NOTE: THIS WE SITE CORRUPTS QUOTATIONS AND OTHER ABREVIATED MARKS.~EXCERPTS AND PARTIAL LITERAL TRANSLATION FROM SPANISH ~BY:JOHN MURPHY Jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of P.R. of the year 2001
2001 DTS 091 IN RE: COLTON-FONTAN 2001 TSPR 091
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO
In re: Pedro Colton-Fontan-2001 TSPR 91-Number of Case: TS-3026
Date: June/18/2001
Matter: Applicationfor Reinstatement.
~ FACTS ABOUT PEDRO COLTON-FONTAN WHICH LEAD HIM TO A PERMANENT DISBARRMENT IN PUERTO RICO, PURSUANT TO THE DISSENTING OPINION;
QUOTE: "Since the acts by which we separated Colton-Fontan are, in our recent history, the most flagrantviolations against the honesty and dignity of the profession and of the administration of justice as well, his readmission should be denied. Let see:
"[N/A] Colton, Esq., ordered specifically to Ana Celia Cintron-Lema not to include him [meant his name] into a sworn statement as he was the person taking care of, as part of her certified note when she transcribe same . . .[he said]'Tonita, when you transcribe do not write down my name there.'In re Colton Fontan, 128 D.P.R. 1, 55-56 (1991
It is not necessary to narrate in details each one of the facts by which the petitioner was sanctioned. However, we should refer to the summary that we expressed in that occasion:
Pedro Colton Fontan, while working as Director at the Department of Criminal Justice for the Department of Justice, headed and arranged a plan of harassment and intimidation against witnesses to under cover the truth about what happened on July 25, 1978 at the Marvel Hill. He used the State resources, his position and power to provide a cape of legitimacy and deceived the Country for what, by all means, were murders committed by the State agents [police] .
Finally, by readmitting him the Court not only consider that Colton-Fontan characterized and officially fabricated the truth pretending legality of acts by the police which occasioned an irreparable institutional damages, without any doubt.
In brief, the charges was proven against Colton-Fontan regarding his intervention and the undue pressure of July 31 of 1978 toward the witness Ortiz-Molina; on August 3 he suggested to the witness Marte Ruiz that, contrary to what he informed him, he should declare that nobody shot from the inside part of the facilities belonging to WRIK-TV and that he only heard a gust of shootings; and that he [Colton-Fontan] scared him when he inquired about the person who asked him [Ortiz-Molina] about the facts with the purpose of "taking him out of circulation".
Also, gave specific orders to the stenographer Cintron-Lema not to include his name when she certify the sworn statement in the transcription, as the District Attorney taking care of it. By doing this he ordered intentionally the alteration of an important document pertaining to a process of investigation.
Also, Colton-Fontan and Figueroa-Vivas, while performing their duties as independent district attorneys acting in a scheme, on August 17 of 1978, offered employment to the witness Quinones-Quinones and on July 26 of 1978, without previous notice, they appeared to his home at [the town of] Ponce and once they were threatened him to formulate accusations for various criminal offenses if he would not alter his declaration.
It was proven that both did an investigation full of multiples omissions and deficiencies in respect to: (1) the real and objective evidence in the scene(impacts at the gate, to the Volkswagen and to the public car belonging to Ortiz-Molina, bullet shells from a long weapon, trousers full of blood and dirty to the level of it knees with sand and soil, mask, boots, underwear and shoes); (2) the expertise analysis of those objects; (3) the evidence of the police assault shown by the victims'corpse Daro Rosado y Soto-Arrivi (photos of autopsy of the first), and (4) in reference to the testimonies perpetuated during the investigation(like origin of the "tall" described by Gonzalez-Malave on July 31 of 1978).
Finally, they published the result of their investigation in a report, which was spread out to the public in a press conference held on August 29 of 1978. In same they perpetuated their first public deceive in reference to the occurrences at Marvel Hill. In this conference, Colton Fontan was very emphatic stating that the "investigation reveals that there was not any massacre at all, nor beating or assaults". In re Colton-Fontan, supra, page 107-08 (emphasize supplied).
But beyond the hindrance that resulted in the seeking for the truth and because of the specifics acts that broke the decency of the District Attorney Ministry, the petitioner labored in a special very aggravated form against the stability of our democratic system. In behalf of the State, he provided the legitimacy, through a lack and twisted investigation directed by him. By doing this he helped to create a public reality promoting the author's impunity of an infamous crime and, for a short period of time, converted the State an accomplice of an immeasurable ethical and political immorality. So, Pedro Colton-Fontan tried to blindfold the Country's eye off the truth, which was very clear, and created a fake legality lessening the just and impartial spirit that the criminal justice institutions of the State should project. Had the Puerto Rican citizens depend upon the official version given by this functionary through the report through the Department of Justice on August 29, 1978, the truth about the murders of the youngsters Arnaldo Rosado y Carlos Soto Arrivi would have never been discovered. However, it was, thanks to the diligent and strong efforts done by the press journalists of our democratic system, that the Senate of Puerto Rico beginning the year 1981 carefully investigated the real truth about what occurred at the Marvel Hill. See, Manuel Suarez, Requiem on Cerro Maravilla [Marvel Hill]: The Police Murders in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Government Coverup (Waterfront Press, 1987).
"They stained the District Attorney Ministry's image and weakened the effectiveness of the important roll that play within the criminal justice system . . . To the illegal physical violence from the Police they added the ethical violation." In re Colton-Fontan, 128 D.P.R. 1, 113 (1991).
"Their acts attempted against the basic deontological principles. Not only deserves our censure and rejection, but also the imposition of the most severe disciplinary sanctions." In re Colton-Fontan, 128 D.P.R. 1, 107 (1991).
HEARING BEFORE THE COMMISSION OF REPUTATION:
~CONTINUES THE DISSENTING OPINION~
Colton pointed out on his application that during the time he was separated from the profession "he could obtain certain tranquility of his spirit" and if he were reinstated "he would practice the law strictly, with honesty and with a great sense of responsibility." Petition, page 3. To his application for readmission had attached twenty three (23) letters endorsed by the members of the legal profession and of his community. Also, at the hearing before the Commission of Reputation appeared people that testified about his aptitude and moral solvency.
It should be pointed out, however, that in the great majority those endorsed letters were limited to indicate in general terms and in inaccurate way about his moral aptitude. Also, almost all of them pointed out as main reason for their endorsement, that Colton-Fontan expiated his punishment and has suffered enough from the date of his sanctions. Some of them made reference to his good conduct during the time of his sanction, but none of them brought us the specific elements in which they based upon their conclusions .
Vague and ambiguous expressions about his rehabilitation, though with superlatives, are not enough to readmit him, especially in cases of such aggravation like this one. In reference to the insufficiency on the testimonies due to this generalities, we do an echo for what it was said by the American Law Institute over this matter: "Testimonials from lawyers are relevant only if they demonstrate thorough familiarity both with the conduct causing suspension and with specific steps the lawyer has taken to achieve rehabilitation." American Law Institute, Restatement of the Law Third, The Law Governing Lawyers: Proposed Final Draft, sec. 5, page 48 (1996).
The Commission of Reputation pointed out that Colton-Fontan did not declare in details neither convincingly about his process of introspection that made him think he deserved be reinstated because he was rehabilitated from his conduct that took him to his disbarment. In fact, the petitioner did not demonstrate truth repentant for his protagonist participation in the facts that took him to his disbarment and for having induced to so many people act in an illegal way.
Nor he declared anything of how he did to repair the impact of his conduct. He was too brief in this aspect, however, he gave great emphasize to his book on biblical characters and to his religious faith. Report to the Supreme Court, March 23 of 2001, page 7 (emphasize supplied).~ AND A QUOTE
~ END OF THE DISSENTING OPINION ~
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Following represents the:
SUPREME COURT'S OPINION
San Juan, Puerto Rico, this June 18th of 2001
This Court admitted Pedro Colton-Fontan to the practice of law, on December 14 1967. On October 10 1986, the former Special Independent District Attorney, Alejandro Salgado-Rivera, Esq., filed before this Court a sworn complaint against Colton-Fontan accusing him with a numerous charges allegedly for improper professional conduct while he was on duty as a General Special District Attorney and as Director at the Criminal Investigation for the Department of Justice of Puerto Rico during the investigation related with the unfortunately events occurred at the Marvel Hill, jurisdiction of Villalba's town, in which tragically died the youngsters Arnaldo Daio-Rosado and Carlos Soto-Arrivi.
Colton-Fontan answered the complaint denying its fundamental allegations, the Court appointed the former Superior [Court] Judge Abner Limardo, Esq., as a Special Master. After the hearings took place into that effect, the Special Master Limardo formulated and rendered to this Court his report, with findings of fact. By an extensive Opinion, dated on February 21 of 1991, this Court held Judgment, disbarring permanently Pedro Colton-Fontan to practice the profession as a lawyer, effective that date.
So thus things, Colton Fontan filed on June 7 of 1996, a petition in which he asked to this Court to reduce the imposed sanction, from permanent disbar, to five (5) years, which he already had served.
By a Resolution, dated June 28 of 1996, the Court " for the purpose to evaluate his possible reinstatement to the practice of law" " referred Colton Fontan's petition to the Commission of Reputation for those Applying to Practice as Lawyers" "for evaluation and report"; to this end, it was granted to the Commission, in a different date, the term of sixty (60) days to render the correspondent report."
After few procedural steps, which are unnecessarily to be mentioned, the Commission of Reputation held hearings during the days 16 and 29 of November, 1999. To these hearings appeared over twenty (20) witnesses, among them, lawyers, judges, religious and other people that know the petitioner Colton Fontan.
The former General Solicitor of Puerto Rico, Gustavo A. Gelpi, Esq.--who was the one who participated at the hearing held by the Commission--immediately filed, on December 2, 1999, his report before this Court. It expressed, in brief, that on the basis of the proof shown it became unquestionable that Pedro Colton Fontan:
"(i) is considered in the community as a human of great moral integrity,
(ii) lives repentant for the conduct that caused his permanent disbar and has no rancor against the Supreme Court or speaks depreciatory of anyone involve within his disbarment ;
(iii) is an excellent husband and a head family;
(iv) he is a humble person who unconditionally help others;
(v) after his disbarment did not practice the lawyer's profession , however has rendered excellent paralegal services to various lawyers;
(vi) throughout his increasing religious faith he could overcome to his misfortune and live his live in a positive manner;
(vii) his serious health problems has not been an obstacle for him to live a sane life and productive as well within his range of limitations of his disbarment:
(viii) he has converted himself into an excellent theologian, self-student, and he is finishing writing a book about all the bibles characters of the Old Testament; and,
(ix) if he is reinstated to his former profession, he wouldn't be a risk either to the profession of law nor to the society in general ; to the contrary it will be a honor to his fellow lawyers have him back within the profession. "
Finally, it was the opinion from the former General Solicitor of Puerto Rico "that Pedro Colton-Fontan has an excellent reputation in the community where he lives; being totally rehabilitated from the moral point of view; being genuinely repentant of the conduct which took him to his professional collapse; having him kept updated in the legal profession through the study of jurisprudence" he deserves be readmitted to the practice as a lawyer yet his disbarment decreed in the year 1991 "has achieved the main goal of his rehabilitation".
The Commission of Reputation filed its report on March 23, 2001. The same was not favorable to the petitioner Colton-Fontan. An analysis of said report to our understanding shows that the Commission based upon, as a principal reason, not to recommend him for such a serious and aggravating conducts held by the petitioner Colton Fontan during the course of his investigation.
The seriousness, and disgrace, about what happened at the Marvel Hill and the aggravation of the conduct observed by Colton Fontan is unquestionable. His acts were of so serious and aggravated that this Court, in 1991, understood it was a must to disbar him in a permanent way from the practice of law. This is not in controversy.
The matter today before the consideration of this Court is another, to wit: if Pedro Colton-Fontan today is an apt person to practice the lawyer's profession. The proof in his favor, to this point, happens to be vast. Repetitively we have held that, in general terms, "the person who applies to be reinstated to the lawyer's practice has the obligation to show not only that the time of his suspension or his permanent disbarment has been sufficient enough, but that he observe to have a good reputation and that his moral integrity, at the time of his application for reinstatement, makes him to deserve be reinstated to the practice of law." In re: Pacheco Nieves, 135 D.P.R. 95, 99 (1994); In re: Rivera Cintron, 120 D.P.R. 706, 708 (1988); In re: Cardona Vazquez, 112 D.P.R. 686, 689 (1982).
Those criteria have been satisfied in the present case. Ten (10) years have elapsed from the time Pedro Colton-Fontan was permanently disbarred to the practice of the profession. The incontrovertible proof presented before the mentioned Commission shows that he has an excellent reputation in the community where he lives; he is seriously repentant for the anti-ethic misconduct he did and by which he was disbarred; he is totally rehabilitated from the moral point of view; and kept updated by studying the jurisprudence, for the lawyer's profession. Finally, the only proof shown before the Commission demonstrates that Colton Fontan is totally rehabilitated and with capability to practice law.
It is important to emphasize that the Commission, on its report, accepts the inexistence of contrary evidence against the application for readmission of Colton Fontan. Its central thesis, we repeat, relies almost exclusively in the seriousness and aggravation of his misconduct , an issue that was object of adjudication within the disbarment proceedings. Not being in controversy the content, and character of the evidence admitted before the Commission, is unnecessarily to order a transcript of the record in the present case.
Clear and simple, the negative determinations by the Commission of Reputation was one made in vain, that is, they did not evaluate any proof at all; their conclusion to this effects just indicates merely an opinion to a point arbitrarily. Finally, we are facing to a manifested error of the incontrovertible proof shown on the part of the referred Commission, which doesn't represent the most rationale justice and juridical balance of same, reason why we may disregard said conclusion. Mendez v. Morales, 142 D.P.R. 26, 36 (1996); Ramos Acosta v. Caparra Dairy, Inc., 113 D.P.R. 357, 364 (1982); Abudo Servera v. A.T.P.R., 105 D.P.R. 728 (1977); Maryland Casualty v. Quick Const. Corp., 90 D.P.R. 329 (1964).
Anyway, is to this Court and not the mentioned Commission who has to determine judgment , final and adjudicative, about the admission or readmission, of lawyers to practice the profession within this jurisdiction. See: In re: Pacheco Nieves, 135 D.P.R. 95 (1994).
We don't have other alternative, neither another course of action but to decree the immediate reinstatement of Colton-Fontan to the practice of the lawyers profession. Our jurisprudence in this matter demands it. It is convenient to remember the wise, impartial and objective norm that, that this Court established about forty (40) years ago in In re: Charneco, 72 D.P.R. 897, 898 (1951), to the effects that:" When applying for his rehabilitation a lawyer that has been disbar, the medulla of the question is not if the lawyer has expiated his fault, neither if he has been punished long enough for, but rather if at the moment of his application he rejoices that reputation that justifies his admission to said practice, that is, if his moral integrity deserves his rehabilitation".(emphasize provided.)
The thesis "conveniently taken from other jurisdictions" that there are "certain situations in which the type of offense committed by the lawyer forbids his admission "collapses before the undeniable reality that this Court considered appropriate to admit a person to the practice of the profession that was accused of, and convicted, with the for Murder; conduct that happens to be the most severe and unconceivable in conformity to the Penal Code of Puerto Rico. It should be emphasized the fact that Colton Fontan was never convicted of any crime at all regarding the facts by which he was disbarred. On the other side, it should also be emphasized that this Court, in relatively recent dates, has estimated properly reinstate to the practice of the profession, though understood rehabilitated, lawyers who were disbar for having committed felonies. See, among other: Resolution, dated on April 20 of 2001, held in In re: Milton Rua Cabrera, reinstating him to the practice of the lawyers' profession; Resolution, dated on April 6 of 2001, held in In re: Roberto Jose Maldonado Rivera, reinstating him to the practice the profession; Resolution, dated on June 11 of 1999, held en In re: Frank Dalmau Gomez, also reinstating him to the practice of the lawyers'profession.
The history, and the jurisprudence norm pointed out before, prevent us, and we repeat, to give a different treatment to Pedro Colton-Fontan; person that has never been convicted of any public offense at all and that is, at this moment, completely capable and rehabilitated to practice the legal profession in our jurisdiction. To deny him said reinstatement would be giving him a discriminatory treatment for reasons different to the above-referred jurisprudential norm, course of action that we deny to follow.
Section 7 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico states:
"It is acknowledge as a fundamental right of the human being the right of life, to the liberty and the enjoyment of property".
In Amy v. Administrador del Deporte Hipico, 116 D.P.R. 414, 421 (1985), citing the delegate Hon. Jose Trias Monge, we held that "[t]he word 'life' includes a series of rights such as the right for education, the right to work and the right to have an adequate standard of life."
To continue depriving a human being that has demonstrated total repentant and that is totally rehabilitated, from practicing his profession, after ten (10) years of disbarment, would be to condemn him perennially to a job and to a standard of living below his capabilities.
We shouldn't forget, on the other side, that Article VI, Section 19, of our Constitution states that it would be a public policy for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico..."to regulate the penal institutions so they may achieve their purposes in an effective way and to provide, within their available resources , the adequate treatment for the delinquents to make possible their moral and social rehabilitation ." (emphasize supplied.)
If the public policy of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico provides for the moral and social rehabilitation for the delinquents , we really do not understand that people that want to deny the opportunity to a lawyer be reinstated to the practice of the lawyers' profession that--even though having violated conducts from the Code of Judicial Ethics, by which he was disbarred "is in this moment totally repentant and rehabilitated, after all when we considered that this person was never convicted of any crime at all.
Without forgetting how aggravated were the facts he was accused off, and having proven them against Pedro Colton Fontan "will help now help to prevent in the future other people may incur in similar conduct" this is the moment to put an end to this matter, accepting that there are in human beings the genuine capacity to repent and to rehabilitate.
The virtue to forgive, before the reproved repentant and rehabilitation of the person who faulted or failed in a given moment of his life, is an inherent and necessary part of our existence. This is a lesson or a divine learning that every human being should abide and to follow*with.
In attention thereof to all of the above expressed, it is herein decreed the immediate reinstatement to the practice of the attorneys' profession of Pedro Colton Fontan.
Publish it.
Was agreed by the Court and the Clerk of the Supreme Court certifies it. The Associate Judge Mr. Hernandez Denton issued a Dissenting Particular Vote. The Chief Judge Mr. Andreu Garcia and the Associate Judge Mrs. Naveira de Rodon inhibited. The Associate Judge Fuster Berlingeri did not intervene.
Isabel Llompart Zeno
Clerk of the Supreme Court
_________
* " Then Peter approached and asked him: Lord. How many times shall I forgive my brother if he sins against me? Up to seven times? Jesus replied: I don't say up to seven times, but up to seventy time seven". Mathew 18:21.
ORIGINAL SPANISH VERSION SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO IN COLTON'S CASE AT:
www.lexjuris.com/LEXJURIS/tspr2001/lex2001091.htm
Now read and compare this case with JM Rivera-Arvelo at: FAVORITE LINKS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer
The information on these pages is provided as general guidance, is not binding, and does not supercede the relevant laws, rules and regulations that apply. Should you have specific questions about the application of the specific laws in the formation of a professional entity, you should seek personal legal counsel.
-------
Posted without profit or payment for research and educational purposes only, in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.
______
WEBSITE COPYRIGHT POLICY
Ownership:All copyright in the material contained on this website (the "Site Material") is owned by Judiciary.4t.com, and its licensees, unless stated otherwise. All rights reserved. Reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form is prohibited other than in accordance with the following permissions:License to copy for personal use: You may for your personal use save to your individual storage medium copies of the Site Material as necessary and incidental to your acts of viewing it, and you may print for your personal use of so much of the Site Material as is reasonable for private purposes provided that all proprietary notices are retained.License to recopy for limited purpose: You may recopy the Site Material to individual third parties for their personal information only if: (a) you acknowledge this Site as the source of the material and you must include such acknowledgement in the copy of the Site Material; and (b) you inform the third party that these conditions apply to him or her and that he/she must comply with them. This license to recopy does not permit incorporation of the Site Material or any part of it in any other work or publication, whether in hard copy or electronic or any other form. In particular (but without limitation) no part of a page from the Site may be distributed or copied for any commercial purpose.No part of this Site may be reproduced on or transmitted to or stored in any other web site or other form of electronic retrieval system.Judiciary.4t.com reserves the right to withdraw or modify the licenses set out above at any time.
IMPORTANT: the licenses set out above do not apply to any photographic material. Such material has been provided by third parties. For permitted use of third party content you must apply to the relevant content owner.
