Title
Re: People vs Al Argosino
Case
B.M. No. 712
Decision Date
Mar 19, 1997
Bar passer convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide seeks lawyer’s oath; Supreme Court allows it, citing rehabilitation, remorse, and good moral character, with admonition to uphold legal ethics.

Case Summary (B.M. No. 712)

Petitioner and Criminal Conviction

Petitioner and seven co-accused initially faced homicide charges arising from a neophyte’s death during fraternity initiation rites in September 1991. All eight initially pleaded not guilty but subsequently withdrew those pleas and, upon re-arraignment, pleaded guilty to the lesser offense of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The trial court rendered judgment on 11 February 1993, sentencing each accused to imprisonment from two years, four months, and one day to four years. The trial court later granted petitioner’s application for probation on 18 June 1993.

Probation, Discharge, and Petition to Take the Oath

On 11 April 1994 the trial court approved a probation officer’s report (dated 6 April 1994) recommending petitioner’s discharge from probation. On 14 April 1994 petitioner filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking permission to take the lawyer’s oath based on the trial court’s order of discharge from probation.

Supreme Court’s Procedural Inquiry on Moral Character

On 13 July 1995 the Supreme Court (through Senior Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano) required petitioner to submit evidence demonstrating compliance with the good moral character requirement for admission to the bar. In response, petitioner submitted at least fifteen certifications and letters, including endorsements from two senators, five trial court judges, and six members of religious orders, and evidence that a scholarship foundation in memory of the victim had been established through joint efforts by the victim’s family and the eight accused.

Victim’s Father’s Comment

The Court required Atty. Gilbert Camaligan to comment on petitioner’s petition. In his 4 December 1995 comment, Atty. Camaligan stated: (a) he believed the injuries that led to his son’s death were deliberately inflicted, amounting to murder rather than reckless imprudence resulting in homicide; (b) he consented to the guilty pleas to the lesser offense only out of pity for the accused’s families; (c) as a Christian he has forgiven the accused but continues to feel the pain and stigma of his son’s manner of death; and (d) he could not say whether petitioner is now morally fit for admission to the bar and thus left the determination to the Court’s discretion.

Applicable Law

Because the decision date is after 1990, the Court applied the 1987 Constitution as the constitutional framework governing the administration of justice and the regulation of the legal profession. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is a privilege that demands strict intellectual and moral qualifications of those admitted to the bar.

Legal Standard: Good Moral Character for Admission

The Court reiterated its duty to ensure that only those who meet strict moral and intellectual qualifications be admitted to the bar. The integrity of the administration of justice and the public image of the legal profession require the Court both to remove disgraceful practitioners and to prevent unfit individuals from being admitted. Participation in prolonged, mindless physical conduct at odds with responsible behavior undermines a finding of good moral character; the Court had earlier observed that petitioner’s participation in the hazing made impossible an initial finding that he then possessed good moral character.

Weighing of Evidence and Reconsideration de novo

Although the Court recognized the grave nature of the conduct that led to the victim’s death and shared the victim’s father’s understandable pain, it was prepared to consider de novo whether petitioner had since purged the deficiency in moral character identified earlier. The Court considered petitioner’s submitted certifications, evidence of religious devotion and community service, and the establishment of a scholarship foundation in the victim’s memory as indicia that petitioner had exerted efforts to atone and had demonstrated reform.

Court’s Assessment and Reasoning

The Court concluded that petitioner was not inherently of bad moral fiber. The various certifications showed religious devotion and civic concern. The Court was persuaded that petitioner had made substantial efforts to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan and observed that youthful rashness may

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms