Title
Solidum vs. Sta. Maria
Case
A.C. No. 1858
Decision Date
Dec 26, 1984
A lawyer was suspended for agreeing to a lopsided compromise in a homicide case, failing to protect the complainant's interests by allowing a criminal case to be dismissed via an affidavit of desistance, contrary to public policy.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 247645)

Nature of the Complaint

Solidum sought disciplinary action against Sta. Maria, alleging that his legal representation and explanation regarding the “Sinumpaang Salaysay” (affidavit of desistance) were inadequate. This affidavit was critical as it was used to dismiss the homicide case against Pellos, leading Solidum to believe that Pellos was not culpable in the death of his daughter.

Details of the Affidavit of Desistance

The affidavit executed by Solidum stated his relationship to the deceased and described the circumstances surrounding her death. It articulated Solidum’s belief that the act resulting in his daughter’s death was purely accidental. In consideration for executing this affidavit, Solidum received P8,000 — P4,000 in cash and the remaining P4,000 to be paid in installments.

Legal Proceedings Post-Affidavit

Subsequent to the affidavit, when Pellos failed to fulfill the installment payments, Sta. Maria filed a suit against him in 1975. The case was eventually compromised in 1977, where Pellos paid a portion of the owed amount but subsequently defaulted on the remaining balance.

Error of Judgment

The decision highlighted Sta. Maria's error in judgment for allowing a compromise that was not fully secured, particularly since the criminal aspect of the case was irreconcilable with compromise. The consensus was that criminal actions cannot be dismissed merely for a financial settlement as per Article 2034 of the Civil Code and Article 23 of the Revised Penal Code.

Public Policy Considerations

The ruling referenced the precedent in Velez vs. Ramas, establishing that agreements meant to stifle criminal prosecution are contrary to public policy. It underscored the principle that the legal system must not be manipulated to serve illicit purposes, highlighting that Lauded law enforcement and justice must not be compromised.

Conclusion of Disciplinary Action

Given the oversight and the prejudicial outcome against Solidum—who was led to believe

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.