Adm. Case No. 229: IN RE: Disbarment Proceedings vs. Jaramillo
Getting related questions...
What do you want to know about the case?
Ask AI quickly gives answers based only on the current context to avoid mistakes. Always verify with the original text.
New Chat Started
Ask AI
Title
Source:
Supreme Court
Full-text jurisprudence and laws exclusively from the Supreme Court's Official E-Library
Note: Direct links are not available for cases before 1996. Try a more recent case.elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph
IN RE: Disbarment Proceedings vs. Jaramillo
Case
Adm. Case No. 229
Decision Date
Apr 30, 1957
A lawyer convicted of estafa, a crime involving moral turpitude, was disbarred despite claims of judicial error and excessive punishment, as the final conviction rendered him unfit for the legal profession.
IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS VS. NARCISO N. JARAMILLO, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
PARAS, C.J.:
The respondent was prosecuted for and convicted of estafa in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and, on appeal, was finally sentenced by the Court of Appeals to an indeterminate penalty ranging from two months and one day of arresto mayor to one year and one day of prision correccional in its decision promulgated on April 17, 1954. On August 5, 1955, while the respondent was serving sentence for said conviction, the Solicitor General filed in this Court the present complaint for respondent's disbarment.
In his answer respondent contends that his conviction was a judicial error; that it was unfortunate on his part that the trial court did not believe his explanation of the loss of the amount involved in the criminal case; that his imprisonment and the sufferings and mental anguish he has suffered since the commencement of the criminal case constitute more than sufficient punishment; that for this Court to further disbar him is excessively inhuman, humiliating and cruel.
There is no question that the crime of estafa involves moral turpitude- The review of respondent's conviction no longer rests upon us. The judgment not only has become final but has been executed. No elaborate argument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the privilege bestowed on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his conviction, the respondent has proved himself unfit to protect the administration of justice.
Wherefore, the respondent is hereby disbarred and ordered to surrender to this Court, within fifteen days from notice hereof, the lawyer's certificate heretofore issued to him. So ordered.
Rengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Conception, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.