Roberto Soriano vs Atty.

Emmanuel Dizon
A.C. No. 6792, January 25, 2006

Issues:
a. Whether or not his crime of Frustrated Homicide involves Moral Turpitude
b. Whether or not his guilt warrants disbarment

Facts:

Robert Soriano filed a complaint with the Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines against Atty. Emmanuel Dizon for violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Responsibility, and his conviction for Frustrated Homicide, which involved Moral Turpitude.

Commissioner Herbosa recommended that Atty. Dizon be disbarred from having been convicted of a
crime involving moral turpitude. He exhibited an obvious lack of good moral character, based on the
following facts:
- He was under the influence while driving his car.
- He reacted violently and attempted to assault Soriano only because the latter had overtaken
him
- After Soriano was able to ward off Atty. Dizon’s assault, the latter went back to his car, got an
unlicensed firearm covered it with a handkerchief and shot Soriano who was unarmed (he was
paralyzed on the left side after the incident)
- When Soriano fell, Atty. Dizon simply pushed him and fled
- Despite positive identification and overwhelming evidence, Atty Dizon denied that he had shot
Soriano. He even went into alleging Soriano to he was the aggressor and attempted to maul him
- Although he has been placed on probation (4 years thereafter), he has not yet satisfied his civil
liabilities to Soriano

Held:
a. Yes, his crime of Frustrated Homicide involves Moral Turpitude. Atty. Dizon was the aggressor,
he fired shot at Soriano when the latter was not in the position to defend himself. Moreover,
there was an intention to escape from punishment when he covered the handle of his
unlicensed firearm with a handkerchief. The totality of these facts unmistakably bears the
earmarks of moral turpitude. By his conduct, respondent revealed his extreme arrogance and
feeling of self-importance. Carrying an unlicensed firearm and his refusing to fulfill his civil
liabilities further speak of his brazenly violation of the law and disobedience to the lawful orders
of the court.

b. Yes, his guilt warrants for his disbarment. Under Section 27 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court,
conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disbarment or suspension. By
such conviction, a lawyer is deemed to have become unfit to uphold the administration of
justice and to be no longer possessed of good moral character. Conviction of a crime involving
moral turpitude may relate, not to the exercise of the profession of lawyers, but certainly of
their good moral character. Where their misconduct outside of their professional dealings is so
gross as to show them morality unfit for their office and unworthy of the privileges conferred
upon them by their license and the law, the court may be justified in suspending or removing
them from office.