Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Sesbreo
A.C. No. 7973 and 10457
February 3, 2015
Facts:
Melvyn filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Raul Sesbreno before the
Office of the Bar Confidant. According to him, he was separated from his wife Virginia,
with whom he had two daughters, Maria Margarita and Angie Ruth. Their marriage was
later annulled. In 2005, while he was in Japan, Maria Margarita and Angie Ruth,
represented by Atty. Raul, and who were then already 39 and 35 years old, filed an
action for support against him, which was dismissed. When he returned in 2007 from
Japan,
Atty. Raul files a Second Amended Complaint against him. He then learned that
Atty. Sesbreno was convicted of homicide by the RTC of Cebu, and is presently on
parole. As homicide is a crime against moral turpitude, hence he should not be allowed
to practice law.
Commenting, Atty. Sesbreno alleged that Melvyn filed a similar complaint against
him before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the complaint was motivated by
resentment and revenge when he acted as pro bono counsel for Maria Margarita and
Angie Ruth.
The case was referred to and consolidated with the IBP Case, and the parties
agreed on one issue: whether homicide is a crime involving moral turpitude.
In his answer to the complaint, Atty. Sesbreno averred that his sentence was
commuted, and the phrase inherent accessory penalties provided by law deleted.
Even if not deleted, the same applies only during the duration of the sentence; and
homicide does not involve moral turpitude.
In its decision, the IBP-CBD reviewed the conviction of Atty. Raul for homicide
handed down by the Court, downgrading it from murder; and ruled that the attendant
circumstances leading to the death of the victim involved moral turpitude.
Applying the case in Soriano vs. Atty. Dizon where an accused convicted of
frustrated homicide was disbarred, it recommended that Atty. Sesbreno be disbarred,
which was concurred in by the IBP Board of Governors.
In his motion for reconsideration, Atty. Sesbreno alleged that the facts in Soriano
vs. Atty. Dizon are separate and distinct from the facts of his case; that he was restored
to full civil and political rights as there was no condition set on the grant of executive
clemency to him; and that Melvyn already withdrew the complaint against him. The IBP
Board denied his motion for reconsideration and the case was eventually elevated to
the Supreme Court, on the issue of whether homicide is a crime involving moral
turpitude.
Issue:
1) Whether conviction for the crime of homicide involves moral turpitude.
2) Whether the executive clemency restored his full civil and political rights.
Held:
1)