SUMMARY: A lawyer was convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude (homicide). While on parole, he represented a client in a civil case.
FACTS: RTC convicted Atty. Sesbreño of homicide. While he was on parole, Sesbreño represented Melvyn Garcia’s daughters in filing an action for support against their father and their aunt while Garcia was in Japan. The case was dismissed. Thereafter, Garcia filed a complaint for disbarment against Sesbreño alleging that the latter violated Sec. 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court by continuing to engage in the practice of law despite his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, and despite the facts that he is only on parole and that he has not fully served his sentence.
Sesbreño alleged that his sentence was commuted and the phrase “with the inherent accessory penalties provided by law” was deleted. Sesbreño argued that even if the accessory penalty was not deleted, the disqualification applies only during the term of the sentence. Sesbreño further alleged that homicide does not involve moral turpitude and that Garcia’s complaint was motivated by extreme malice, bad faith, and desire to retaliate against him for representing Garcia’s daughters in court.
ISSUE: Whether or not a conviction for homicide involves moral turpitude.
DECISION: Yes. Moral turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties that a man owes to his fellow men or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal 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.
SC also rejected Sesbreño’s argument that the executive clemency restored his full civil and political rights. Here, the Order of Commutation did not state that the pardon was absolute and unconditional. And even if Sesbreño 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. It is granted only to those possessing good moral character. 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.
Read the full case here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.