Title
Soriano vs. Dizon
Case
A.C. No. 6792
Decision Date
Jan 25, 2006
Atty. Manuel Dizon, convicted of frustrated homicide for shooting a taxi driver while intoxicated, exhibited moral turpitude through violent, dishonest conduct and failure to pay civil liabilities, leading to his disbarment.
lawyer
disbarred
frustrated homicide

Case Summary (A.C. No. 6792)

Factual Background

On the evening of the incident, Atty. Manuel Dizon drove a brown Toyota Corolla after having taken alcohol. A taxi driven by Roberto Soriano overtook respondent; respondent pursued the taxi, stopped the vehicle, and physically accosted the taxi driver. After a scuffle in which the taxi driver repelled respondent, respondent returned to his car, retrieved a revolver whose handle he wrapped in a handkerchief, confronted the taxi driver as the latter returned the eyeglasses respondent had lost, and fired a shot that struck Soriano in the left side of the neck, lacerating the carotid artery. The shooting was witnessed by Antonio Billanes, who aided Soriano and transported him to hospital.

Injuries and Consequences to the Complainant

The wound lacerated Soriano’s carotid artery, and the attending surgeon testified that timely medical assistance prevented death from hemorrhage. Soriano sustained a spinal cord injury resulting in paralysis of the left side of his body and permanent disability to perform his work as a taxi driver. The RTC found that Soriano’s earning capacity, health, and youthful vigor were materially impaired.

Trial Court Proceedings and Findings

Branch 60, RTC, Baguio City convicted Atty. Manuel Dizon beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of frustrated homicide and rendered its Decision dated November 29, 2001. The court found one mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and one aggravating circumstance of treachery, and imposed an indeterminate penalty of six months arresto mayor as minimum to six years prision correccional as maximum. The court adjudged respondent civilly liable to pay P76,293.00 as actual damages, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. The RTC also noted injuries inconsistent with respondent’s claim of having been mauled by three persons and found respondent’s account implausible.

Probation and Civil Liability

Respondent applied for probation on January 18, 2002, and the court granted probation on conditions that included satisfaction of the civil liabilities awarded in favor of Soriano. The IBP and complainant later reported that respondent had not satisfied those civil liabilities and that respondent had appealed the civil liability award to the Court of Appeals.

CBD and IBP Proceedings

Complainant filed a Complaint-Affidavit for disbarment with the CBD alleging violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and citing respondent’s conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude as ground for disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138. Respondent failed to file an Answer and was declared in default, prompting an ex parte hearing on June 11, 2004. Commissioner Teresita J. Herbosa conducted the investigation, received complainant’s position paper, and on December 6, 2004 issued a Report and Recommendation finding respondent guilty of conduct evincing lack of good moral character and recommending disbarment. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Recommendation by Resolution No. XVI-2005-84 dated March 12, 2005.

Issues Presented

The Court framed the dispositive issues as: whether the crime of frustrated homicide, as committed by respondent, involves moral turpitude; and whether respondent’s conviction and attendant circumstances render him unfit to continue practice of law, warranting disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138.

Legal Standard on Moral Turpitude

The Court recalled established doctrine that conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is ground for disbarment and that moral turpitude is determined by the nature of the act and the surrounding circumstances. The Court cited the definition of moral turpitude as acts contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals, and invoked precedent that whether a crime involves moral turpitude often depends on attendant circumstances rather than the label of the offense alone, exemplified by International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) v. NLRC.

Application of Law to Facts

The Court distinguished the present case from IRRI by emphasizing respondent’s role as aggressor, the treacherous nature of the assault, and the premeditated steps respondent took to avoid detection—specifically, wrapping the gun handle with a handkerchief. The Court found that complainant’s defensive acts did not justify respondent’s fatal resort to a firearm and that the shooting occurred when the victim was not in a position to defend himself. The Court also noted respondent’s deceptive behavior: false claims of being mauled by multiple assailants, fabrications concerning out-of-court settlement negotiations, persistent denial despite positive identification and overwhelming evidence, illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm, and persistent failure to satisfy court-ordered civil liabilities.

Character and Professional Fitness

The Court held that respondent’s conduct demonstrated an utter lack of good moral character, an essential qualification for admission to and continuation in the practice of law. The Court emphasized that truthfulness and honesty lie at the core of professional ethics and that respondent’s duplicitous behavior and dishonesty eroded public confidence in the profession. The Court observed that the attorney’s o

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms