11/12/2015

A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457

TodayisThursday,November12,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
A.C.No.7973andA.C.No.10457February3,2015
MELVYNG.GARCIA,Complainant,
vs.
ATTY.RAULH.SESBRENO,Respondent.
DECISION
PERCURIAM:
Two complaints for disbarment were filed by Dr. Melvyn G. Garcia (Garcia) against Atty. Raul H. Sesbrefio
(Sesbrefio). The two cases, docketed as A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457, were consolidated in the Court's
Resolutiondated30September2014.
A.C.No.7973
On30July2008,GarciafiledacomplaintfordisbarmentagainstSesbreobeforetheOfficeoftheBarConfidant.
ThecasewasdocketedasA.C.No.7973.Garciaallegedthatin1965,hemarriedVirginiaAlcantarainCebu.They
had two children, Maria Margarita and Angie Ruth. In 1971, he and Virginia separated. He became a dentist and
practicedhisprofessioninCabanatuanCity.Garciaallegedthatin1992,Virginiafiledapetitionfortheannulmentof
theirmarriage,whichwaseventuallygranted.
Garciaallegedthatin2005whilehewasinJapan,Sesbreo,representingMariaMargaritaandAngieRuth,filedan
action for support against him and his sister Milagros Garcia Soliman. At the time of the filing of the case, Maria
Margaritawasalready39yearsoldwhileAngieRuthwas35yearsold.Thecasewasdismissed.In2007,Garcia
returned from Japan. When Sesbreo and Garcias children learned abouthis return, Sesbreo filed a Second
AmendedComplaintagainsthim.GarciaallegedthathelearnedthatSesbreowasconvictedbytheRegionalTrial
CourtofCebuCity,Branch18,forHomicideinCriminalCaseNo.CBU31733.GarciaallegedthatSesbreoisonly
on parole. Garcia alleged that homicide is a crime against moral turpitude and thus, Sesbreo should not be
allowedtocontinuehispracticeoflaw.
InhisComment,Sesbreoallegedthaton15August2008,Garciafiledasimilarcomplaintagainsthimbeforethe
IntegratedBarofthePhilippines,CommissiononBarDiscipline(IBPCBD),docketedasCBCCaseNo.082273.
SesbreoallegedthatGarciascomplaintwasmotivatedbyresentmentanddesireforrevengebecauseheactedas
probonocounselforMariaMargaritaandAngieRuth.
In the Courts Resolution dated 18 January 2010, the Court referred A.C. No. 7973 to the IBP for investigation,
reportandrecommendation.
A.C.No.10457(CBCCaseNo.082273)
A day prior to the filing of A.C. No. 7973, or on 29 July 2008, Garcia filed a complaint for disbarment against
Sesbreo before the IBPCBD. He alleged that Sesbreo is practicing law despite his previous conviction for
homicideinCriminalCaseNo.CBU31733,anddespitethefactsthatheisonlyonparoleandthathehasnotfully
servedhissentence.GarciaallegedthatSesbreoviolatedSection27,Rule138oftheRulesofCourtbycontinuing
toengageinthepracticeoflawdespitehisconvictionofacrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude.Uponthedirectiveofthe
IBPCBD,GarciasubmittedhisverifiedcomplaintagainstSesbreoallegingbasicallythesamefactsheallegedin
A.C.No.7973.
Inhisanswertothecomplaint,Sesbreoallegedthathissentencewascommutedandthephrase"withtheinherent
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
doesnotinvolvemoralturpitude.SesbreoclaimedthatGarciascomplaintwasmotivatedbyextrememalice,bad
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/ac_7973_2015.html

1/5

11/12/2015

A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457

faith,anddesiretoretaliateagainsthimforrepresentingGarciasdaughtersincourt.
TheIBPCBDconsolidatedA.C.No.7973withCBDCaseNo.082273.Thepartiesagreedonthesoleissuetobe
resolved:whethermoralturpitudeisinvolvedinaconvictionforhomicide.TheIBPCBDruledthattheRegionalTrial
CourtofCebufoundSesbreoguiltyofmurderandsentencedhimtosufferthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.On
appeal,thisCourtdowngradedthecrimetohomicideandsentencedSesbreotosufferthepenaltyofimprisonment
for9yearsand1dayofprisionmayorasminimumto16yearsand4monthsofreclusiontemporalasmaximum.
TheIBPCBDfoundthatSesbreowasreleasedfromconfinementon27July2001followinghisacceptanceofthe
conditionsofhisparoleon10July2001.
TheIBPCBDruledthatconvictionforacrimeinvolvingmoralturpitudeisagroundfordisbarmentorsuspension.
CitingInternationalRiceResearchInstitutev.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,1theIBPCBDfurtherruledthat
homicidemayormaynotinvolvemoralturpitudedependingonthedegreeofthecrime.TheIBPCBDreviewedthe
decisionofthisCourtconvictingSesbreoforthecrimeofhomicide,andfoundthatthecircumstancesleadingtothe
deathofthevictiminvolvedmoralturpitude.TheIBPCBDstated:
NeithervictimLucianoAmparadonorhiscompanionChristopherYapchangcowasshowntobeafoeofrespondent
and neither had the victim Luciano nor his companion Christopher shown to have wronged the respondent. They
simplyhappenedtobeatthewrongplaceandtimetheearlymorningofJune3,1993.
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,displayedextremearroganceandfeelingofselfimportance.Respondentactedlikeagodwhodeserved
not to be slighted by a couple of drunks who may have shattered the stillness of the early morning with their
boisterousantics,naturaldisplayofloudbravadoofdrunkenmenwhohadonetoomany.Respondentsinordinate
over reaction to the ramblings of drunken men who were not even directed at respondent reflected poorly on his
fitnesstobeamemberofthelegalprofession.Respondentwasnotonlyvindictivewithoutacausehewascruel
withamisplacedsenseofsuperiority.2
Following the ruling of this Court in Soriano v. Atty. Dizon3 where the respondent was disbarred for having been
convicted of frustrated homicide, the IBPCBD recommended that Sesbreo be disbarred and his name stricken
fromtheRollofAttorneys.
InitsResolutionNo.XX201319dated12February2013,theIBPBoardofGovernorsadoptedandapprovedthe
ReportandRecommendationoftheIBPCBD.
On6May2013,SesbreofiledamotionforreconsiderationbeforetheIBPCBD.SesbreoallegedthattheIBP
CBD misunderstood and misapplied Soriano v. Atty. Dizon. He alleged that the attendant circumstances in
Sorianoaredisparate,distinct,anddifferentfromhiscase.Hefurtherallegedthattherewasnoconditionsetonthe
grantofexecutiveclemencytohimandthus,hewasrestoredtohisfullcivilandpoliticalrights.Finally,Sesbreo
alleged that after his wife died in an ambush, he already stopped appearing as private prosecutor in the case for
bigamy against Garcia and that he already advised his clients to settle their other cases. He alleged that Garcia
alreadywithdrewthecomplaintsagainsthim.
On11February2014,theIBPBoardofGovernorspassedResolutionNo.XX201431denyingSesbreosmotion
forreconsideration.TheIBPCBDtransmittedtherecordsofthecasetotheOfficeoftheBarConfidanton20May
2014.CBDCaseNo.082273wasredocketedasA.C.No.10457.IntheCourtsResolutiondated30September
2014,theCourtconsolidatedA.C.No.7973andA.C.No.10457.
Theonlyissueinthesecasesiswhetherconvictionforthecrimeofhomicideinvolvesmoralturpitude.
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the IBPCBD and approve Resolution No. XX201319 dated 12
February2013andResolutionNo.XX201431dated11February2014oftheIBPBoardofGovernors.
Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court states that a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended as
attorney by this Court by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. This Court has ruled that
disbarmentistheappropriatepenaltyforconvictionbyfinaljudgmentforacrimeinvolvingmoralturpitude.4 Moral
turpitudeisanactofbaseness,vileness,ordepravityintheprivatedutieswhichamanowestohisfellowmenorto
societyingeneral,contrarytojustice,honesty,modesty,orgoodmorals.5
The question of whether conviction for homicide involves moral turpitude was discussed by this Court in
InternationalRiceResearchInstitutev.NLRC6whereitruled:
Thisisnottosaythatallconvictionsofthecrimeofhomicidedonotinvolvemoralturpitude. Homicidemayormay
notinvolvemoralturpitudedependingonthedegreeofthecrime.Moralturpitudeisnotinvolvedineverycriminal
act and is not shown by every known and intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction
involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances.
1wphi1

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/ac_7973_2015.html

2/5

11/12/2015

A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457

Whilexxxgenerallybutnotalways,crimesmalainseinvolvemoralturpitude,whilecrimesmalaprohibitadonot,it
cannotalwaysbeascertainedwhethermoralturpitudedoesordoesnotexistbyclassifyingacrimeasmaluminse
orasmalumprohibitum,sincetherearecrimeswhicharemalainseandyetrarelyinvolvemoralturpitudeandthere
are crimes which involve moral turpitude and are mala prohibita only. It follows therefore, that moral turpitude is
somewhat a vague and indefinite term, the meaning of which must be left to the process of judicial inclusion or
exclusionasthecasesarereached.7
In People v. Sesbreo,8 the Court found Sesbreo guilty of homicide and ruled: WHEREFORE, the assailed
decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 18, in Criminal Case No. CBU31733 is hereby
MODIFIED. Appellant Raul H. Sesbreois hereby found GUILTY of HOMICIDE and hereby sentenced to suffer a
prisontermof9yearsand1dayofprisionmayor,asaminimum,to16yearsand4monthsofreclusiontemporal,
asamaximum,withaccessorypenaltiesprovidedbylaw,toindemnifytheheirsofthedeceasedLucianoAmparado
intheamountofP50,000.00andtopaythecosts.
SOORDERED.9
WereviewedtheDecisionofthisCourtandweagreewiththeIBPCBDthatthecircumstancesshowthepresenceof
moralturpitude.
TheDecisionshowedthatthevictimLucianoAmparado(Amparado)andhiscompanionChristopherYapchangco
(Yapchangco)werewalkingandjustpassedbySesbreoshousewhenthelatter,withoutanyprovocationfromthe
former,wentoutofhishouse,aimedhisrifle,andstartedfiringatthem.AccordingtoYapchangco,theywereabout
fivemeters,moreorless,fromthegateofSesbreowhentheyheardthescreechingsoundofthegateandwhen
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,hittingRabaneshouseintheprocess.Anotherwitness,EdwinParune,sawAmparadofalldownafterbeing
shot,thensawSesbreointhemiddleofthestreet,carryingalongfirearm,andwalkingbacktowardsthegateof
his house. The IBPCBD correctly stated that Amparado and Yapchangco were just at the wrong place and time.
TheydidnotdoanythingthatjustifiedtheindiscriminatefiringdonebySesbreothateventuallyledtothedeathof
Amparado.
We cannot accept Sesbreos argument that the executive clemency restored his full civil and political rights.
SesbreocitedInreAtty.Parcasio10tobolsterhisargument.Inthatcase,Atty.Parcasiowasgranted"anabsolute
andunconditionalpardon"11whichrestoredhis"fullcivilandpoliticalrights,"12 a circumstance not present inthese
cases. Here, the Order of Commutation13 did not state that the pardon was absolute and unconditional. The
accessorypenaltieswerenotmentionedwhentheoriginalsentencewasrecitedintheOrderofCommutationand
theywerealsonotmentionedinstatingthecommutedsentence.Itonlystates:Byvirtueoftheauthorityconferred
upon me by the Constitution and upon the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Parole, the original
sentenceofprisonerRAULSESBREOYHERDAconvictedbytheRegionalTrialCourt,CebuCityandSupreme
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
from7yearsand6monthsto10yearsimprisonmentandtopayanindemnityofP50,000.00.14
Again,therewasnomentionthattheexecutiveclemencywasabsoluteandunconditionalandrestoredSesbreoto
hisfullcivilandpoliticalrights.
There are four acts of executive clemency that the President can extend: the President can grant reprieves,
commutations, pardons, and remit 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"thepenaltyimposedonSesbrefio.Commutationisamerereductionofpenalty.16Commutationonly
partially extinguished criminal liability.17 The penalty for Sesbrefio' s crime was never wiped out. He served the
commutedorreducedpenalty,forwhichreasonhewasreleasedfromprison.Moreimportantly,theFinalRelease
and Discharge18 stated that "[i]t is understood that such x x x accessory penalties of the law as have not been
expresslyremittedhereinshallsubsist."Hence,theParcasiocasehasnoapplicationhere.EvenifSesbrefiohas
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.20Aviolationofthehighmoralstandardsofthelegalprofessionjustifiestheimpositionoftheappropriate
penaltyagainstalawyer,includingthepenaltyofdisbarment.21
WHEREFORE,respondentRaulH.SesbrefioisDISBARREDeffectiveimmediatelyuponhisreceiptofthis
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.LetacopyofthisDecisionbeattachedtothepersonalrecordsofrespondent.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/ac_7973_2015.html

3/5

11/12/2015

A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457

SOORDERED.
MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
ChiefJustice
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

PRESBITEROJ.VELASCO,JR.
AssociateJustice

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO
AssociateJustice

(Onleave)
ARTUROD.BRION*
AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

(nopart)
BIENVENIDOL.REYES
AssociateJustice

ESTELAM.PERLASBERNABE
AssociateJustice

MARVICM.V.F.LEONEN
AssociateJustice

FRANCISH.JARDELEZA
AssociateJustice

Footnotes
*

Onleave.

G.R.No.97239,12May1993,221SCRA760.

Rollo(A.C.No.10457),pp.275276.

515Phil.635(2006).

Re:SCDecisionDatedMay20,2008inG.R.No.161455UnderRule139BoftheRulesofCourtv.Atty.
RodolfoD.Pactolin,A.C.No.7940,24April2012,670SCRA366.
5

Catalan,Jr.v.Silvosa,A.C.No.7360,24July2012,677SCRA352.

Supranote1.

Supranote1,at768.

372Phil.762(1999).

Id.at795.

10

161Phil.437(1976).

11

Id.at441.

12

Id.

13

Rollo(A.C.No.10457),p.154.

14

Id.

15

Section19,ArticleVII,1987Constitution.SeeGarciav.Chairman,CommissiononAudit,G.R.No.75025,
14September1993,226SCRA356.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/ac_7973_2015.html

4/5

11/12/2015

A.C. No. 7973 and A.C. No. 10457

16

Cabantagv.Wolfe,6Phil.273(1906).

17

Article94,RevisedPenalCode.

18

Rollo(A.C.No.10457),p.155.

19

Overgaardv.Atty.Valdez,588Phil.422(2008).

20

Id.

21

Id.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2015/feb2015/ac_7973_2015.html

5/5