CLAVECILLA NOTES (Political Law, Executive Branch)

Executive Department

Canvassing & Proclamation Process

Term of Office, Vice President

Presidential Succession

Cases

Disabilty of the President

Cases

Oath of Office, Perquisites & Inhibitions

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CANDIDO SOLOMON

This is a rape case. You know every time I see a case and everything written about it is immediately preceded by a title starting with People. I tend to gear up myself before reading because I know I had to read the facts, facts in a criminal case that is.

It’s just words, I know. None even any of media or any image representation, but, its injustice you know. Any normal human being getting informed about certain injustice that happened somehow reacts in a spectrum of feeling of indignation somehow. Try to post something bad about what happened to anyone in the social media, and you’ll expect a swarm of empathizing, ruthless bashing, radicalizing series of comments.

But just the same we were trained to read this, so we read. And reading about it seems to bring you right where it happened. And we somehow get, well not dehumanized of course but.. we get to a certain degree of callousness somehow, and an exterior  of toughness. Toughness to know the truth. Callousness which drives you to an end result of justice.

And so you somehow read it with indignation. But of course, as all students of law knows.. there is a court resolution in the end. The final verdict. The one that tilts the balance. The redeeming factor.

But.. I mean you know. It’s just interesting to know that in the process of doing so you are kept reminded more or less  about the state of man, and how debase human dignity is capable of being turned into, and that man is fallen (Well, not only as LOTR describes it, but also how the holy scriptures accounts for it and how it’s soul is undeniably in need of a Savior. A Redeemer. The ultimate redeeming factor).

Here we are inside the court room. Judge, counsels or advocates, the perpetrator, the victim. Counsel for the prosecution states ‘..and on that very same night, above named accused by force, threat, and intimidation did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously had carnal knowledge with the helpless barely 15 year old complainant, against her will.. consequently by this premise, your honor please, may I call on the complainant to the witness stand’.  ‘Objection your honor’ Counsel for the defense interjected ‘I hereby invoke Rule 130 of the Rules On Evidence. Witness being called for is incapable of perceiving the facts  which she will be examined, neither will she be able to relate them truthfully, it is but proper for the honorable court to disqualify complainant as witness’. Objection over ruled!!.. naks! naman.

The beauty of this case is that the court took cognizance of the little girl’s straightforward narration of her ordeals despite of her youth and her credibility being assailed by the adverse party.

The crime perpetrated here was chronologic. Notice it was established that there were series of abuse. Four counts of rape of considerable intervals were instituted in the complaint. This must have toughened the girl to be able to talk straight in front of the magistrates.

Notice what I’ve wrote on the side notes? ‘Victim had no choice’ this means she was trapped, she had no where to go. And what does it say in the next side note? That ‘she made effort to remember’.  This was her way of fighting. It’s not to forget, but to remember is her weapon.  She must have wrote the dates somehow. In her young naïve mind she must have somehow thought she must be ready, if lady justice comes walking by someday she would be able to account for it somehow, and she kept her hopes. She might have not been doing anything in the course of the series of crimes committed by her step-father because she doesn’t know how,  but in her limited mind she was seeking for justice.   

It would have been a great site to see the bravery and toughness of this young girl in court and how the magistrates listened and gave full credence to her testimony attributing to her what is credible and competent evidence.

(The RTC in its decision meted the death penalty. Death penalty cases are automatically raised to the Supreme Court for finality.  The SC affirmed decision of the lower court but modified the sentence to Reclusion Perpetua. The case was decided 1995, contemporaneously I think it was then that the then President of the Republic signed the death sentence moratorium. Or was it the qualification of the accused to the death sentence requisite that motivated a modification. The SCRA case doesn’t say so. Or I might just have not read  any further. I should check).       

POLLO vs. CONSTANTINO-DAVID

Sorry, I brisk-read this case.

Here's a case of claiming what's not yours & expecting everybody around to respect your privacy regarding said thing.

This case is about the doctrine called Reasonable Expectation of Privacy. But were not talking about it here. Were just here to find out whether or not there was illegal search conducted and whether it amounted to culpable violation of petitioner's basic constitutional right to privacy based on the constitutional provision ofcourse. In other words, were about to find out if there was competent evidence admissible in court.

If you're working in an office and you're the type who nameplates everything you use.. (your office chair, your computer, your filing cabinet, the office stapler, your pen..etc.) when you know very well these are company or government issued equipment, but you expect your office mates and other people to acknowledge your ownership and respect your privacy over them just the same.. you better reconsider. These things maybe issued by the Admin Office in your name upon you or your immediate bosses' request but these are company owned. The company, bureau, or agency that issued it for your personal use reserve all the right to inspect and regulate and dispose of it, much less retrieve anything from it.

Same thing happened here. You might as well read through the case. I don't wanna discuss it.

I'm intrigued at... I wonder how will I handle this if  I am to decide. Here you are, sitting in your cozy leather coated power office chair as the top CEO. Unexpectedly hearing a drop on the carpeted floor or something. A hole crack on the damn glass office window as you inspect. And a crumpled letter on the floor almost wrapped on a stone. (well at least nobody shot an arrow with a wrapped cryptic note on it). You picked it up and read the damn letter saying "yo boss wake up! some dude in the office's doin some anomaly or somethin somethin". So what do you do? You of course investigate the veracity of the accusation since you can't really pin-point who the anonymous sender is. And how do you do that? Read between the lines. And if you think there's a probable cause? then by all means fish for evidence. Records, lists, correspondence, DTRs, drawers what have yous. Even crack an office computer password if that what it takes. Then you issue a show-cause order.

Should you? Why would you? Let me rephrase that question. Why wouldn't you? You have the means. You have the authority. You're the uber-boss. That means you have to know. You need to know. The name, efficiency and  respectability of the company had been laid in your hands. By all means do your job. You're the top man, that means you are entitled to know.

Here's a quick reminder if you work in an office setup. You don't hide skeletons in your office computer. You don't have Reasonable Expectation of Privacy there. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy is like when you're in an enclosed space. Well, the toilet is one :)

ABRAHAM vs. RECTO-KASTEN, 4 SCRA 298

Here’s my first case. Pls. Note: I'm just extracting the EVIDENCE aspect of this case.

Click the image. Its JPEG sorry. I want to keep my hard earned text for my self if you  know what I mean. And if you do then were kindred spirits. You could right-click-save & print the photo though. Please note, the red scribbled annotations are just my emergency penmanship. I doubt if you could read it. But do make use of the typed written word. You might find it helpful in your case digestion. The side notes are for my recitation purposes only. Don’t worry, I have a wonderful penmanship. 

Speaking of the case. Oh this is such a bad case of litigation strategy on the part of the respondent’s counsel. He questioned the validity of the other party’s witness’ testimony and yet he readily jumped in to join the game. The result  of course was bad and carried adverse effect that cause the weakening of his defense, the Supreme Court took notice of his two edged action and deemed it as a waiver of the right he invoked earlier.

This is just a simple case of proving a genuineness of an executed negotiable instrument that’s been dated so way back. The transaction was uncomplicated. Person ‘A’ asked a loan from person ‘B’  executing a Promissory Note to pay the whole amount within 90 days. Person ‘B’ obliged. Hence, the loan contract was executed.  

Like most credit story goes, the PN’s maturity prescribed without debtor paying any single amount. 

Creditor dies in a year or two. Debtor unexpectedly dies intestate after many years passed as well. (Whut the hell?) Leaving the note unpaid. Of course deceased estate needed court probation and so a special judicial proceeding for partition was executed and an administrator was assigned.

Here comes the controversy. The widow and two sons of the deceased creditor files a pleading before the same court reclaiming attaching the payment of the forgotten PN on the deceased debtor’s estate.

Of course administrator to the deceased debtor’s estate wouldn't just take it lying down, she hired a lawyer to contest the genuineness of the promissory note, and if proved genuine, invoke the prescription rule. 

Problem is, the lawyer she hired seemed to have rushed everything, to the point of not reconsidering stepping back a little bit in his litigation defense assailing the admissibility of the widow’s testimony as witness based on a provision of the Rules of Court.  Little did they know she held the key to the genuineness of a thing between two dead people. She was at her husband’s side and stood there as signatory witness to the signing of that promissory note. 

Supreme Court ruled stating the genuineness of the PN is established. Second, she was the best witness to the truthfulness of the negotiated instrument. And why is that? Co'z  she was there at the very birth of the instrument witnessing everything that had transpired, her signature attests it, she signed her name to support her husband’s future claim.  (She was always there for her husband. As what usually honorable wives do.. well of course I subjectively just added that)

The widow wins this case.