Case Summary (Adm. Case No. 229)
Background of the Conviction
Narciso N. Jaramillo was convicted of estafa by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. Subsequently, his conviction was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeals on April 17, 1954, which imposed an indeterminate penalty ranging from two months and one day of arresto mayor to one year and one day of prision correccional. This criminal conviction directly influenced the disbarment proceedings against him.
Filing of the Disbarment Complaint
While Jaramillo was serving his sentence for estafa, the Solicitor General filed a complaint for his disbarment with the Supreme Court on August 5, 1955. This action was prompted by the serious nature of the crime which raised concerns about Jaramillo's fitness to be a member of the legal profession.
Respondent’s Arguments
In his defense, Jaramillo contended that his conviction stemmed from judicial error, asserting that the trial court did not adequately consider his explanation regarding the financial loss associated with the case. He claimed that the psychological and emotional toll of his imprisonment constituted sufficient punitive measures, arguing that disbarment would be excessively harsh.
Legal Principles and Moral Turpitude
The Court emphasized that estafa is a crime involving moral turpitude, which fundamentally impacts an attorney's professional standing. The nature of the offense reflects adversely on an individual's honesty and integrity, traits essential for upholding the dignity of the legal profession.
Finality of Conviction and Impact on Disbarment Proceedings
The Court noted that the validity of Jaramillo's conviction was no longer subject to review, as the judgment had become final and executed. This finality underscored the Court's position that it was not necessary to entertain extensive arguments regarding his moral character
...continue readingCase Syllabus (Adm. Case No. 229)
Case Background
- The case addresses disbarment proceedings against Narciso N. Jaramillo, a lawyer previously convicted of estafa (swindling) in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan.
- The conviction was appealed, and the Court of Appeals subsequently sentenced him to an indeterminate penalty, ranging from two months and one day of arresto mayor to one year and one day of prision correccional. This decision was promulgated on April 17, 1954.
- Jaramillo was serving his sentence when the Solicitor General filed a complaint for his disbarment on August 5, 1955.
Respondent's Argument
- In his defense, Jaramillo claimed that his conviction stemmed from a judicial error.
- He expressed disappointment that the trial court did not accept his explanation r