EN BANC
[A.C. No. 7589. December 8, 2015.]
RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER AGAINST RAUL H. SESBREÑO
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated DECEMBER 8, 2015, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 7589 — RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER AGAINST RAUL H. SESBREÑO.
On July 13, 2007, the Office of then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno received an anonymous letter-complaint, 1 allegedly from "aggrieved public servants and practicing lawyers," denouncing the continued practice of law of Raul H. Sesbreño despite his conviction for homicide in G.R. No. 121764 entitled People of the Philippines v. Raul H. Sesbreño. 2 The letter stated that homicide involved moral turpitude; hence, Sesbreño should be barred from engaging in the practice of the law because he had not been granted presidential pardon.
Acting on the anonymous letter-complaint, the Court resolved to docket it as an administrative matter, and directed Sesbreño to comment. 3
In his comment, Sesbreño maintained that his conviction for homicide did not involve moral turpitude because he had committed the crime in self-defense, 4 citing the pronouncement in International Rice Research Institute v. National Labor Relations Commission. 5 He denied the allegation that he did not receive presidential pardon, and insisted that the deletion of the accessory penalties by the order of commutation issued by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo 6 had restored to him his full civil and political rights. 7 He imputed ulterior and evil motives to the anonymous letter writers for improperly resorting to disbarment for vengeance. 8
In the resolution dated July 31, 2012, the Court referred the anonymous letter-complaint to the Office of the Bar Confidant for evaluation, report and recommendation. 9
In the meanwhile, the IBP Board of Governors Board issued Resolution No. XX-2013-19 on February 12, 2013 finding and recommending the disbarment of Sesbreño based on his conviction for homicide in G.R. No. 121764. Board Resolution No. XX-2013-19, which concerned the two disbarment complaints brought by Dr. Melvin Garcia to denounce Sesbreño's continued practice of law despite his conviction for homicide in G.R. No. 121764, became the basis for the Court to disbar Sesbreño in Garcia v. Sesbreño, 10 holding as follows:
We reviewed the Decision of this Court and we agree with the IBP CBD that the circumstances show the presence of moral turpitude.
The Decision showed that the victim Luciano Amparado (Amparado) and his companion Christopher Yapchangco (Yapchangco) were walking and just passed Sesbreño's house when the latter, without any provocation from the former, went out of his house, aimed his rifle, and started firing at them. According to Yapchangco, they were about five meters, more or less, from the gate of Sesbreño when they heard the screeching sound of the gate and when they turned around, they saw Sesbreño aiming his rifle at them. Yapchangco and Aparado 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 Aparado running away while Sesbreño was firing his firearm rapidly, hitting Rabanes' house in the process. Another witness, Edwin Parune, saw Amparado fall down after being shot, then saw Sesbreño in the middle of the street, carrying a long firearm, and walking back towards the gate of his house. The IBP-CBD correctly stated that Amparado and Yapchangco were just at the wrong place and time. They did not do anything that justified the indiscriminate firing done by Sesbreño that eventually led to the death of Amparado. AaCTcI
We cannot accept Sesbreño's argument that the executive clemency restored his full civil and political rights. Sesbreño cited In re Atty. Parcasio to bolster his argument. In that case, Atty. Parcasio was granted "an absolute and unconditional pardon" which restored his "full civil and political rights," a circumstance not present in these cases. Here, the Order of Commutation did not state that the pardon was absolute and unconditional. The accessory penalties were not mentioned when the original sentence was recited in the Order of Commutation and they were also not mentioned in stating the commuted sentence. It only states: By virtue of the authority conferred upon me by the Constitution and upon the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Parole, the original sentence of prisoner RAUL SESBREÑO Y HERDA convicted by the Regional Trial Court, Cebu City and Supreme 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 from 7 years and 6 months to 10 years imprisonment and to pay an indemnity of P50,000.00.
Again, there was no mention that the executive clemency was absolute and unconditional and restored Sesbreño to his full civil and political rights.
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. In this case, the executive clemency merely "commuted to an indeterminate prison term of 7 years and 6 months to 10 years imprisonment" the penalty imposed on Sesbreño. Commutation is a mere reduction of penalty. Commutation only partially extinguished criminal liability. The penalty for Sesbreño's crime was never wiped out. He served the commuted or reduced penalty, for which reason he was released from prison. More importantly, the Final Release and Discharge stated that "[i]t is understood that such . . . accessory penalties of the law as have not been expressly remitted herein shall subsist." Hence, the Parcasio case has no application here. 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.
After due hearing, Commissioner Romualdo A. Din, Jr. of the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) recommended the dismissal of the anonymous letter-complaint on October 21, 2013, 11 opining that the totality of the facts and circumstances did not indicate that Sesbreño's conviction for homicide had been characterized by baseness, vileness or depravity that equated to moral turpitude.
On September 27, 2014, however, the IBP Board of Governors issued Resolution No. XXI-2014-615, 12 withholding any further action on the anonymous letter-complaint against Sesbreño in view of the recommendation for his disbarment in Resolution No. XX-2013-19, viz.: EcTCAD
RESOLUTION NO. XXI-2014-615
CBD Case No. 12-3635 Anonymous Letter against Atty. Raul H. Sesbreño
RESOLVED to SET ASIDE the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner in the above-entitled cases, herein made part as Annex "A", by reason of Board Resolution No. XX-2013-19 in CBD Case No. 08-2273 where a finding and recommendation is made for the DISBARMENT of Atty. Raul H. Sesbreño. Thus, the Board deems it right not to act anymore on these two consolidated cases, which bear the same facts.
We rule and hold that the IBP Board of Governors correctly withheld action on the report and recommendation of Commissioner Din because of Board Resolution No. XX-2013-19. It is noted that in its decision promulgated in Garcia v. Sesbreño the Court had adopted the findings and recommendations made in Board Resolution No. XX-2013-19. With the issues and arguments dealt with in Garcia v. Sesbreño being identical to those to be considered herein, for the IBP Board of Governors to still act on the recommendations of Commissioner Din would be superfluous and unnecessary. We have held that the dismissal of a disbarment complaint was proper where the facts and contentions presented against the respondent were identical to those previously considered and resolved against him in an earlier administrative complaint. 13 Verily, chastising the respondent anew for the same infraction would unfairly extend if not exceed the penalty provided by law. At any rate, it is always worthy to stress that we do not have double or multiple disbarments against the same attorney under our laws and jurisprudence. 14
ACCORDINGLY, the Court DISMISSES the anonymous letter complaint seeking the disbarment of Raul H. Sesbreño in view of his disbarment for the same cause in Garcia v. Sesbreño." Brion, J., on official leave. (adv29)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMAClerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 5.
2. 314 SCRA 87.
3. Rollo, p. 28.
4. Id. at 138-139.
5. G.R. No. 97239, May 12, 1993, 221 SCRA 760.
6. Rollo, p. 137.
7. Id. at 137-138.
8. Id. at 139.
9. Id. at 148.
10. A.C. Nos. 7973 and 10457, February 3, 2015.
11. Rollo, pp. 211-217.
12. Id. at 195-196.
13. Viojan v. Duran, A.C. No. 248, February 26, 1962, 4 SCRA 390.
14. Sanchez v. Torres, A.C. No. 10240, November 25, 2014, 741 SCRA 620, 627.