Case Digest (B.M. No. 712) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Re: Petition of Al Caparros Argosino to Take the Lawyer’s Oath, petitioner Al Caparros Argosino, a successful candidate in the 1993 bar examinations, was prevented from taking the lawyer’s oath due to his prior conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide arising from a fraternity initiation that led to the death of a neophyte in September 1991. Argosino, together with seven co-accused, initially pleaded not guilty to homicide but subsequently withdrew these pleas and, upon re-arraignment, pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. On February 11, 1993, the trial court imposed a sentence of imprisonment ranging from two years, four months, and one day to four years on each accused. On June 18, 1993, the court granted Argosino’s probation, and on April 11, 1994, approved his discharge from probation. Thereafter, on April 14, 1994, he petitioned this Court to allow him to take the lawyer’s oath. By resolution dated July 13, 1995, the Court required Case Digest (B.M. No. 712) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Examination and Bar Admission
- Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the 1993 Bar Examinations.
- His oath‐taking was deferred due to a prior conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide.
- Criminal Case Origins
- Death of a fraternity neophyte during initiation rites in September 1991.
- Eight accused, including petitioner, initially pleaded not guilty to homicide but later changed to guilty to reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- Judgment dated 11 February 1993 imposed imprisonment of two years, four months, and one day to four years on each accused.
- On 18 June 1993, the trial court granted petitioner’s application for probation.
- On 11 April 1994, the court approved the probation officer’s report recommending discharge from probation.
- Petition for Lawyer’s Oath
- On 14 April 1994, petitioner filed a petition to take the lawyer’s oath based on his discharge from probation.
- On 13 July 1995, the Supreme Court required evidence of compliance with the good moral character requirement.
- Petitioner submitted fifteen certifications/letters by senators, judges, and religious order members, and proof of a scholarship foundation in honor of the victim.
- Comment of Victim’s Father
- Atty. Gilbert Camaligan asserted the fatal injuries were deliberate (murder) and consented to the lesser plea out of pity.
- He forgave the accused as a Christian but remained unsure of petitioner’s current moral fitness, leaving the determination to the Court’s discretion.
Issues:
- Whether petitioner’s conviction for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide permanently disqualifies him from taking the lawyer’s oath.
- Whether petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated the good moral character and moral fitness required for admission to the bar.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)