Case Digest (A.C. No. 9608)
Facts:
Maria Victoria B. Ventura v. Atty. Danilo S. Samson, A.C. No. 9608, November 27, 2012, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. Complainant Maria Victoria B. Ventura filed on July 29, 2004 a complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Commission on Bar Discipline seeking the disbarment or suspension of respondent Atty. Danilo S. Samson for grossly immoral conduct.Complainant alleged that respondent engaged in sexual intercourse with her on two occasions — sometime in December 2001 and on March 19, 2002 — when she was thirteen years old; she described being awakened and forced into acts including intercourse and alleged that respondent threatened her and later gave her money. Respondent admitted that sexual intercourse occurred but maintained it was consensual and disputed complainant’s minority; he alleged the complaint was instigated by a former employee and characterized the encounter as a single consensual act for which he gave money.
At the criminal level, the provincial prosecutor dismissed the rape charge for insufficiency of evidence but found probable cause for qualified seduction and filed an information; complainant’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and the Department of Justice later sustained the prosecutor’s findings. On December 14, 2006, complainant and her mother executed affidavits of desistance, after which the criminal case was dismissed.
The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline issued a Report and Recommendation (Oct. 10, 2007) proposing one year’s suspension for immorality; the IBP Board of Governors, however, adopted the report with modification and suspended respondent for five years (Resolution No. XVIII‑2007‑237) for immorality, noting the victim’s minority, respondent’s marital status and guardianship relation. Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration asking the C...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the complainant’s affidavit of desistance terminate or abate disciplinary proceedings against an attorney?
- Did respondent’s conduct constitute grossly immoral conduct warranting disbarment under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court and the Code of Professio...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)