This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-12-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| However, the conviction of Zafra of criminal offenses requires the imposition of higher penalties. This is particularly so here, considering that Court has already classified and characterized the violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 as a crime involving moral turpitude.[16] Under the Administrative Code of 1987, a conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a ground for disciplinary action. In that regard, the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service states that conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude is a grave offense and upon the first offense, the penalty of dismissal must be meted out. It is clear, therefore, that Zafra should be dismissed from the service for having been convicted by final judgment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 violations. Verily, her criminal convictions evinced her absolute unfitness and unworthiness to remain in the service of the Judiciary, a department of the Government that demands from its officers and employees the highest degree of integrity and reputation. | |||||
|
2009-04-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Abduction with consent[37] Bigamy[38] Concubinage[39] Smuggling[40] Rape[41] Estafa through falsification of a document[42] Attempted Bribery[43] Profiteering[44] Robbery[45] Murder, whether consummated or attempted[46] Estafa[47] Theft[48] Illicit Sexual Relations with a Fellow Worker[49] Violation of BP Bldg. 22[50] Falsification of Document[51] Intriguing against Honor[52] Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law[53] Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Drug-pushing)[54] Perjury[55] Forgery[56] Direct Bribery[57] Frustrated Homicide[58] | |||||
|
2009-03-31 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| In People v. Tuanda,[25] we explained the nature of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 as follows:The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. Blg. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment x x x. The thrust of the law is to prohibit under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law punishes the act not as an offense against property but an offense against public order. | |||||
|
2006-02-23 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Lawyers are instruments for the administration of justice. As vanguards of our legal system, they are expected to maintain not only legal proficiency but also a high standard of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. In so doing, the people's faith and confidence in the judicial system is ensured.[19] Lawyers may be disciplined whether in their professional or in their private capacity for any conduct that is wanting in morality, honesty, probity and good demeanor.[20] Any gross misconduct of a lawyer in his profession or private capacity is a ground for the imposition of the penalty of suspension or disbarment because good character is an essential qualification for the admission to the practice of law and for the continuance of such privilege.[21] | |||||
|
2004-11-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In People of the Philippines v. Atty. Fe Tuanda,[25] where the erring lawyer was indefinitely suspended for having been convicted of three counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22, we held that conviction by final judgment of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 involves moral turpitude and stated:We should add that the crimes of which respondent was convicted also import deceit and violation of her attorney's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility under both of which she was bound to "obey the laws of the land." Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude might not (as in the instant case, violation of B.P. Blg. 22 does not) relate to the exercise of the profession of a lawyer; however, it certainly relates to and affects the good moral character of a person convicted of such offense…[26] (emphasis supplied) | |||||