EN BANC
[Adm. Case No. 229. April 30, 1957. ]
IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS, v. NARCISO N. JARAMILLO, Respondent.
Solicitor General Ambrosio Padilla and Solicitor Juan T. Alano for complainants.
Narciso N. Jaramillo in his own behalf.
SYLLABUS
1. ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW; DISBARMENT; ESTAFA INVOLVES MORAL TURPITUDE. — The crime of estafa which respondent had committed involves moral turpitude. No elaborate argument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the privilege bestowed on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that by his conviction, the respondent has proved himself unfit to protect the administration of justice.
D E C I S I O N
PARAS, J.:
The respondent was prosecuted for and convicted of estafa in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan and, on appeal, was finally sentenced by the Court of Appeals to an indeterminate penalty ranging from two months and one day of arresto mayor to one year and one day of prision correccional in its decision promulgated on April 17, 1954. On August 5, 1955, while the respondent was serving sentence for said conviction, the Solicitor General filed in this Court the present complaint for respondent’s disbarment.
In his answer respondent contends that his conviction was a judicial error; that it was unfortunate on his part that the trial court did not believe his explanation of the loss of the amount involved in the criminal case; that his imprisonment and the sufferings and mental anguish he has suffered since the commencement of the criminal case constitute more than sufficient punishment; that for this Court to further disbar him is excessively inhuman, humiliating and cruel.
There is no question that the crime of estafa involves moral turpitude. The review of respondent’s conviction no longer rests upon us. The judgment not only has become final but has been executed. No elaborate argument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the privilege bestowed on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his conviction, the respondent has proved himself unfit to protect the administration of justice.
Wherefore, the respondent is hereby disbarred and ordered to surrender to this Court, within fifteen days from notice hereof, the lawyer’s certificate heretofore issued to him. So ordered.
Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.
In his answer respondent contends that his conviction was a judicial error; that it was unfortunate on his part that the trial court did not believe his explanation of the loss of the amount involved in the criminal case; that his imprisonment and the sufferings and mental anguish he has suffered since the commencement of the criminal case constitute more than sufficient punishment; that for this Court to further disbar him is excessively inhuman, humiliating and cruel.
There is no question that the crime of estafa involves moral turpitude. The review of respondent’s conviction no longer rests upon us. The judgment not only has become final but has been executed. No elaborate argument is necessary to hold the respondent unworthy of the privilege bestowed on him as a member of the bar. Suffice it to say that, by his conviction, the respondent has proved himself unfit to protect the administration of justice.
Wherefore, the respondent is hereby disbarred and ordered to surrender to this Court, within fifteen days from notice hereof, the lawyer’s certificate heretofore issued to him. So ordered.
Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.
