Case Summary (B.M. No. 712)
Criminal Conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide
In September 1991, petitioner and seven co-accused participated in fraternity initiation rites that resulted in Raul Camaligan’s death. Initially charged with homicide, all eight pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. On February 11, 1993, the trial court imposed imprisonment from two years, four months, and one day to four years.
Probation, Discharge, and Petition to Take Lawyer’s Oath
On June 18, 1993, Argosino was granted probation. Following satisfactory compliance, the court in April 1994 approved his discharge. On April 14, 1994, petitioner filed a petition with the Supreme Court seeking permission to take the lawyer’s oath based on his discharge from probation.
Requirement to Demonstrate Good Moral Character
On July 13, 1995, the Court issued a resolution deferring oath-taking and requiring petitioner to submit evidence of good moral character as mandated by the 1987 Constitution and the Rules on Bar Admission. The Court, citing its duty to preserve the integrity of the profession, reserved judgment on whether Argosino had purged the moral deficiency arising from participation in a senseless, violent act.
Character References and Remedial Actions
In compliance, petitioner submitted fifteen certificates and letters, including endorsements from two senators, five trial court judges, and six religious-order members. He also provided proof of his involvement in establishing a scholarship foundation in honor of Raul Camaligan, in cooperation with the victim’s family and co-accused.
Comments of the Victim’s Father
In September 1995, the Court invited Atty. Gilbert Camaligan to comment. He affirmed his belief that the death was deliberate and akin to murder, explained his initial consent to the lesser plea out of compassion, and stated that, although he personally forgave the accused as a Christian, he remained uncertain whether petitioner was now morally fit to practice law.
Applicable Law and Standards for Admission to Practice
Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the practice of law is a privilege conditioned upon strict intellectual and moral qualifications. Admission requires a showing of good moral character, the absence of which may disqualify a candidate. The Court must balance society’s interest in competent counsel against the imperative to maintain the profession’s dignity.
Evaluative Considerations on Moral Fitness
The Court acknowledged the gravity and cruelty of the act that led to Raul Camaligan’s death and recognized the ini
...continue readingCase Syllabus (B.M. No. 712)
Facts
- Al Caparros Argosino passed the 1993 bar examinations but was deferred from oath-taking due to a prior conviction.
- The conviction arose from the death of a fraternity neophyte during initiation rites in September 1991.
- Argosino and seven co-accused initially pleaded not guilty to homicide, then withdrew their pleas and pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
- On February 11, 1993, the trial court sentenced each accused to imprisonment of two years, four months, and one day to four years.
- On June 18, 1993, the trial court granted Argosino probation; on April 11, 1994, it approved his discharge from probation.
Procedural History
- April 14, 1994: Argosino filed a petition before the Supreme Court to be allowed to take the lawyer’s oath based on his discharge from probation.
- July 13, 1995: The Court, through a resolution by Senior Associate Justice Florentino P. Feliciano, required Argosino to submit evidence of good moral character.
- In compliance, Argosino submitted no fewer than fifteen certifications from senators, trial court judges, and members of religious orders, plus proof of a scholarship foundation established in honor of the hazing victim.
- September 26, 1995: The Court directed Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, father of the victim Raul Camaligan, to comment on Argosino’s petition.
- December 4, 1995: Atty. Camaligan filed his comment.