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.