuting the accused

of the crime of rape regardless of the inadmissibility of the defense

counsel’s revelation, in view of the testimony of the victim.

—
7People v. Antonio, G.R. No. 145726, March 26, 2003.
8226 Phil. 518, 522 (1986)