Case Digest (A.C. No. 10207)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Joselito C. Barrozo, A.C. No. 10207, July 21, 2015, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The disbarment proceeding was taken up motu proprio under Rule 139-B, Sec. 1 of the Rules of Court.Joselito C. Barrozo (respondent) was then an Assistant Public Prosecutor of Dagupan City. Jennie Valeriano, a respondent in several estafa and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases assigned to respondent, alleged that respondent told her he could resolve her cases in exchange for P20,000.00. Valeriano reported the demand to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor, was introduced to National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agents, and participated in an entrapment operation on February 15, 2005 during which NBI agents caught respondent receiving P20,000.00.
A criminal complaint for direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code was filed against respondent before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City; the case was later endorsed to the Sandiganbayan because respondent occupied a position with salary grade 27 or higher. In a Decision dated March 17, 2011, the Sandiganbayan found respondent guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct bribery and sentenced him to prison terms (indeterminate) and a fine of P60,000.00, and imposed special temporary disqualification. His Motion for Reconsideration was denied in a September 28, 2011 Resolution.
Respondent filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (docketed G.R. No. 198706), which this Court denied by Resolution dated December 14, 2011; subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied or expunged, and an Entry of Judgment stated finality on August 16, 2012. In October 2013 the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a query from Wat & Co. (Hong Kong) reporting a Philippine letter signed "Atty. Joselito C. Barrozo" and asking whether he remained a lawyer, leading the OBC to confirm respondent’s conviction and to inquire with the DOJ (which replied that respondent had resigned effective May 3, 2005).
On December 11, 2013 the Court required respondent to comment why he should not be suspended or disbarred. In his Comment respondent primarily argued that his signing of a claim letter did not amount to the practice of law and that he did not receive ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether respondent should be suspended or disbarred by reason of his final conviction for direct bribery.
- Whether respondent’s act of signing a claim letter constitutes the practice of law and is pertinent to the disbarme...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)