Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

IN MATTER OF DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS v. NARCISO N. JARAMILLO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	AC. NO. 1109 2005-04-27	MARIA ELENA MORENO v. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA PER CURIAM
In fact, we have long held[26] that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude. As we said in In The Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v. Narciso N. Jaramillo,[27] "[t]he 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."[28]
	AC. NO. 1109 2005-04-27	MARIA ELENA MORENO v. ATTY. ERNESTO ARANETA PER CURIAM
In fact, we have long held[26] that disbarment is the appropriate penalty for conviction by final judgment of a crime involving moral turpitude. As we said in In The Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v. Narciso N. Jaramillo,[27] "[t]he 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."[28]
	AC. No. 4585 2004-11-12	MICHAEL P. BARRIOS v. ATTY. FRANCISCO P. MARTINEZ PER CURIAM
In the present case, respondent has been found guilty and convicted by final judgment for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 for issuing a worthless check in the amount of P8,000. The issue with which we are now concerned is whether or not the said crime is one involving moral turpitude. [22]
	AC. No. 4585 2004-11-12	MICHAEL P. BARRIOS v. ATTY. FRANCISCO P. MARTINEZ PER CURIAM
In In The Matter of Disbarment Proceedings v. Narciso N. Jaramillo,[43] we disbarred a lawyer convicted of estafa without discussing the circumstances behind his conviction. We held that: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.[44]