Republic of the Philippines )

Cebu City ) S.S.

COMPLAINT- AFFIDAVIT

We, the undersigned students of Law, most respectfully file this

administrative complaint against ADA Kenneth Walsh for grave
violations of Rule 6.01 and Rule 6.02 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and to the Lawyers Oath. We hereby deposed
that:
1. Kenneth Walsh, the Chief prosecutor of the DA, while
taking personal interest in the murder case against one Michael
Mclyntyre, violated the provisions of Rule 2.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility by deliberately causing the mistrial of
the case in an effort to secure a new trial and ultimately obtain a
conviction. The law provides:
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.

Twelve (12) years ago, the same prosecutor handled another

murder trial against the same defendant Michael Mclyntyre to
which he was not successful in getting a conviction. Driven by
personal vindication and unreasonable belief of what justice
should be, Kenneth Walsh first tried to call for a mistrial alleging
that the defendant of the case orchestrated the death of one of
the witnesses in the trial, Rossi. Walsh claimed that Rossi,
apparently, would have changed his testimony against the
defendant and it was an insult to the Court, a spit to its authority,
to just let the defendant get away with it unscathed. Walsh
averred that the Judge should declare a mistrial for manifest
necessity without prejudice to double jeopardy. These he did with
personal vendetta and for conviction and not for justice. It was a

blatant disregard of the duty of the lawyer as officer of the court

to uphold justice. Justice is for all, for the accused and the
defendant. It was a shame that Walsh took it upon himself to
determine what justice should be and hence, it is our collective
belief that he should be subjected to necessary disciplinary
action.
Furthermore, Walsh in another violation of Rule 6.01 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility, suppressed the fact that one of
their material witnesses were in Florida attending a sick mother to
which there was no indication that the latters availability is
possible in time of the hearing of the case. It was a material fact
to which the Court should have been informed about. It was a
dishonest act of Walsh and should not go unpunished lest it serve
as a bad example to other lawyers.
2. Kenneth Walsh, making use of the resources at his
disposal and the authority of the office which affords him, has
colluded with the Investigating Officer of the case. This is a wilful
and deliberate act in violation of Rule 6.02 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility which provides:
Rule 6.02 - A lawyer in the government service shall not use
his public position to promote or advance his private
interests, nor allow the latter to interfere with his public
duties.
There was sufficient reason to believe that Walsh has
committed a grave abuse of his office and position to perpetrate a
personal vendetta. Kenneth Walsh, upon failing to seek a mistrial
with provision for a new trial, has de-seated his fellow prosecutor
Helen Gamble and took over the case. He has prepped the
Investigating Officer alone prior to the hearing to which the latter
sat as witness. It was later found as a fact that the Investigating
Officer was the same one who investigated the murder case of
the same defendant twelve (12) years ago.
Walsh has made leading questions which resulted to the
Investigating Officer making reference to the previous murder

trial of the defendant. It was callous taking notice of the fact that
the two cases basically have the same gist the killing
supposedly done by the defendant to his business partners. That
was a fundamental error that could influence the decision of the
jury. It was so prejudicial to the defendant and it cannot be cured
by appropriate instructions to the jury. That was a remark leading
to the decision of the Court to: Mistrial with Prejudice. Walsh has
deliberately did this so the defendants counsels would call for a
mistrial and which double jeopardy would not attach. That was
trickery and a plot to circumvent the law.
3. Kenneth Walsh has fallen short in fulfilling the obligation
he has set upon himself through the Lawyers Oath which
provides for solemn agreement to dedicate himself to the pursuit
of justice. His actions were the cause of the decision for mistrial
with prejudice. It was his prosecutorial misconduct which resulted
to the mistrial and barred a new trial for the finding of the guilt or
innocence of the defendant and the proper administration of
justice. This was a mockery to the oath he has taken. The
Lawyers Oath is sacred trust and not a mere ceremony. It is our
ardent belief that the lawyer be sanctioned severely for the grave
trespasses he has committed against the law he vowed to live by.
It was rightfully pointed out that to deny justice in order to save
justice is no justice at all.
We sincerely hope with a prayer that you would investigate this
matter further as we strongly and humbly believe that a serious
case of misconduct has been perpetrated by Kenneth Walsh.
We hereby affixed our signatures this 1st day of December
2014 at Cebu City, Philippines.

Salas, April Jane.

Silawan

Libres
Uy
Dy
Regalado
Davad
Pizzaro
Paeng