Case Summary (A.C. No. 10207)
Petitioner / Procedural Posture
Proceeding instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court under its disciplinary authority (Rule 139-B, Sec. 1, Rules of Court) following a final conviction. The OBC conducted inquiry and recommended disbarment; the Court adopted the OBC recommendation and proceeded to disbar the respondent.
Key Dates and Procedural Milestones
Entrapment and receipt of money: February 15, 2005. Sandiganbayan conviction of direct bribery: March 17, 2011. Motion for reconsideration denied; petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court denied and that denial became final and executory (Entry of Judgment noted finality on August 16, 2012). OBC correspondence and inquiry following a Hong Kong law firm's communication: 2013; OBC report and recommendation: February 20, 2015. Supreme Court decision adopting OBC recommendation and ordering disbarment: rendered in 2016 (decision falls under jurisprudence applying the 1987 Constitution).
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
The Court exercised disciplinary authority over members of the bar pursuant to the 1987 Constitution’s grant of judicial power and under Rule 139-B, Section 1 (disciplinary proceedings may be initiated motu proprio) and Rule 138, Section 27 (grounds for disbarment or suspension, including conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude). The criminal charge was direct bribery under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code; the elements of direct bribery are set out in the Rules and relevant authorities.
Factual Summary of the Allegations and Entrapment Operation
Valeriano, a respondent in multiple criminal cases assigned to respondent as Assistant Public Prosecutor, alleged that respondent told her he would resolve her cases favorably in exchange for P20,000. Valeriano reported the demand to the Regional State Prosecutor, who coordinated with the NBI. During an entrapment operation on February 15, 2005, NBI agents caught respondent receiving P20,000 from Valeriano.
Criminal Proceedings and Final Conviction
A charge for direct bribery under paragraph 2, Article 210, RPC, was filed and, because respondent occupied a position with salary grade 27 or higher, the case was indorsed to the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan found all elements of direct bribery proven and, in its March 17, 2011 decision, convicted respondent beyond reasonable doubt. It imposed an indeterminate term of imprisonment and a fine of P60,000 plus special temporary disqualification. Subsequent motions for reconsideration and a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court were denied; the denial became final and executory.
OBC Inquiry, Respondent’s Comment, and OBC Recommendation
Following receipt of information from a Hong Kong law firm and confirmation of respondent’s conviction, the OBC required respondent to comment why he should not be suspended or disbarred. Respondent argued that his later act of signing a claim letter did not constitute the practice of law and was not motivated by monetary consideration. The OBC evaluated the matter and, in its February 20, 2015 report, recommended disbarment on account of the final conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude.
Legal Issue Presented for Disciplinary Action
The dispositive issue before the Court was whether respondent should be suspended or disbarred by reason of his final conviction for direct bribery — i.e., whether direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude and, if so, whether the appropriate disciplinary penalty is disbarment rather than mere suspension.
Analysis on Moral Turpitude and Controlling Precedent
The Court applied Rule 138, Section 27, which makes conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude a ground for suspension or disbarment. The Court relied on established definitions and precedent (including Catalan, Jr. v. Silvosa and Magno v. COMELEC) holding that moral turpitude involves conduct “contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals” and that direct bribery is inherently indicative of moral turpitude. The third element of direct bribery — accepting a promise, gift, or present in consideration of committing an unjust act or refraining from official duty — demonstrates malicious intent and betrayal of public trust, which the Court recognized as sufficient to constitute moral turpitude.
Discretion Between Suspension and Disbarment; Application to the Facts
While con
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.C. No. 10207)
Case Caption and Nature of Proceeding
- Case caption as presented: "RE: DECISION DATED 17 MARCH 2011 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. SB-28361 ENTITLED 'PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSELITO C. BARROZO', FORMER ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR JOSELITO C. BARROZO, RESPONDENT."
- Nature of proceeding before the Supreme Court: A disbarment proceeding taken up motu proprio by the Court under its disciplinary power over members of the bar pursuant to Section 1, Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.
- Underlying criminal conviction: Final conviction for the crime of direct bribery by the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. SB-28361 (Decision dated March 17, 2011).
- Disciplinary question presented to the Court: Whether respondent should be suspended or disbarred by reason of his conviction for direct bribery.
Factual Antecedents
- Jennie Valeriano was a respondent in multiple estafa and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases assigned to respondent, then Assistant Public Prosecutor of Dagupan City, Pangasinan.
- Valeriano alleged that respondent told her he would resolve her cases in her favor in exchange for P20,000.00.
- Valeriano reported the alleged demand to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor.
- The Regional State Prosecutor introduced Valeriano to agents of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), who planned and conducted an entrapment operation.
- During the operation on February 15, 2005, respondent was caught receiving P20,000.00 from Valeriano in the presence of NBI agents.
Criminal Proceedings and Conviction
- A charge of direct bribery, under paragraph 2, Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, was filed against respondent before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City.
- The case was later indorsed to the Sandiganbayan because respondent occupied a position with a salary grade of 27 or higher.
- The Sandiganbayan, in a Decision dated March 17, 2011, found respondent guilty beyond reasonable doubt of direct bribery after finding the existence of all elements of the crime.
- Penalties imposed by the Sandiganbayan:
- Indeterminate prison penalty: minimum of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional maximum, to maximum of nine (9) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision mayor medium.
- Fine of P60,000.00.
- Special temporary disqualification.
Post-Conviction Motions and Appeals
- Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) before the Sandiganbayan; the MR was denied by Resolution dated September 28, 2011.
- Respondent filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (docketed as G.R. No. 198706, entitled "Joselito C. Barrozo v. People of the Philippines") before the Supreme Court; the Petition was denied by Resolution dated December 14, 2011 on the ground that petitioner failed to show reversible error warranting this Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
- Respondent filed three motions for reconsideration from the Supreme Court's denial:
- The first and second MRs were denied (see Court Resolutions dated June 13, 2012 and October 22, 2012).
- The third MR was ordered expunged from the records (Court Resolution dated February 20, 2013).
- An Entry of Judgment was issued stating the Court's Resolution of denial had become final and executory on August 16, 2012.
Communications, Inquiries, and Administrative Follow-up
- On November 15, 2012, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) wrote Wat & Co. (Hong Kong) to confirm that respondent was convicted of direct bribery by final judgment and that the Philippine Court had yet to rule on his disbarment.
- In October 2013, the OBC received a letter dated August 14, 2013 from Wat & Co. (Hong Kong) stating that its client in Hong Kong had received a letter from the Philippines signed "Atty. Joselito C. Barrozo" seeking long service payment from employers of a domestic helper who passed away on March 4, 2013. Wat & Co. requested the OBC to inform if respondent was still a lawyer qualified to practice law.
- Prompted by Wat & Co.'s inquiry, the OBC asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) whether respondent remained connected to its office. The DOJ replied that respondent had resigned effective May 3, 2005.
- In view of respondent's final conviction and Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which lists conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude as ground for disbarment or suspension, the Court, via Resolution dated December 11, 2013, required respondent to comment on why he should not be suspended/disbarred from the practice of law.
Respondent's Comment and Position
- In his Comment, respondent framed the issue as whether he can engage in the practice of law despite his conviction.
- He argued that his act of signing the claim letter did not constitute the practice of law.
- He averred that he signed the claim letter not for monetary consideration but out of a sincere desire to help the claimants.
- He asserted that because there was no payment involved, no lawyer-client relationship was established and therefore no practice of law occurred on his part.
- The Court found respondent's