You are on page 1of 3

Carlo H.

Barcena
LEGRES 1-A
2014400106
Applying Philippine Laws and Jurisprudence on the following movies:
1. ..AND JUSTICE FOR ALL
Questions:

1.1 Whether or not Al Pacino in his last act, violated the rules of professional lawyers?
Yes, Al Pacino violated the rules of professional lawyers with respect to the
Philippine laws. According to Canon 15, Rule 15.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility1, "A lawyer shall be bound by the rule on privilege communication in
respect of matters disclosed to him by a prospective client"; in Canon 17 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility1, "A lawyer owes fidelity to the cause of his client and he
shall be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him"; and in Rule 138, Section
24[e] of the Rules of Court3, A lawyer should "preserve the secrets of his client". In the
given scenario, Al Pacino's client, the judge charged with rape, disclosed that he is
guilty of rape. With the given information, Al Pacino is obligated not to divulge it because
of the attorney-client relationship. It is must be confidential and it is improper for him to
use it against his own client because of his own conscience. Under Canon 15 of the
Canons of Professional Ethics2, Al Pacino, as a defense counsel, is legally bound to
protect his client and use any available remedy or defense in winning his client cause.
But because of his actions in divulging his client to be guilty of rape, he violated these
rules. He violated Canons 15 and 17 of the Code of Professional Responsibility 1, Canon
15 of the Canons of Professional Ethics2, and Rule 138, Section 24[e] of the Rules of
Court3.

1.2 Whether or not the revelations made by Al Pacino in the last scene may be used by
the prosecution?

No, the revelations made by Al Pacino may not be used by the prosecution.
According to Rule 130, Section 24[b] of the Revised Rules of Evidence 4, "An attorney
cannot, without the consent of his client, be examined as to any communication made
by the client to him, or his advice given thereon in the course of, or with a view to,
professional employment, nor can an attorneys secretary, stenographer, or clerk be

examined, without the consent of the client and his employer, concerning any fact the
knowledge of which has been acquired in such capacity". With respect to this rule, the
revelations made by Al Pacino by stating in the court trial that his client is guilty of rape
cannot be used as an evidence by the prosecution. It is disqualified by reason of
privilege communication between Al Pacino and his client. A defense counsel cannot
incriminate his own client.
2. FRACTURE
Question:
2.1 Whether or not Anthony Hopkins may still be subject to prosecution after he was
acquitted?
Yes, Anthony Hopkins may still be subject to prosecution. According to Article 3,
Section 21 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution 5, "No person shall be twice put in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an
ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another
prosecution for the same act". With the said law, no one should be charged with the
same act but what Anthony Hopkins did is different. After his acquittal for the attempted
murder charged against him, he made a decision to remove the life support of his wife,
which in turn killed her. Then in the sequence of the movie, the prosecution gained new
evidence that will link Anthony Hopkins to the death of his wife, bullet inside the head of
the wife. This new evidence, the matching of bullet and pistol in hand, gained by the
prosecution will be used for new charges and new trial against him. Also in Rule 117,
Section 7 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure 6, "When an accused has been
convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint
or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal
of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the
offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in
the former complaint or information". With the said rule, there is a valid complaint that
can be used by the prosecution. It is not of the same act so the use of the double
jeopardy clause in the 1987 Philippine Constitution 5 as a defense is not valid. The
charge would not be attempted murder but instead murder, removing of the life support.
Based on the said laws, Anthony Hopkins may still be subject to prosecution.

Sources:

(1) [elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/370, Primary]


(2) [www.chanrobles.com/canonsofprofessionalethics.htm#.U-yTGPmSzoo, Secondary]
(3) [elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/373,Primary]
(4) [elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/370, Primary]
(5) [elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353, Primary]
(6) [elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/369, Primary]