Re: Petition of Al Argosino to Take the Lawyers Oath
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Al Caparros Argosino passed the 1993 bar examinations but his oath-taking was deferred due to a previous conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide. This conviction stemmed from the death of a neophyte during fraternity initiation rites in September 1991. Petitioner and seven other accused initially pleaded not guilty to homicide but later withdrew their pleas and pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The trial court imposed a sentence of imprisonment of two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day to four (4) years on each accused. Petitioner was granted probation on June 18, 1993, and subsequently discharged from probation on April 11, 1994. Procedural History: Following his discharge from probation, petitioner filed a petition with the Supreme Court to be allowed to take the lawyer's oath. The Court required him to submit evidence of his compliance with the requirement of good moral character. Petitioner submitted numerous certifications from senators, judges, and religious members, as well as evidence of a scholarship foundation established in honor of the victim, Raul Camaligan. The Court also required the victim's father, Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, to comment. Atty. Camaligan stated he believed the act was deliberate and constituted murder, not just homicide, but consented to the plea bargain out of pity. He has forgiven the accused but still feels the pain of his son's death and the stigma of its gruesome manner. He deferred to the Court's discretion regarding petitioner's moral fitness. The Petition: Petitioner sought to take the lawyer's oath based on his discharge from probation and the evidence of his rehabilitation and good moral character.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Al Caparros Argosino possesses the requisite good moral character for admission to the bar despite his prior conviction for Reckless Imprudence Resulting In Homicide, considering his efforts at atonement, devout faith, civic duties, and public service. Whether discharge from probation is sufficient to establish rehabilitation and moral fitness for admission to the practice of law, and the weight to be given to the victim's father's forgiveness in determining moral fitness.
Ruling
The Supreme Court resolved to allow petitioner Al Caparros Argosino to take the lawyer's oath, sign the Roll of Attorneys, and practice the legal profession. The Court admonished him to always weigh his actions according to his sworn promises in the lawyer's oath.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of good moral character and admission to the bar: The Court acknowledged that a conviction for a crime, especially one involving moral turpitude, can be a ground for disqualification. However, the Court emphasized that it is prepared to consider de novo the question of whether the petitioner has purged himself of the deficiency in moral character. The Court recognized that the lawyer's oath is a solemn promise and that the practice of law is a privilege requiring strict intellectual and moral qualifications. The Court noted that the senseless beatings inflicted upon Raul Camaligan constituted an evident absence of moral fitness. Nevertheless, the Court considered the general tendency of youth to be rash and uncalculating and was persuaded that the petitioner had exerted efforts to atone for the death of Raul Camaligan. The Court also took judicial notice of the petitioner's devout Catholic faith and genuine concern for civic duties and public service, as evidenced by numerous certifications. On the sufficiency of discharge from probation: The Court stated that while discharge from probation is a significant step, it is not automatically determinative of moral fitness for admission to the bar. The Court shared the sentiment of the victim's father, Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, acknowledging the profound trauma of losing a child due to the recklessness of others. The Court found Atty. Camaligan's forgiveness praiseworthy and commendable. However, the Court also recognized Atty. Camaligan's admission that he was not in a position to definitively state whether the petitioner was now morally fit. Therefore, the Court undertook a careful evaluation of all the evidence presented, including the certifications and the circumstances surrounding the incident, to arrive at its decision.
Main Doctrine
While conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude may bar admission to the bar, a discharge from probation after pleading guilty to reckless imprudence resulting in homicide does not automatically disqualify an individual, provided sufficient evidence of rehabilitation and good moral character is presented, and the Court may grant admission after careful evaluation.