You are on page 1of 4

Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT


Branch 101, Cebu City
COMPLAINT
I,__________, Filipino, of legal age, single, with residence and postal address at P. del
Rosario Street, Cebu City, and a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
hereby files this administrative complaint:
For violations of Rule 1.03, Rule 6.01, Rule 10.01, Rule 15.06 and Rule 19.01 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility against Atty. Kenneth Walsh, a state prosecutor.
The complaint is based on the following facts:
1. On March 17, 2016, Michael McIntyre is accused of killing his business
partner. Patricia Hayden, daughter of the deceased, and the state files a
criminal case against him, represented by state prosecutors Atty. Kenneth
Walsh and Atty. Helen Gamble. Consequently, Mr. McIntyre hired Atty. Bobby
Donnell and Atty. Jimmy Berluti as his counsel.
2. In representing the state and Ms. Hayden, Atty. Kenneth Walsh committed
falsehood in violation of his Lawyers Oath and Code of Professional
Responsibility through the following actions:
a. Atty. Walsh has been openly pursuing the case against Mr. McIntyre
because of personal interest and motive. Around twelve years ago, Atty.
Walsh failed to prosecute Mr. McIntyre in a separate case and since then
has been desperate to convict him. This is clearly a violation of Rules 1.03
and 6.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) which states
that:
Rule 1.03 - A lawyer shall not, for any corrupt motive or
interest, encourage any suit or proceeding or delay any
man's cause.
Rule 6.01 - The primary duty of a lawyer engaged in
public prosecution is not to convict but to see that
justice is done. The suppression of facts or the
concealment of witnesses capable of establishing the

innocence of the accused is highly reprehensible and is


cause for disciplinary action.
b. Atty. Walsh has been desperate to convict Mr. McIntyre that he resorted to
unlawful and unethical means to accomplish such personal agendas.
Clearly upset by the sudden change of witness testimony by Charles Rossi
(who recently confirmed in open court that his previous testimony was a
mistake and it was not Mr. McIntyre he saw leaving the deceaseds house
at the night of the murder), Atty. Walsh threatened Mr. Rossi to revert back
to his original testimony, to having seen the Mr. McIntyre leave the house
of the deceased at the night of the murder. He intimidated Mr. Rossi, by
making statements such as:
I will open a grand jury investigation, subpoena
anyone who hates you and use them to prosecute you
of perjury and obstruction of justice, to convict you
and to personally recommend that the maximum
sentence be doubled; and thereafter, send you to the
toughest prison.
Atty. Walsh used his position and its corresponding influence to instill
fear upon Mr. Rossi and persuade him to change his testimony in favor of
Atty. Walshs client.

This immoral method used by Atty. Walsh is an

apparent perversion of the following provisions of the Code of Professional


Responsibility:
Rule 15.06 - A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able
to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.
Rule 19.01 - A lawyer shall employ only fair and honest
means to attain the lawful objectives of his client and shall
not present, participate in presenting or threaten to present
unfounded

criminal

charges

to

obtain

an

improper

advantage in any case or proceeding.


Atty. Helen Gamble personally witnessed the intimidation of Mr. Rossi
by Atty. Walsh.

3. During trial, the investigative officer of the murder case stands as witness
against the defendant. He stated that since the house was full of untouched
valuables, it is less likely that an intruder or a robber killed the victim.
Unexpectedly, the detective revealed the defendants past records; that the
Mr. McIntyre has been previously tried in a criminal case, based on the
allegations that he killed his former business partner. This proscribed
disclosure is suspicious (because the jurys deliberations may be affected) and
seemingly a product of conspiracy between Walsh and the detective. Judge
Patrick Wilcox sustained the objection of the defense counsel and strongly
advised the jury to disregard the detectives statements regarding Mr.
McIntyres previous record.
Atty. Donnell and Atty. Berluti, the defense counsel, accused Atty. Walsh of
intentionally ordering the disclosure of the defendants previous trial and
conspired with the detective. Allegedly, it was the intention of Walsh to restart
the trial by calling it a mistrial. If the prosecution called for a mistrial, they
wouldnt get a new trial because double jeopardy would attach. So, through
the disclosure of the defendants previous trial, Atty. Walsh forces the
defendants counsel to call a mistrial, knowing double jeopardy wouldnt
attach. This unethical practice is a product of dishonesty, lack of candor and
pursuit of an unfair trial as manifested through the unsubtle efforts of Atty.
Walsh to restart the trail, when he realized that they were losing the case due
to lack of credible and solid witnesses. Rule 10.01 of the Code of responsibility
provides that:
A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to
the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or
allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
4. To confirm the allegations against Atty. Walsh, Atty. Donnell asked Atty. Gamble
in the witness stand:
Atty. Donnell: Do you have any basis to believe that Mr. Walsh did intend to
cause a mistrial?
Atty. Gamble: Yes.
Since Atty. Gamble is bound by the witness oath, her testimonies regarding Atty.
Walshs questionable actions (such as misleading the court about the availability
of a witness and the fact that Walsh intentionally excluded Helen when prepping

the detective to take the witness stand) may be considered as nothing but the
truth.
5. In the case against Mr. McIntyre, Judge Patrick Wilcox decided to dismiss the
case with prejudice because of Atty. Walshs clear attempt to cause a mistrial to
obtain a new trial. In his decision, Judge Wilcox stated:
I am required to consider the totality of the facts supporting these
allegations, as well as the credibility of the parties involved. This is not
the first time I had Mr. Walsh before me. This year alone, I have seen a
man who I always respected, employ what I considered to be sharp
and unethical practices. He has become increasingly less candid and
honest. In an effort to do justice, he has perverted it.
6. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment in its favor through the
disbarment of the defendant and the removal of his name from the Rolls of
Attorneys.
Other just and equitable reliefs are also prayed for.