Romulo villa vs. Junel anthony ama, bar matter no.

674, 06/14/2005
Facts: on april 15, 2005,junel anthony d. Ama filed a petition for admission in the bar assuccessful passers of the
1992 bar exam.the said petitioner together with the other member of the aguila legis fraternity of ateneo de manila
university was implicated andcriminally charged with the death of jose villa.an amended information for
serious physical injury was filed in mtc caloocan city against the petitioner and another case of homicide in rtc
caloocan city.on april 16, 1993,the father of the victim filed a petition praying that the petitioner be disallowed from
taking lawyers oath and signing the roll of attorneys pending final judgment of the case filed against him.on
february 8, 1996, themtc acquitted him while the rtc rendered a guilty decision through conspiracy.the rtcdecision
was appealed in the ca and the latter set aside the lower courts decisionrendering a guilty decision on slight physical
injury under art.266 of rpc.he was orderedto pay a 30 thousand pesos jointly with the other accused
as indemnity.instead of servingthe 20 day imprisonment,he apply for probation of rtc caloocan which granted him
andterminating the case.Issue: is the offense considered as grave violation of the moral sentiment of thecommunity?
or crime of moral turpitude?Ruling: no,the court grant the petition of junel anthony d. Ama.he is hereby allowed
totake the lawyers oath and sign the roll of attorneys.the crime for which the petitoner wasconvicted was a light
offense and cannot be considered as grave vioaltion of the moralsentiment of the people and certainly not a crime
involving moral turpitude.Adm. Case no. 1474, jan. 28, 2000Cristino g. Calub, complainantVs.Atty. Abraham a.
Suller, respondentFacts: in the morning of jan. 20, 1975 while the complainant was awa, atty. Suller went
tocomplainants house in aringay la union to borrow a blade.the respondent was a neighbor and a family friend with
the complainant.as he entered the house,the respondent startedtouching the private parts of the wife and threatened
her and forced her to have sexualintercourse.as the complainant returned home to get money for the payment of the
realestate taxes, he saw his wife with the respondent having a sexual intercourse.on jan. 23,1975,the complainant
filed a case of rape in mtc of aringay, la union and later remandedto the cfi of agoo, la union.on june 3, 1975,the
complainant filed a disbarment case
against the respondent before the supreme court.the cfi rendered an acquittal of therespondent and on march 3, 1993
the board of governors,ibp issued a resolutionrecommending a one(01) year suspension of the practice of law.Issue:
is the one(01) year suspension sufficient penalty for a lawyers immoral act?Ruling: no,the court decided that the
said suspension is not sufficient punishment for theimmoral act of the respondent.the rape he commited though he
was acquitted on thegrounds of not proven beyond reasonable doubt is not determinative of the adminitrativecase at
bar.the testimonies of the complainant show that the respondent acted in a grosslyreprehensible manner in having
carnal knowledge of his neighbors wife without her consent in her very home.the court further states that the said
offense constitute seriousmoral depravity and the respondent is not worthy to remain member of
the bar.wherefore,respondent is disbarred from the practice of law.