Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    Roberto Soriano Vs Atty Dizon

    Uploaded by

    Kenjan Silvestre
    This document summarizes a case between Roberto Soriano and Atty. Emmanuel Dizon. It discusses two issues: 1) whether Dizon's crime of frustrated homicide involved moral turpitude and 2) whether his guilt warrants disbarment. The facts of the case are that Dizon shot Soriano with an unlicensed firearm after Soriano overtook him while driving. The court held that Dizon's crime did involve moral turpitude because he was the aggressor and intended to escape punishment. It also held that his guilt did warrant disbarment under the Rules of Court because conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude makes a lawyer unfit to uphold justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Roberto Soriano Vs Atty Dizon

    Uploaded by

    Kenjan Silvestre
    81 views1 page
    This document summarizes a case between Roberto Soriano and Atty. Emmanuel Dizon. It discusses two issues: 1) whether Dizon's crime of frustrated homicide involved moral turpitude and 2) whether his guilt warrants disbarment. The facts of the case are that Dizon shot Soriano with an unlicensed firearm after Soriano overtook him while driving. The court held that Dizon's crime did involve moral turpitude because he was the aggressor and intended to escape punishment. It also held that his guilt did warrant disbarment under the Rules of Court because conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude makes a lawyer unfit to uphold justice.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Roberto Soriano vs Atty Dizon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a case between Roberto Soriano and Atty. Emmanuel Dizon. It discusses two issues: 1) whether Dizon's crime of frustrated homicide involved moral turpitude and 2) whether his guilt warrants disbarment. The facts of the case are that Dizon shot Soriano with an unlicensed firearm after Soriano overtook him while driving. The court held that Dizon's crime did involve moral turpitude because he was the aggressor and intended to escape punishment. It also held that his guilt did warrant disbarment under the Rules of Court because conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude makes a lawyer unfit to uphold justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    81 views1 page

    Roberto Soriano Vs Atty Dizon

    Uploaded by

    Kenjan Silvestre
    This document summarizes a case between Roberto Soriano and Atty. Emmanuel Dizon. It discusses two issues: 1) whether Dizon's crime of frustrated homicide involved moral turpitude and 2) whether his guilt warrants disbarment. The facts of the case are that Dizon shot Soriano with an unlicensed firearm after Soriano overtook him while driving. The court held that Dizon's crime did involve moral turpitude because he was the aggressor and intended to escape punishment. It also held that his guilt did warrant disbarment under the Rules of Court because conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude makes a lawyer unfit to uphold justice.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    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.

    You might also like