US vs. NIXON

Case Citation:  US vs. NIXON 418 US 683,  Law Subject:  EVIDENCE, Category: STATE SECRETS

A more elucidating exposition on
its ruling
worth pondering upon

1972. Watergate building, Washington, D.C. 1:46 A.M. Timer starts. Gun propelled cables hitting target walls. 300 Seconds to execute covert mission. Agents in black suit swinging down on zip lines. Music starts: (Mission Impossible Theme). “Tum tum  ♫♫–tunum, tum tum-♪ tunum” . Although not exactly as it happened but.. helps to be creative at times. 

There’s one covert operation in the Bible that I’m reminded of. And the uniqueness of the incident is that the commander of that army hadn’t even had the slightest clue about the operation itself.

  
 was laid down by my Evidence professor
 in his own case digest of the US Case

You know before King David rose to power, he was a fugitive.King Saul and his army were hunting him down like a dog with only one intent and that is to kill him. He was considered threat to the throne where he himself had no inkling or the slightest plan to dethrone him. This must be the time when David wrote the 3rd Chapter of Psalms, a time when he was faced with numerous enemies on every side. While he was fleeing, his countrymen were pursuing him with swords drawn upon his head. At the same time since he was forced to wander outside the city of his birth he was faced with all their enemies on every side wherever he set foot just to find refuge.

But the Lord was with David and He protected him. And had caused him and his few men to win every battle they were faced with, until David found a refuge and lived in the strongholds of En Gedi. All those who were in distress or in debt or discontented gathered around him, and he became their leader. Men who are skilled in war have defected to him. Warriors with faces of lions and could shoot arrows with both left or right hand. And as days go by his army grew stronger and larger.

I think it was in Ziklag where they fought one of their most memorable battles. They were somewhat cornered by the Amalekites, and they were forced to camp where there were no water supplies. At night when David was alone his faithful men overheard him say “Oh if I could only drink from the waters of ___” (looks like I forgot the name of the river sorry). They couldn’t drink because the enemy had camped right on the river. And so about five of his brave warrior men set out on a covert mission. The mission? To secure water from the river placed in a jug for their commander David.

The mission was executed perfectly. Water was drawn and brought to David. But David shocked and surprised in finding out the sacrifice and ordeal that his men went through which almost caused their lives couldn’t find it worthy to drink from the jug. And as sacrifice to God his protector and to give due recognition to his men’s selfless act of bravery, he didn’t let his tongue touch the water and instead poured it on the ground. He gained even more respect and utmost loyalty even unto death from his army by doing this. 

The case Nixon of course was a different story. Agents of CREEP broke into the Democratic National Headquarters. Reason for the break in? Don’t ask. Isn’t it obvious? Were looking at a Republican President. 

President Richard Nixon, was running for re-election against a Democrat Senator. Five months before the election, the break in commenced. Thinking it was simple burglary, not knowing it’ll be the start of a big national controversy an alert security guard caught the agents red handed. Reporters following the story connected the burglars to high-ranking officials in the White House. It was slowly uncovered that President Nixon authorized the break-in. Nixon denied any connection to the break-in. The President was named as an unindicted co-conspirator and was ordered by a District Court upon subpoena, to produce certain tapes, memoranda, and other writings related to specific meetings associated with the break-in. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming "executive privilege," which is the right to withhold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to secure the national interest. 

The American Congress had no alternative but to conduct an independent Congressional investigation where the hearings revealed that Nixon had installed a tape-recording device in the Oval Office. The special prosecutor in charge of the case wanted access to these taped discussions of the break-in to help prove that President Nixon and his aides had abused their power and broken the law. 

The District Court ruled against Nixon. The President appealed and the case quickly reached the Supreme Court. Here’s how it happened, the President released transcripts to some of the tapes and then moved to quash the release of them all together on grounds of executive privilege. But the District Court denied the motion to quash. The US Supreme Court by motu propio took the case before the Court of Appeals could hear it, and then affirmed the lower court and remanded it for examination of the subpoenaed documents. Nixon's attorney argued the matter should not be subject to "judicial resolution" since the matter was a dispute within the executive branch and the branch should resolve the dispute itself. 

Guys, this is a matter of election tactics and obviously the President was caught playing dirty. But it was considered a clear criminal act. See how our American judicial and legal counterparts as well as the American public put premium to what is equitable and fair? 

Question, what happened here? Is the President’s constitutional privilege, absolute? The Supreme Court have the final voice in determining constitutional issues; let’s see what the US Supreme Court has to say. This is no doubt a question of law and indeed falls as a constitutional question. Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review? 

NO. The US Supreme Court decided that executive privilege is not limitless. No person, not even the president of the United States, is completely above the law; and the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is "demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial." It was held that Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court said that “under the Constitution, the judiciary had the final voice, not the Executive branch”. As for ‘executive privilege,’ the Court acknowledged that the “President had a right to privileged communication where certain areas of national security were concerned.” However, the Court stated that “this case did not meet those conditions”. Furthermore, the Court declared that “no president is above the law.” A preference must be given to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes. 

Nixon handed over the tapes that revealed that he had personally engaged in the cover-up of the burglary. Within a few days, Congress began impeachment proceedings against the President for his actions. Rather than face the impeachment hearings, Nixon resigned from office. 

". . . Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the . . . [absolute] confidentiality of presidential communications." 

                                                                                                                  — Chief Justice Warren Burger 

AGUSTIN vs. CA

Case Citation: AGUSTIN  vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 162571.  June 15, 2005,  Law Subject:  EVIDENCE, Category: ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE

A woman carrying her love child sues the child’s alleged biological father, petitioner in this case. Filing the complaint for support and support pendent lite before the QC RTC she alleges that:

1. the father of her child courted her and they had relationship (One fine Valentines day they availed of a tempting romantic Valentines day special offer of 1^st class motel room accommodation package.. haha.. I just had to insert that in keeping with the occasion… sorry) wherein he impregnated her. And despite his insistence of an abortion she decided otherwise.

2. That the alleged father shouldered the pre-natal and hospital expenses but later refused her repeated requests for support.

In his answer he denied having sired the child because he said his affair with her ended long before the child’s conception. In his counter affidavit he alleged that:

1. She had at least one other secret lover and that she proved to be possessive and scheming and over-demanding that she resorted to various devious ways and means to alienate him from his wife and family. (Sounds like a typical teleserye? You bet). In short, she was obsessed with him and he was unable to bear the prospect of losing his wife and children so he terminated the affair.

2. That his signatures on his alleged sedula and the issued birth certificate of the child were all falsified.

Woman and child therefore filed a motion in court for issuance of an order to direct all parties to submit themselves to DNA Paternity testing. Defendant now petitioner to this case opposed said motion by invoking his constitutional right against self-incrimination and instead filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of cause of action since under the law an illegitimate child is not entitled to support if not recognized by the putative father. The trial court denied his motion and granted the previous motion ordering the parties to submit themselves to DNA paternity testing. Consequently he petitioned the CA for certiorari which merely affirmed the earlier lower court ruling.

ISSUES:

Hence defendant petitioned the highest court for certiorari and raised 2 issues.

1. Since he is now directed to submit to DNA paternity testing rather than sticking to the issue of the claim for support, he therefore questions whether a complaint for support can be converted to a petition for paternity recognition. And

2. That the DNA test order is violative of his Constitutional right to privacy and self-incrimination.  Moreover, he assails the new practice of the DNA method of testing as non-conclusive evidence in courts. (You must understand this case was dated & decided in the early 2000 when discovery of the DNA tests were scientific methods being newly introduced to the public during the 90’s. Now the scientific method is widely accepted as one of the strongest direct evidence you can pull up in a support pendente lite or filiation  court battle like this ).

RULING:

The SC found his petition without merit. Court said the assailed resolution and order did not convert the action for support into one for recognition but merely allowed the respondents woman and child to prove their cause of action against petitioner who had been denying the authenticity of the documentary evidences (Res. Cert & Birth Cert.) submitted. Court stressed further that should said action be converted to petition for recognition, such would also be valid and would still be in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.

On his second issue, the court made reference to a series of few past decisions involving DNA testings submitted as evidence. (Truth of the matter is this is the first time DNA testing was adduced as means of determining paternity and so it was inevitable for the court to refer to other DNA jurisprudences as basis, more so in a precedent case such as this where court accepted DNA test results as proof of paternity filiations)  

In People vs. Teehankee where the appellant was convicted of murder on the testimony of three witnesses, SC stated as an obiter dictum that “while eye witness identification is significant, it is not as accurate and authoritative as the scientific forms of identification of evidence such as fingerprints or DNA test results.”

The courts confidence on the method somehow wavered in the Pe Lim vs. CA case. A case that yielded a not so steadfast reliance on the DNA method cautioning against its use “being a relatively new science and had not as yet accorded official recognition by our courts” where it decided that “paternity still have to be resolved by such conventional evidence”.

In 2001 however the SC reopened the possibility of admitting DNA as evidence of parentage as enunciated in the Tijing vs. CA case where it declared that “fortunately we have now the facility and expertise in using DNA tests for identification of parentage testing”.

Wherefore in view of the forgoing, petition was thereby DENIED. And the assailed RTC and CA decisions were AFFIRMED.

Woman and child wins this case.

Moral of the story? (lemme say this with a stick of cigarette and a black leather jacket and a James Dean look haha) be careful sleeping around on Valentines Day. Tsk tsk tsk. And girls? don’t buy so much that saccharinely red heart shaped commercial crap, learn to discern what’s ploy and what’s not. Getting swayed by all these commercial hooplas  just pre-empts everything, like a good focus on studies and career, a well kept well lived life with a precious wife and beautiful family in the future. And a peacefully conscience cleared mind. Don’t buy that teleserye crap. And avoid the legal drama, we don’t need to clog the court dockets with life decisions we could conscientiously decide and mend and fix on our own. Bottom line. A diligent well lived life is still the best.   

HAPPY VALENTINES DAY!

   

“There is no better way of exercising the imagination than the study of law. No poet ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer interprets the truth”

-          Jean Giraudoux

  

HICKMAN vs. TAYLOR

This is a US Case. But this case has strong parallelism with the old Filipino adage “Piniprito ka sa sarili mong mantika” 

1943,  J.M. Taylor… no that’s not a person that’s a tug. A tug means a tow boat. Like a tow truck? Only this one’s on water.  It sank while engaged in towing a car float of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad across the Delaware River at Philadelphia.  It was an accident where 5 of the 9 crew members drowned. 

Well syempre if you think the liability rests on you the best thing to do is to have fortitude and  face it, anticipate and prepare for the coming disaster.  And so owners of J.M. Taylor defendants in this case employed the service of a law firm to defend them against potential suits by representatives of the deceased crew members and to sue the railroad for damages. 

Mind you this is pre-trial huh?  

Here’s what happened. Attorney for the defendants anticipating the litigation privately interviewed the four survivors taking statements from them.

Here comes the trial. One year later after the accident plaintiff Hickman, representative of 1 of the 5 victims brought suit in federal court. The issue here surfaced from 1 of the 39 interrogatories filed by Hickman and directed to the tug owners, requesting the tug owners to disclose in oral or in writing whether any statements of the 4 surviving crew members were taken following the accident. 

This was admitted by the tug owners, but declined to summarize and provide contents basing their refusal on the ground that such requests called for “privileged matter obtained in preparation for litigation”.

The district court held that the requested matters were not privileged. And by refusal, the tug owners were held in contempt.  (In favor of Hickman)

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the district court. (In favor of Taylor)

But the US Supreme Court granted certiorari. 

Question. 1. Was Taylor’s counsel’s defense that matters obtained in preparation for litigation are among those cited by law as privileged tenable?  2. And was the act of the adverse counsel requesting the disclosure of what was obtained through interview of survivors by the opposing counsel prejudicial?

You know the US Supreme Court saw one thing in a form of a word that is magnified in this case on either both parties. The word “Discovery”.  And we know very well how much Americans value this word. Information, data, facts is utmost to them. That’s why it affirmed the CCA judgment to overturn the order of discovery to favor whom it was doing its homework. 

The US Supreme Court somehow favored Taylor in this matter. And the favor was ‘swift’ (hehe I know… Taylor Swift). Seriously..

The US Supreme Court said 1. “The protective cloak of the privilege information does not extend to information that an attorney secures from a witness while acting for his client in anticipation of litigation.”

There we go, the preceding paragraph has clearly established it. Which means what Taylor’s counsel did thus in fact doesn’t come under those matters that are privileged. I think were clear on that. 

It’s like the court was saying “Attaboy!!.. just like what a typical American would do… discover.. but… hold your horses… it doesn’t easily work that way … but… overall?... you were amazing”

However..

Court also ruled that 2. “An attempt without necessity or justification to secure written statements, private memoranda and personal recollections prepared or formed by an adverse party’s counsel falls outside the arena of discovery.”   

It’s like the Court is saying “hold it!.. hold it!.. woops! nope.. you can’t do that… yes I know, I can see that you are under the process of discovery and that is commendable but I am also under the impression that obviously you didn’t do your homework.. and I understand that but.. na ah… you can’t do shortcuts at the expense of another”

Eh onga naman. Hihingin mo lang yung defense mo sa defense ng iba. Eh ano nalang mafefeel ng kabilang party.. parang piniprito nga naman sya sa sarili nyang mantika. Kahit sabihin mong “Witness namin yan ah.. bat iniinterrogate mo?  That’s extra-judicial. Do it in cross-examination or better yet file a motion in court to present him as hostile witness” But I think the action was filed one year later from the accident. Eh if I am the counsel for this case… eh there’s so much ample time before trial… I might as well prepare my self too. 

Here’s what the US Supreme Court said:

“… there is the necessity for the lawyer to investigate all facets of the case and develop his theories without fear of having to disclose his strategies or information that is unfavorable to his client”

“There would be a demoralizing effect on law practice if lawyers were required to write out and deliver to their adversaries an account of what witnesses have told them.”  

TONGCO vs. VIANZON

Marcelino Tongco uncle of the petitioner married respondent Anastacia Vianzon in 1894. The uncle died in 1925 leaving his wife. But shortly before he died Marcelino had filed claims in a cadastral case asking for titles to certain properties in the name of his conjugal partnership. 

Upon his death the niece of the deceased Josefa Tongco, petitioner in this case, was named administrator of his estate. The thing was, right after his death, his pending claims resulted in a favorable corresponding decrees for the lots previously claimed by him and were then issued under his name. 

His widow then began action manifesting to the court and informing about the death of her spouse presenting a motion for revision of the decrees of which she filed just right in time within its one year prescription period. And so the Court of First Instance ordered new decrees for the said lots and certificates of titles were issued under the widow’s name. 

Josefa Tongco the administrator of Marcelino’s estate, niece of the said deceased filed action against the widow submitting a motion for a new trial and for recovery of specified property and damages.  The motion for a new trial was denied by the CFI.

Upon this decision the administrator  appealed to CA which merely affirmed the earlier decision. Hence, the petition for certiorari.

The issue in this case is that in the trial, counsel for the administrator assailed the widow’s competency to testify as witness and in support to this claim he thereby invoked Section 383 of the then Code of Civil Procedures which provides:

“Parties or assignors of parties to an action or proceeding, or persons in whose behalf an action or preoceeding is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person… cannot testify as to any matter of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person..”

The question here is “can the widow be allowed to testify?” 

Court held YES. 

The actions were not brought ‘against’ the administrator of the estate, neither were they brought upon claims ‘against’ the estate.  The administrator in the first case should have even enforced the demand ‘by’ the estate as what conjugal partnership in law dictates. 

The presumption in Civil Law is that all the properties of the spouses are deemed that of a partnership property in the absence of proof to the contrary that it belongs exclusively to the husband or the wife. And the widow in this case has even proved decisively and conclusively exclusive ownership of the property in question after her husband’s death.  

The widow wins this case.

LIMKETKAI vs. CA (250 SCRA 523)

Had it ever happened to you. When something youve read somewhat unexpectedly pops up and rose from its pages. Sophomore 2nd year law. Naglalakad kame sa I think Binondo or Avenida ba yun o Sta. Cruz Manila nung nakita namen old dilpidated building may sirasirang engraving sa taas nakalagay 'LIMKETKAI'. "Ooyy Limketkaiii!!.. yan yung nasa kaso sa Sales ah!!!". Sabay turo.. tuwang-tuwa pa.. parang mga engots.. yun pala tumatawid ng kalye, intersection pa nampu.. ops!  'I remember the stupid things. The mood rings, the bracelet and the beads, nickels and dimes, yours and mine. Did you cash in all your dreams.'

Tsk tsk, the after effect of copiously reading the SCRA, you are ushered in to all the gooey stuffs and  juicy inside stories. And best of it is you get to smile when what you see confirms what you've read.

This is a sales case. On 1976, Philippine Remnants Company constituted BPI as its trustee to manage, administer, and sell its real estate property. It must have been included together with the BPI list of foreclosed properties just for the sake of selling I guess. The land property was 33,000 sqm., located at barrio Bagong Ilog, Pasig. Covered by a TCT numbe… hmhmhm 

Geez,  I remember my Sales professor whose so particular with details. Aw! it was such a pain-in-the-ass when we were reciting. Like if you say “Facts states that Juan Manuel Antonio executed a Deed of Sale in favor of Ricardo De la Cruz selling to him his 2005 Ford Expedition in consideration of the amount of more than half a million” “How much?”  “Roughly 600 thousand” “How much Mr. Clavecilla?” “679.50 thousand pesos sir” “Continue” “Upon signing of the deed of sale De la Cruz handed to Antonio 250 thousand bills in cold cash sacked in a brown paper package and together with it right there and then executed  a promissory note amounting to the rest of the obligation” “Was the delivery effected?” “The car was parked at the… McDonalds?.... Jollibee parking lot” “And where is this parking lot located?” “Ahm Pasig?” “Where in Pasig?” “Ahh.. Libis? (Hahaha)” I look at my brods and their lips are moving but I couldn't understand a single word. “Sit down Mr. Clavecilla…. Mr. Conrado… what is the color of the car?” “Green sir” “What is the plate number?” (Hahaha.. nampu..).  Well of course it’s understandable, this is not criminal law, or  civil, or evidence were talking about. This is Sales, in sales you gotta be detailed. Undetailed transactions vitiates consent.     

Anyway. 1988, BPI formally authorized Revilla a licensed real estate broker to sell the lot for 1 grand per square meter. Of course if you’re a licensed broker the phone is your closest friend. So he conducted a series of calls to his string of clients and ended up with Lim of Limketkai.

July 11, 1998, Limketkai agreed to buy the land se he went to BPI to confirm the sale. The agreement was that the lot was to be sold at P1,000 per square meter and to be paid in cash. 

Now here comes Limketkai coming back. Notwithstanding the final agreement, Lim asked if it was possible to pay in terms. To which the bank officials said “well there’s no harm in trying.. it happened before in our previous transactions”.  It happens right? When you’ve just closed a deal you sometimes walk away with that notion that… “Dang! I should’ve haggled, or bargained, or negotiated further at least.” 

So Lim subsequently after the final agreement asked for easy terms, of which the bank officials agreed upon. And so BPI Vice President Albano dictated the terms. 10% initial payment, the remaining 90% will paid within a period of 90 days. Of course, the proposal would still be subject for BPI approval. At such occurrence the parties agreed that if it be disapproved Limketkai will be bound to pay the whole amount in cash.  

Here’s the controversy. About three days later Limketkai learned that BPI’s program offer to pay in terms had been frozen. Eh Limketkai wanted the property so much eh, so he went to the doorsteps of BPI the very first thing in the morning to tender the full amount of payment. Here’s the thing, the payment was refused. And VP Albano just stated that the authority to sell the subject land had been withdrawn from his unit.

So consequently action then was filed by Limketkai for specific performance with attached damages. Limketkai claims that the contract to sell and buy was perfected on July 11, 1998 as stated above. 

BPI countered that what transpired on July 11 was part of the continuing negotiations to buy the land and not the perfection of the sale. The subsequent attempt by Limketkai to pay under terms constitute a counter-offer which negates the existence of a contract. 

Here’s what made it more complicated. While the trial was pending at the lower court, BPI sold the subject land to National Bookstore. Booooh!!! (Laking National ah.. joke.. I love National). Of which NBS claims that it was an innocent purchaser for value. 

So what happened? How did the SC see all these? 

It favored Limketkai. Records did not sustain BPI’s contention that the VP and AVP had no authority to bind BPI on the particular transaction. Syempre naman di ba? If you’re a VP or AVP of the Real Property Management Department, eh di that means you directly supervise the department or unit. Besides you’re a Trust Officer, who else would be given trust by the company to manage the disposal of the bank foreclosed or entrusted properties than you. You’re the perfect man to make the decisions. (Parang sinabi mo lang sa nagpapala ng buhangin na gustong arkilahin service and equipment mo na tipong trabahador na biglang nag-subcontract, “di namin kaya yan eh” “sige bayaran na kita kahit kalahati na ng sweldo ko” “mahirap yan eh” tas sa likod mo may tractor. kasi gusto mo buong sweldo nya mapunta sayo, pano na kakaen yung tao). Besides, the Trust Committee they were talking about was all made up, and almost never existed.

It was also put on record that during the cross-examination in the lower court the AVP admitted there was meeting of the mind.  And that the parties agreed that should terms be disapproved, the same should be paid in full. 

Now regarding National Bookstore. Sorry kung laking National Bookstore ka  NBS is not an innocent purchaser for value here. NBS had knowledge of the pending suit. And it even asked Limketkai to drop the case. 

So, Limketkai wins this case.