G.R. No. A.C. No. 10207; July 21, 2015
RE: DECISION DATED 17 MARCH 2011 IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. SB-28361 ENTITLED “PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSELITO C. BARROZO”; FORMER ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR JOSELITO C. BARROZO, Respondent.

FACTS

Jennie Valeriano was a respondent in several cases assigned to then Assistant Public Prosecutor Joselito C. Barrozo. Barrozo told Valeriano he would resolve the cases in her favor in exchange for ₱20,000.00. Valeriano reported this to the Office of the Regional State Prosecutor, leading to an NBI entrapment operation on February 15, 2005, where Barrozo was caught receiving the money. He was subsequently charged and convicted of direct bribery by the Sandiganbayan in a Decision dated March 17, 2011. His appeals, including a Petition for Review to the Supreme Court, were denied, and the conviction became final and executory on August 16, 2012. In 2013, the Office of the Bar Confidant received an inquiry from a Hong Kong law firm, Wat & Co., which had received a claim letter signed by “Atty. Joselito C. Barrozo” regarding a deceased domestic helper. Prompted by this, the Supreme Court required Barrozo to comment on why he should not be suspended or disbarred. In his Comment, Barrozo argued his act of signing the claim letter did not constitute the practice of law as no monetary consideration or lawyer-client relationship existed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Joselito C. Barrozo should be suspended or disbarred by reason of his final conviction for the crime of direct bribery.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court DISBARRED Atty. Joselito C. Barrozo and ordered his name stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. The Court clarified that the issue was not whether signing the claim letter constituted practice of law, but whether his conviction for direct bribery warranted disbarment. Under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for suspension or disbarment. The Court, citing precedent (Catalan, Jr. v. Silvosa and Magno v. COMELEC), ruled that direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude as it involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity contrary to justice, honesty, and good morals, and constitutes a betrayal of public trust. The Court exercised its discretion to impose disbarment, rather than suspension, due to the circumstances: Barrozo, as a public prosecutor, extorted money from a party in a case he was handling, which violated the requirement to decide cases on their merits, lessened public confidence in the rule of law, and fell short of the integrity and high moral character required of lawyers, especially those in public office.