24. In Re Gutierrez, 5 Scra 661.docx

IN RE GUTIERREZ, 5 SCRA 661 Facts: Gutierrez is a member of the Philippine Bar. While he was the municipal mayor of Calapan, he and other coconspirators murdered the former municipal mayor of Calapan, for which they were held guilty and sentenced to the penalty of death. Upon review by the Supreme Court the penalty was changed to reclusion perpetua. After serving a portion of the sentence, Gutierrez was granted conditional pardon by the President. The unexecuted portion of the prison term was remitted on condition that he shall not again violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines. The widow of the murdered victim then filed a complaint with the Supreme Court asking that Gutierrez be removed from the rule of lawyers pursuant to Rule 127, Section 5. Issue: Whether or not the conditional pardon to Gutierrez places him beyond the rule of disbarment. Held: NO. Under section 5 of Rule 127, a member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Murder is, without doubt, such a crime. “Moral turpitude” includes everything contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals. In the Lontok case, on which Gutierrez relies, the respondent, Lontok, was granted absolute or unconditional pardon after conviction for the crime of crime of bigamy. It was held that such pardon releases the punishment and blots out existence of guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense. In the case at bar, the pardon granted was conditional, and merely remitted the unexecuted portion of his term. It was not a full pardon which could have blotted out the offense committed. The crime was qualified by treachery and aggravated by its having been committed in band, by taking advantage of his official position, and with the use of a motor vehicle. The degree of moral turpitude warrants disbarment. Admission of a candidate to the bar requires academic preparation and satisfactory testimonials of good moral character. These standards are neither dispensed with nor lowered after admission: the lawyer must adhere to them or incur the risk of suspension or removal.