You are on page 1of 2

Re: Decision Dated March 17. 2011 in Criminal Case No.

SB-28631, People of the Philippines


Former Prosecutor Joselito Barrozo, July 2015

Case no: A.C. No. 10207


Facts: This disbarment case against former Assistant Public Prosecutor Joselito C. Barrozo (respondent) is
taken up by this Court motu proprio by virtue of its power to discipline members of the bar under Section
I1 Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court.

Jennie Valeriano (Valeriano) was a respondent in several cases for estafa and violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 hich were assigned to respondent as Assistant Public Prosecutor of Dagupan City, Pangasinan.
According to Valeriano, respondent told her that he would resolve the cases in her favor in exchange for
P20,000.00. Hence, Valeriano went to the Office of Regional State Prosecutor to report the matter. The
Regional State Prosecutor introduced her to agents of the NBI who, after being told of respondent's demand,
immediately planned an entrapment operation. During the operation conducted on February 15, 2005,
respondent was caught red-handed by the NBI agents receiving the amount of P20,000.00 from Valeriano.

A case for direct bribary nder paragraph 2, Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code was filed against
respondent before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City. The case, however, was later on indorsed to
the Sandiganbayan as respondent was occupying a position with a salary grade of 27 or higher.
Sandiganbayan then found respondent guilty. Respondent's MRs and petition for certioraris were denied.

Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) received a letter from Wat & Co. of Hong Kong stating that its client in
Hong Kong received a letter from the Philippines signed by "Atty. Joselito C. Barrozo," asking for long
service payment from the employers of domestic helper Anita G. Calub who passed away on March 4,
2013. Upon checking online and discovering that said person was convicted of direct bribery, Wat & Co.
requested the OBC to inform it if respondent is still a lawyer qualified to practice law.

Prompted by Wat & Co.'s letter, the OBC inquired from the Department of Justice (DOJ) whether
respondent is still connected thereat. In reply, the DOJ informed OBC that respondent had already resigned
from his position. On November 15, 2012, OBC wrote Wat & Co. to confirm that respondent was indeed
convicted of direct bribery by final judgment and that the Philippine Court has yet to rule on his disbarment.

In view of the foregoing and considering that respondent's conviction is a ground for disbarment from the
practice of law under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, the Court through a Resolution dated
December 11, 2013 required respondent to comment on why he should not be suspended/disbarred from
the practice of law.

Answer: Respondent identified the issue in this case as whether he can engage in the practice of law despite
his conviction. He then argued that he did not engage in the practice of law as his act of signing the claim
letter does not constitute such practice. He averred that he signed it not for any monetary consideration, but
out of his sincere desire to help the claimants. And since there is no payment involved, no lawyer-client
relationship was established between him and the claimants. This therefore negates practice of law on his
part.

OBC Recommendations: OBC recommended disbarment of the respondent.

Issue: Whether or not disbarment is proper in this case


Decision of SC: YES. It must first be clarified that the issue in this case is not what respondent essentially
argued about in his Comment, i.e., whether his act of signing the claim letter constitutes practice of law. As
aptly stated by the OBC in its recommendation and viewed from proper perspective, the real issue here is
whether respondent should be suspended or disbarred by reason of his conviction of the crime of direct
bribery. Hence, the Court finds respondent's Comment to be totally without merit as he veered away,
whether wittingly or unwittingly, from the crux of the controversy in this case.
Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, one of the grounds for the suspension or disbarment of
a lawyer is his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. And with the finality of respondent's
conviction for direct bribery, the next question that needs to be answered is whether direct bribery is a crime
that involves moral turpitude.
To consider a crime as one involving moral turpitude, the act constituting the same must have been "done
contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals.

You might also like