This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-03-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Under paragraph 4, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, a criminal liability may be mitigated if there was sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party which immediately preceded the act complained of. To avail oneself of this mitigating circumstance, it must be duly proven that the alleged provocation originated from the offended party.[35] | |||||
|
2006-02-27 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| As pointed out by the Investigating Commissioner, Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that a lawyer be updated in the latest laws and jurisprudence.[10] Indeed, when the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[11] As a retired judge, respondent should have known that it is his duty to keep himself well-informed of the latest rulings of the Court on the issues and legal problems confronting a client.[12] In this case, the law he apparently misconstrued is no less than the Constitution,[13] the most basic law of the land.[14] Implicit in a lawyer's mandate to protect a client's interest to the best of his/her ability and with utmost diligence is the duty to keep abreast of the law and legal developments, and participate in continuing legal education programs.[15] Thus, in championing the interest of clients and defending cases, a lawyer must not only be guided by the strict standards imposed by the lawyer's oath, but should likewise espouse legally sound arguments for clients, lest the latter's cause be dismissed on a technical ground.[16] Ignorance encompasses both substantive and procedural laws.[17] | |||||