Garcia Vs Sesbreno
Garcia Vs Sesbreno
of tbe
~upreme
~bilippine9'
Qeourt
;fflllantla
EN BANC
MELVYN G. GARCIA,
Complainant,
Present:
- versus -
SERENO, C.J.,
CARPIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,*
PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,
DEL CASTILLO,
VILLARAMA, JR.,
PEREZ,
MENDOZA,
REYES,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN, and
JARDELEZA, JJ.
Promulgated:
ATTY. RAUL H. SESBRENO,
February 3, 2015
Respondent.
x. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
DECISION
PERCURIAM:
On leave.
Decision
Decision
In his answer to the complaint, Sesbreo alleged that his sentence was
commuted and the phrase with the inherent accessory penalties provided by
law was deleted. Sesbreo argued that even if the accessory penalty was not
deleted, the disqualification applies only during the term of the sentence.
Sesbreo further alleged that homicide does not involve moral turpitude.
Sesbreo claimed that Garcias complaint was motivated by extreme malice,
bad faith, and desire to retaliate against him for representing Garcias
daughters in court.
The IBP-CBD consolidated A.C. No. 7973 with CBD Case No. 082273. The parties agreed on the sole issue to be resolved: whether moral
turpitude is involved in a conviction for homicide.
The IBP-CBD ruled that the Regional Trial Court of Cebu found
Sesbreo guilty of murder and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. On appeal, this Court downgraded the crime to
homicide and sentenced Sesbreo to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for
9 years and 1 day of prision mayor as minimum to 16 years and 4 months of
reclusion temporal as maximum. The IBP-CBD found that Sesbreo was
released from confinement on 27 July 2001 following his acceptance of the
conditions of his parole on 10 July 2001.
The IBP-CBD ruled that conviction for a crime involving moral
turpitude is a ground for disbarment or suspension. Citing International
Rice Research Institute v. National Labor Relations Commission,1 the IBPCBD further ruled that homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude
depending on the degree of the crime. The IBP-CBD reviewed the decision
of this Court convicting Sesbreo for the crime of homicide, and found that
the circumstances leading to the death of the victim involved moral
turpitude. The IBP-CBD stated:
Neither victim Luciano Amparado nor his companion Christopher
Yapchangco was shown to be a foe of respondent and neither had the
victim Luciano nor his companion Christopher shown to have wronged
the respondent. They simply happened to be at the wrong place and time
the early morning of June 3, 1993.
The circumstances leading to the death of Luciano solely caused by
respondent, bear the earmarks of moral turpitude. Paraphrasing what the
Supreme Court observed in Soriano v. Dizon, supra, the respondent, by his
conduct, displayed extreme arrogance and feeling of self-importance.
Respondent acted like a god who deserved not to be slighted by a couple
of drunks who may have shattered the stillness of the early morning with
their boisterous antics, natural display of loud bravado of drunken men
who had one too many. Respondents inordinate overreaction to the
ramblings of drunken men who were not even directed at respondent
reflected poorly on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession.
1
Decision
Respondent was not only vindictive without a cause; he was cruel with a
misplaced sense of superiority.2
Decision
We reviewed the Decision of this Court and we agree with the IBPCBD that the circumstances show the presence of moral turpitude.
The Decision showed that the victim Luciano Amparado (Amparado)
and his companion Christopher Yapchangco (Yapchangco) were walking
4
5
6
7
8
9
Re: SC Decision Dated May 20, 2008 in G.R. No. 161455 Under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court
v. Atty. Rodolfo D. Pactolin, A.C. No. 7940, 24 April 2012, 670 SCRA 366.
Catalan, Jr. v. Silvosa, A.C. No. 7360, 24 July 2012, 677 SCRA 352.
Supra note 1.
Supra note 1, at 768.
372 Phil. 762 (1999).
Id. at 795.
Decision
and just passed by Sesbreos house when the latter, without any
provocation from the former, went out of his house, aimed his rifle, and
started firing at them. According to Yapchangco, they were about five
meters, more or less, from the gate of Sesbreo when they heard the
screeching sound of the gate and when they turned around, they saw
Sesbreo aiming his rifle at them. Yapchangco and Amparado ran away but
Amparado was hit. An eyewitness, Rizaldy Rabanes (Rabanes), recalled that
he heard shots and opened the window of his house. He saw Yapchangco
and Amparado running away while Sesbreo was firing his firearm rapidly,
hitting Rabanes house in the process. Another witness, Edwin Parune, saw
Amparado fall down after being shot, then saw Sesbreo in the middle of the
street, carrying a long firearm, and walking back towards the gate of his
house. The IBP-CBD correctly stated that Amparado and Yapchangco were
just at the wrong place and time. They did not do anything that justified the
indiscriminate firing done by Sesbreo that eventually led to the death of
Amparado.
We cannot accept Sesbreos argument that the executive clemency
restored his full civil and political rights. Sesbreo cited In re Atty.
Parcasio10 to bolster his argument. In that case, Atty. Parcasio was granted
an absolute and unconditional pardon11 which restored his full civil and
political rights,12 a circumstance not present in these cases. Here, the Order
of Commutation13 did not state that the pardon was absolute and
unconditional. The accessory penalties were not mentioned when the
original sentence was recited in the Order of Commutation and they were
also not mentioned in stating the commuted sentence. It only states:
By virtue of the authority conferred upon me by the Constitution
and upon the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Parole, the
original sentence of prisoner RAUL SESBREO Y HERDA convicted by
the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City and Supreme Court and sentenced to
an indeterminate prison term of from 9 years and 1 day to 16 years and 4
months imprisonment and to pay an indemnity of P50,000.00 is/are hereby
commuted to an indeterminate prison term of from 7 years and 6 months
to 10 years imprisonment and to pay an indemnity of P50,000.00.14
Decision
fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment. 15 In this case, the
executive clemency merely "commuted to an indeterminate prison term
of 7 years and 6 months to 10 years imprisonment" the penalty imposed
on Sesbrefio. Commutation is a mere reduction of penalty. 16
Commutation only partially extinguished criminal liability. 17 The penalty
for Sesbrefio' s crime was never wiped out. He served the commuted or
reduced penalty, for which reason he was released from prison. More
importantly, the Final Release and Discharge 18 stated that "[i]t is
understood that such x x x accessory penalties of the law as have not
been expressly remitted herein shall subsist." Hence, the Parcasio case
has no application here. Even if Sesbrefio has been granted pardon, there is
nothing in the records that shows that it was a full and unconditional pardon.
In addition, the practice of law is not a right but a privilege. 19 It is granted
only to those possessing good moral character. 20 A violation of the high
moral standards of the legal profession justifies the imposition of the
appropriate penalty against a lawyer, including the penalty of disbarment. 21
WHEREFORE, respondent Raul H. Sesbrefio is DISBARRED
effective immediately upon his receipt of this Decision.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Office of the Bar
Confidant, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for distribution to all its
chapters, and the Office of the Court Administrator for dissemination to all
courts all over the country. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to the
personal records of respondent.
SO ORDERED.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Section 19, Article VII, 1987 Constitution. See Garcia v. Chairman, Commission on Audit, G.R.
No. 75025, 14 September 1993, 226 SCRA 356.
Cabantag v. Wolfe, 6 Phil. 273 (1906).
Article 94, Revised Penal Code.
Rollo (A.C. No. 10457), p. 155.
Overgaard v. Atty. Valdez, 588 Phil. 422 (2008).
Id.
Id.
Decision
~ ~k&4M
(On leave)
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
(no part)
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Ma.~~
ESTELA M. fERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
Associate Justice