A.C. No. 6792 – 515 Phil. 635 – 480 SCRA 1 – Legal Ethics – Practice of Law – Disbarment; Commission of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude – Homicide may or may not be a crime involving moral turpitude
Robert Soriano, a taxi driver, and Atty. Manuel Dizon had a traffic altercation. Dizon brought out a firearm and shot Soriano. Thereafter, he fled the scene. Due to a concerned citizen, Soriano received timely medical assistance and he survived. Soriano then filed a criminal case against Dizon. Dizon was convicted of frustrated homicide. Soriano then filed a disbarment case against Dizon.
ISSUE: Whether or not homicide is a crime involving moral turpitude.
HELD: It depends. 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.
In this case, it was shown that Dizon was the aggressor. When he was overtaken by Soriano, he got irked and he tailed Soriano’s taxi until he reached him. Dizon got out of his car and aggressively confronted Soriano. Soriano had to defend himself. Dizon returned to his car, took his gun and shot Soriano while his back was against him.
The totality of the facts unmistakably bears the earmarks of moral turpitude. By his conduct, Dizon revealed his extreme arrogance and feeling of self-importance. As it were, he acted like a god on the road, who deserved to be venerated and never to be slighted. Clearly, his inordinate reaction to a simple traffic incident reflected poorly on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession. His overreaction also evinced vindictiveness, which was definitely an undesirable trait in any individual, more so in a lawyer. In the tenacity with which he pursued complainant, we see not the persistence of a person who has been grievously wronged, but the obstinacy of one trying to assert a false sense of superiority and to exact revenge.
It is also glaringly clear that Dizon seriously transgressed Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility through his illegal possession of an unlicensed firearm and his unjust refusal to satisfy his civil liabilities. He has thus brazenly violated the law and disobeyed the lawful orders of the courts. We remind him that, both in his attorney’s oath and in the Code of Professional Responsibility, he bound himself to “obey the laws of the land.”
Manuel Dizon was disbarred.
