Decision in Criminal Case No. SB-28361 entitled "People vs. Joselito C. Barrozo

Factual Background

Jennie Valeriano was a respondent in several cases for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 which were assigned to Joselito C. Barrozo in his capacity as Assistant Public Prosecutor. Valeriano alleged that Barrozo told her he would resolve her cases in exchange for P20,000.00 and reported the demand to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor. The Regional State Prosecutor coordinated with agents of the National Bureau of Investigation, who conducted an entrapment operation. During the operation on February 15, 2005, NBI agents caught Barrozo receiving P20,000.00 from Valeriano.

Criminal Proceedings and Conviction

A criminal complaint for direct bribery under Art. 210 was filed against Barrozo before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City and later indorsed to the Sandiganbayan because respondent held a position with salary grade twenty-seven or higher. The Sandiganbayan, finding the existence of all elements of direct bribery, convicted Barrozo in a Decision dated March 17, 2011. The court imposed an indeterminate penalty of four years, two months and one day of prision correccional maximum as minimum to nine years, four months and one day of prision mayor medium as maximum, a fine of P60,000.00, and the penalty of special temporary disqualification. The Sandiganbayan denied respondent’s Motion for Reconsideration on September 28, 2011. Barrozo sought relief from this Court in G.R. No. 198706, which was denied on December 14, 2011; subsequent motions for reconsideration were denied or expunged, and the Entry of Judgment became final and executory on August 16, 2012.

Collateral Administrative Proceedings before the Bar

The Office of the Bar Confidant received a letter dated August 14, 2013 from Wat & Co. of Hong Kong reporting receipt of a letter from the Philippines signed by “Atty. Joselito C. Barrozo,” concerning a claim for long service payment of a deceased domestic helper. The OBC inquired of the Department of Justice whether Barrozo remained connected thereat; the DOJ replied that respondent had resigned effective May 3, 2005. On November 15, 2012 the OBC informed Wat & Co. that Barrozo had been convicted by final judgment and that the Philippine courts had not yet ruled on his disbarment. By Resolution dated December 11, 2013, this Court required Barrozo to comment why he should not be suspended or disbarred.

Respondent’s Contentions

In his Comment, Barrozo framed the issue as whether he could engage in the practice of law despite his conviction and contended that signing the claim letter did not constitute the practice of law. He averred that he signed the letter out of a desire to help the claimants and not for monetary consideration; therefore, no lawyer-client relationship was established and no practice of law occurred. The Court found this line of argument to miss the central issue presented by the certified record of conviction.

OBC Recommendation and the Court’s Inquiry

Pursuant to the Court’s order, the OBC evaluated the matter and submitted a Report and Recommendation dated February 20, 2015, advising that Barrozo be disbarred. The Court adopted the OBC’s recommendation and observed that the dispositive question was not whether signing the claim letter constituted the practice of law but whether respondent’s final conviction for direct bribery warranted suspension or disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138.

Legal Analysis on Moral Turpitude

The Court analyzed whether direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude, a ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138. The Court reiterated the governing definition of moral turpitude as conduct “contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals” and cited precedent, including Catalan, Jr. v. Silvosa and Magno v. COMELEC, to conclude that direct bribery involves moral turpitude. The Court explained that the elements of direct bribery — in particular the acceptance of a promise or gift in consideration of performing or refraining from an official act — manifest a deliberate renunciation of official duties and a betrayal of public trust; such conduct is inherently contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals.

Disbarment versus Suspension and Aggravating Considerations

Although the Court acknowledged that a lawyer’s conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude does not automatically mandate disbarment and that suspension remains a discretionary alternative, the Court exercised its discretion and imposed disbarment in this case. The Court emphasized that at the time of the offense Barrozo was an Assistant Public Prosecutor, and his extortion of money from a party to a case he handled gravely compromised the integrity of the prosecutorial function, undermined public confidence in the rule of law, and fell short of the high standard of honesty and fair dealing required of lawyers in public office. The Court