Soriano v. Dizon, A.C. No. 792, January 25, 2006.

Per Curiam
"Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the
crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by every
known and intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular conviction
involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently depends on all the
surrounding circumstances."
The circumstances clearly evince the moral turpitude of respondent and his
unworthiness to practice law. Atty. Dizon was definitely the aggressor, as he pursued
and shot complainant when the latter least expected it. Under the circumstances, those
were reasonable actions clearly intended to fend off the lawyer's assault. The Court
also consider the trial court's finding of treachery as a further indication of the skewed
morals of respondent.

FACTS:
Atty. Dizon was driving his car along Abanao Street in Baguio when a taxi driver, Soriano,
overtook the car driven by Dizon who was under the influence of liquor.
Incensed, Dizon tailed the taxi, pulled it over, and berated Soriano and held him by
his shirt. To stop the aggression, Soriano forced open his door causing the accused
to fall to the ground. Soriano got out of his car to help him get up. But Dizon, now
enraged, stood up immediately and boxed Soriano on the chest. Dizon fell down a
second time, got up again and was about to box Soriano, but the latter caught his fist
and turned his arm around. Soriano held on to Dizon until he could be pacified and
then released him. Dizon went back to his car and got his revolver. As Soriano was
handing the eyeglasses of Dizon which fell on the ground, Dizon fired and shot him
on the neck. Soriano was brought to the hospital and would have surely died had he
not received timely medical assistance.
Dizon was eventually convince of frustrated homicide, but was granted probation,
conditioned of payment of civil liabilities. However, according to Soriano, Dixon still
has yet to fulfill his obligation to pay such liability. Soriano then filed a complaint for
disbarment against Dixon before the IBP Commission on Bar Discipline to which the
Commission recommended Dizon’s disbarment for having been convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude and for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of frustrated homicide involves moral turpitude. (In this
case, YES)

RULING:
Moral turpitude has been defined as "everything which is done contrary to justice,
modesty, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and
social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals."
In International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) v. NLRC, the Court explained that it
had the discretion to determine whether a crime involves moral turpitude. As
further explained, "Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on
the degree of the crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not
shown by every known and intentional violation of statute, but whether any
particular conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and
frequently depends on all the surrounding circumstances."
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. In the instant case, respondent
has been found guilty; and he stands convicted, by final judgment, of frustrated
homicide.
As the IBP correctly found in the present case, the circumstances clearly evince the
moral turpitude of respondent and his unworthiness to practice law. Atty. Dizon was
definitely the aggressor, as he pursued and shot complainant when the latter least
expected it. Under the circumstances, those were reasonable actions clearly
intended to fend off the lawyer's assault. The Court also consider the trial court's
finding of treachery as a further indication of the skewed morals of respondent.