CHUA–QUA vs. CLAVE

"The heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know" 
- Blaise Pascal

"There are stories of love deemed by others as inappropriate. However, true love defies odds, move mountains, and for this instance, compels a Supreme Court Justice to be extra-mushy in his ruling."

Law students love this case.. in fact it was considered one of the well read cases searched in its original script. The yellowing pages of the SCRA.

Not only because of the tidal reversal decisions it went through from administrative, quasi-judicial, and judicial bodies that took cognizance of it by virtue of their respective jurisdictions, but the controversy and the uniqueness of the situation that were it not for it this would have been just another case of illegal dismissal.

In fact one tiny portion of the decision was lifted and went down in courts history as one of the Top 5 Best Supreme Court Love Quotes of all times. The words topped the survey and the case etched its own engraving as one of the most favorite landmark cases of all times.

"If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this only lends substance to the truism that 'the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know'." - Chua-Qua vs Clave 189 SCRA 117

The underlined words were of course borrowed from a famous saying of  Blaise Pascal. But the effect had perfectly complemented and fit the whole structure of this high court's lingering quote upon which it was invoked.

The case was decided by a three (3) man division chaired by no less than Justice Ameurfina Melencio Herrera, the other two justices were Justice Paras and Justice Padilla. Indeed a woman's sense of judgment is never deserving to be downplayed.

Although I am not sure about the ponente who wrote this decision but I'm thinking it was Justice Regalado who penned it. Judging by the choice of words mannerly pervading with great Filipino writers that proliferated and stood engraved in the halls of our Modern Philippine Literature, the likes of Jose Garcia Villa,  Nick Joaquin, Carlos Bulosan, Sionil Jose. Justice Florenz D. Regalado is considered one of the high court's illustrious judicial writers of all times.

Some none-legal writers nowadays even refer to it (the Chua-Clave case) as "A truly remarkable case wherein the Supreme Court ruled in favor of “love”. Yes. This was a love story. The case was decided in 1990 but the dispute arose in 1976. This is a story of a teacher who fell in-love with her student and the student felt the same. Or should we appropriately say the student falling in love with his teacher and the teacher in the course of her lessons have learned to develop feelings for her student.

What aggravated the case is the marriage of both. Herein petitioner (30 years of age) who as we have established was a classroom teacher, entered into matrimony with her student who was fourteen (14) years her junior. This was considered by the school authorities as sufficient basis for terminating her services.

Allow me to proudly present to you the facts of the case:

Private respondent Tay Tung High School, Inc. is an educational institution in Bacolod City. Petitioner herein Evelyn Chua was a teacher therein employed since 1963 and was the class adviser in the sixth grade during 1976 where one Bobby Qua was enrolled.  

It was the policy of the school to extend remedial instructions to its students usually conducted after the regular class hours and so therefore Bobby Qua was imparted with such instructions in school by petitioner teacher Evelyn Chua same as other students as well.

But here's the thing.. 

In the course thereof?.. the couple fell in love.

And on December 24, 1975, they got married. Evelyn was 30 years old and Bobby, 16 years old, an age gap of 14 years.

LABOR ARBITER:

Consequently, on February 4, 1976 Tay Tung High School filed with the Labor Arbiter an application for clearance to terminate Evelyn’s employment stating her “actuations as a teacher constitute serious misconduct, if not an immoral act, a breach of trust and confidence reposed upon her and, thus, a valid and just ground to terminate her services”. And that she violated the Code of Ethics for Teachers, the pertinent provision of which states that 'a school official or teacher should never take advantage of his/her position to court a pupil or student’.” And that such act were "abusive and unethical amounting to a conduct unbecoming of a dignified school teacher and that her continued employment is inimical to the best interest, and would downgrade the high moral values, of the school." 

Evelyn Chua was placed under suspension without pay on March 12, 1976. The Bacolod City NLRC Executive Labor Arbiter to whom the case was certified for resolution, required the parties to submit their position papers and supporting evidence. Affidavits were submitted by private respondent school to bolster its contention that petitioner Evelyn Chua..

First blood drawn... listen to this..

"defying all standards of decency, recklessly took advantage of her position as school teacher, lured a Grade VI boy under her advisory section and 15 years her junior into an amorous relation." 

Tsk tsk - Such strong conclusive words huh?..

What the school was trying to establish here was the existence of an amorous relationship manifested within the premises of the school, inside the classroom, and within the sight of some employees. More specifically, private respondent raised issues on the fact that petitioner stayed alone with Bobby Qua in the classroom after school hours when everybody had gone home, with one door allegedly locked and the other slightly open.

But to the contrary..

Neither was there a direct evidences, or actual witnesses introduced to show that immoral acts were committed during those times, all the respondent school could do was point out that said scenario was enough for a sane and credible mind to imagine and conclude what transpired and took place during those times.

Now comes the arbitrary decision of the Labor Arbiter..

On September 17, 1976, Executive Labor Arbiter Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr., WITHOUT CONDUCTING ANY FORMAL HEARING, rendered an "Award" in favor of private respondent granting the clearance to terminate the employment of petitioner.

APPEAL TO THE NLRC:

Petitioner, however, denied having received any copy of the affidavits referred to. And so on October 7, 1976, petitioner appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission claiming denial of due process further contending that there was nothing immoral, nor was it abusive and unethical conduct unbecoming of a dignified school teacher, for a teacher to enter into lawful wedlock with her student.

Our heroine fights back..

December 27, 1976, the National Labor Relations Commission UNANIMOUSLY REVERSED the Labor Arbiter's decision and ordered petitioner's reinstatement with back-wages.

Here's the NLRC's findings..

The Commission stated "Even if we have to strain our sense of moral values to accommodate the conclusion of the Arbiter, we could not deduce anything immoral or scandalous about a girl and a boy talking inside a room after classes with lights on and with the door open. Furthermore, Tay Tung High School naively insisted that the clearance application was precipitated by immoral acts which did not lend dignity to the position of Evelyn Chua. Aside from such gratuitous assertions of immoral acts or conduct unbecoming, no evidence to support such claims was introduced by the school officials. We reviewed the sequence of events from the beginning of the relationship between appellant Evelyn Chua and Bobby Qua up to the date of the filing of the present application for clearance in search of evidence that could have proved detrimental to the image and dignity of the school but none has come to our attention."

APPEAL TO DOLE:

Here now comes the school elevating the case to the Minister of Labor who, on March 30, 1977, REVERSED the decision of the NLRC. The teacher was, however, awarded six (6) months salary as financial assistance.

APPEAL to the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHIL.:

Petitioner appealed the said decision to the Office of the President of the Philippines. (Ferdinand E. Marcos).  After the corresponding exchanges, on September 1, 1978 said office, through Presidential Executive Assistant Hon. Jacobo C. Clave rendered its decision REVERSING the DOLE decision. Private respondent SCHOOL was ordered to reinstate petitioner EVELYN CHUA to her former position without loss of seniority rights and other privileges and with full back wages from the time she was not allowed to work until the date of her actual reinstatement.

So.. tsk tsk tsk.. considering that the case run the gamut of three prior adjudications of such administrative and quasi-judicial bodies with alternating reversals, well.. of course we would think that the petitioner teacher's calvary is now ended.. 

but wait.. there's more.. 

In a resolution dated December 6, 1978, public respondent Hon. Jacobo C. Clave, acting on a motion for reconsideration of herein private respondent school and despite opposition thereto, RECONSIDERED and MODIFIED the aforesaid decision, this time giving due course to the application of Tay Tung High School, Inc. to terminate the services of petitioner as classroom teacher but giving her separation pay equivalent to her six (6) months salary. 

So.. ehem.. dig that.. it's like winning the lottery and dying the next day.. 

Public respondent Hon. Jacobo C. Clave reasoned out and may I quote "This Office did not limit itself to the legal issues involved in the case, but went further to view the matter from the standpoint of policy which involves the delicate task of rearing and educating of children whose interest must be held paramount in the school community, and on this basis, this Office deemed it wise to uphold the judgment and action of the school authorities in terminating the services of a teacher whose actuations and behavior, in the belief of the school authorities, had spawned ugly rumors that had cast serious doubts on her integrity, a situation which was considered by them as not healthy for a school campus, believing that a school teacher should at all times act with utmost circumspection and conduct herself beyond reproach and above suspicion"  (The fella has a point.. let's see if it will hold..)

And so our heroine had no choice but to continue the fight elevating the case to the Supreme Court by virtue of a petition for certiorari..

ISSUE:

Was her dismissal valid? Did petitioner commit an immoral act as a teacher warranting dismissal from work?

RULING:

The Supreme Court declared the dismissal illegal saying:

“Private respondent (the school) utterly failed to show that petitioner (30-year old lady teacher) took advantage of her position to court her student (16-year old). The petitioner’s dismissal was based solely on her marriage to Bobby Qua and the imputed charges of abuse, immorality and unethical conduct were unsubstantiated. Finding that there is no substantial evidence of the imputed immoral acts, it follows that the alleged violation of Code of Ethics governing school teachers would have no basis.

If the two eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this only lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which reason does not know. But, definitely, yielding to this gentle and universal emotion is not to be so casually equated with immorality. The deviation of the circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores.”

Petition for certiorari granted, private respondent is ordered to pay petitioner back wages equivalent to three years without deduction and separation pay of one month for every year of service.

Here's a more concrete basis..

Court said.. It would seem quite obvious that the avowed policy of the school in rearing and educating children is being unnecessarily bannered to justify the dismissal of petitioner. This policy, however, is not at odds with and should not be capitalized on to defeat the SECURITY OF TENURE granted by the Constitution to labor. In termination cases, the burden of proving just and valid cause for dismissing an employee rests on the employer and his failure to do so would result in a finding that the dismissal is unjustified. The charge against petitioner not having been substantiated, we declare her dismissal as unwarranted and illegal.

The petition for certiorari was GRANTED and the resolution of public respondent Jacobo Clave is ANNULLED and SET ASIDE.

The teacher Evelyn Chua-Cua wins the case.. redeems her dignity.. and the heart of the person she loves.

Indeed, the heart has its own mind that even the own mind cannot fathom. 

CAYETANO vs. MONSOD (1991)

I walked in and he waved at me. "Ey take it easy!.. so howdy.. you alright?" I said and smiled when we accidentally caught each other eating at the mall (Chowking)  our tables adjacent to each other.

"Chip help me?" "Haha help you about what? (looking a bit puzzled as I was chewing my food). "This girl pare I've been calling her, doesn't wanna talk to me galit yata eh. I'll dial bro could you please talk to her?" "No no I .. I can't do that (chewing) It wouldn't look good on you. You should be the one doing it. Babae lang yan pre.. you can solve it, take care of it man" "You're right" 

The guy studies in another law school. Met him at a firing range once. His car's almost the same as mine so we've been comparing notes. But he's considerably young. I looked at him while eating and mukang namomroblema talaga.

"Mahal mo ba?" "Ewan ko mahal ko na yata pre" "Take it easy pre.. pag abugado ka na.. mas marami kang mamemeet na mas magaganda, matatalino and well-bread ah este well-bred na babae.. baka magsisi ka.. put the best at the last man.. easy lang." "Right.. when were practicing na no? (he smiled) I can't wait for that 'pañero". "Just remember 3 words and never forget it.. 'control' 'control' and 'control'.. if that thing with your girl can still be fixed then fix it but control your heart man. Make decisions of your own. Grow up and be your own man. Love lang yan, yaan mo sila mamroblema. Kukuha ka ng bar.. di ba? Always think that we're not like them.. we are built differently.. a lot is expected of us so do away with these women if they can't keep up, we are made for a different kind of woman" "You're right..thanks man.. thanks for reminding.. I can't really wait for law practice man..". 

Question: What constitutes law practice.. or Practice of Law?

(I'll make this easy for you.. here's your answer in a nutshell. Think  Statutory Construction. Two birds, one stone, hit one. It's Not Strictly but LIBERALLY Construed. Get it?) 

Here's the case. Again another landmark case. Respondent Atty. Christian Monsod was nominated by President Corazon Aquino to the position of Chairman of the COMELEC through  a letter received by the Secretariat of the Commission on Appointments on April 25, 1991. 

(The thing was.. the guy though a distinguished member of the Philippine Bar had scarcely an experience in law practice.) 

The 1987 constitution provides in Section 1, Article IX-C That majority of the Commissioners of the COMELEC including the Chairman, shall be members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law for AT LEAST 10 YEARS.  This is the prerequisite.

(Although correct me if I'm wrong I think back then as far as I can remember Atty. Christian Monsod's professional background had been hugely identified with the private sector.  The guy had been I think a Consultant of some private banks. Had been the Director of MERALCO and served as the Chief Strategist of Benpres Holdings Corp. His other experiences I have no idea. And well I dunno, by the looks of it I think the guy also stood as trustees for a number of private institutions. Bottomline? The guy never appeared in courts and practiced legal profession.. let's see how this will hold)

(Here now comes one of the best fiscalizers of all times. Atty. Renato Cayetano, who I think started his law practice in one of the top law firms in the country, the ACCRA Law) 

Petitioner Atty. Renato Cayetano opposed the nomination because allegedly Monsod does not possess the required qualification of having been engaged in the practice of law for at least 10 years. 

(Cayetano was the feisty former senator and father of Sen. Allan Peter Cayetano who I think lived up to that name and followed his father's footsteps together with his sister. The apples never really fell far from the tree huh?)  

The thing was.. The Commission on Appointments confirmed the appointment despite Cayetano's objection. And on June 18, 1991, Monsod took his oath of office and on the same day assumed office as Chairman of the COMELEC.

Challenging the validity of the CA confirmation Cayetano as a citizen and taxpayer, filed this instant petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying that said confirmation and the consequent appointment of Monsod as Chairman of the Commission on Elections be declared null and void.

(So.. shall we flip a coin?  Was the appointment of Chairman Monsod of COMELEC violates Section 1, Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution?)

ISSUE: 

Whether or not Monsod has been engaged in the practice of law for 10 years.

RULING:

(Don't be surprised.. here's what the high court said..)

YES. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases or litigation in court.

(Again may I remind you, this is a landmark case.. we now have a new definition for the practice of law by virtue of this jurisprudence)

Court said Practice of Law embraces the preparation of pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings, the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients, and other works where the work done involves the determination of the trained legal mind of the legal effect of facts and conditions. Atty. Monsod, who passed the bar in 1960, worked with the World Bank Group from 1963-1970, then worked for an investment bank till 1986, became member of the CONCOM in 1986, and also became a member of the Davide Commission in 1990, can be considered to have been engaged in the practice of law as lawyer-economist, lawyer-manager, lawyer-entrepreneur, etc. 

Furthermore Atty. Christian Monsod as a member of the Philippine Bar has been paying dues  like all members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines since its inception in 1972-73. He has also been paying his professional license fees as lawyer for more than ten years. 

(So it's clear it is not strictly construed.. we apply liberal construction when we talk of law practice.. listen to this..)

Court said "The records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission show that the interpretation of the term practice of law was LIBERAL  as to consider lawyers employed in the Commission of Audit as engaged in the practice of law provided that they use their legal knowledge or talent in their respective work. 

The court also cited an article in the January 11, 1989 issue of the Business Star, that lawyers nowadays have their own specialized fields such as tax lawyers, prosecutors, etc., that because of the demands of their specialization, lawyers engage in other works or functions to meet them. These days, for example, most corporation lawyers are involved in management policy formulation.

At this point, it might be helpful to define private practice. The term, as commonly understood, means "an individual or organization engaged in the business of delivering legal services." Lawyers who practice alone are often called "sole practitioners." Groups of lawyers are called "firms." The firm is usually a partnership and members of the firm are the partners. Some firms may be organized as professional corporations and the members called shareholders. In either case, the members of the firm are the experienced attorneys. In most firms, there are younger or more inexperienced salaried attorneys called "associates."

And so the petitions for certiorari and prohibition were dismissed. 

(Well.. tsk beautiful.. isn't it? The court never could have said it more beautifully.. there is no need for a strict construction.. period).

VILLAVICENCIO vs. LUKBAN (1919)

Question: Are we a government of laws or a government of men? Would we disregard law just to give way for the most popular leader? Let's see what the Supreme Court will have to say. Lest we forget this long standing jurisprudence.

Again this is a landmark case. In this classic case of Villavicencio vs. Lukban,  the Supreme Court upheld the right of Filipino citizens to Freedom of Domicile.

Brace yourselves. Here's the facts:

Justo Lukban was then the Mayor of the City of Manila. Problem with this dude was he ordered the deportation of 170 agogo dancers and prostitutes to Davao. Which was then not a city yet I guess. This case is dated 1919 so take note, the President wasn't even born yet. Said women were inmates of the houses of prostitution situated in Gardenia Street, in the district of Sampaloc.

(So there was a brothel house in that area during those days)  

The mayor's reason for doing this was to preserve the morals of the people of Manila.

(This guy was probably the biggest hypocrite there ever was during those early days)

He claimed that the prostitutes were sent to Davao, purportedly, to work for an haciendero named Feliciano Ynigo.  He had the prostitutes confined in houses meaning the one in Gardenia Street before boarding them, at the dead of night, in two boats bound for Davao. (If Digong was alive and kicking during those days, this dodgy mayor would have really gonna get it).  The women were under the assumption that they were being transported to another police station while Ynigo, the haciendero from Davao, had no idea that the women being sent to work for him were actually prostitutes. 

(Poor guy. Imagine all the commotion starting to happen in your place and you're still fuckin' totally clueless) 

So the families of the prostitutes came forward to file charges against 3 people. Lukban.  Anton Hohmann, who was the Chief of Police who rounded and took custody of the the dancers and prostitutes, and Francisco Sales, the Governor of Davao. 

(Of course there's a considered conspiracy between these three)

They prayed for a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to be issued against the respondents to compel them to bring back the 170 women who were deported to Mindanao against their knowledge and will. During the trial, it came out that, indeed, the women were deported without their consent. Infact there was no law or order authorizing Lukban's deportation of the 170 prostitutes.

(So in effect, Lukban forcibly assigned them a new domicile. Obviously the guy doesn't know anything about the law and fundamental human rights)

Liberty of abode was raised here versus the power of the executive of the Municipality in deporting the women without their knowledge and consent in his capacity as Mayor.

You know what the mayor did? He got technical.  The guy moved for the dismissal of the case stating that those women were already out of his jurisdiction and that, it should be filed in the city of Davao instead. (what a bastard) 

The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners with the instructions to the respondents giving them 3 options  (1) Produce the bodies of the persons according to the command of the writ. (2) Show by affidavit that on account of sickness or infirmity those persons (170 women subject of the writ of habeas corpus) could not safely be brought before the court, or (3) Present affidavits to show that the parties in question or their attorney waived the right to be present.  

(So the mayor resorted to technicalities in his defense and he was slapped by the court through technicalities as well giving him a dose of his own medicine) 

The three respondents hence appealed to the Supreme Court. 

ISSUE: 

Whether we are a government of laws or a government of men? Was the act of the mayor in deporting these women valid?

RULING:

The Supreme Court said "We are clearly a government of laws". Lukban committed grave abuse of discretion by deporting the prostitutes to a new domicile against their will. 

There is no law expressly authorizing his action. On the contrary, there is a law punishing public officials, not expressly authorized by law or regulation, who compels any person to change his residence.

Furthermore, the prostitutes are still, as citizens of the Philippines, entitled to the same rights, as stipulated in the Bill of Rights, as every other citizen. Their choice of profession should not be a cause for discrimination. It may make some, like Lukban, quite uncomfortable but it does not authorize anyone to compel said prostitutes to isolate themselves from the rest of the human race. These women have been deprived of their liberty by being exiled to Davao without even being given the opportunity to collect their belongings or, worse,without even consenting to being transported to Mindanao. For this, Lukban et al must be severely punished.

Court reasoned further that if the chief executive of any municipality in the Philippines could forcibly and illegally take a private citizen and place him beyond the boundaries of the municipality, and then, when called upon to defend his official action, could calmly fold his hands and claim that the person was under no restraint and that he, the official, had no jurisdiction over this other municipality, then the more the writ of habeas corpus should be enforced.

Even if the party to whom the writ is addressed has illegally parted with the custody of a person before the application for the writ is no reason why the writ should not issue. If the mayor and the chief of police, acting under no authority of law, could deport these women from the city of Manila to Davao, the same officials must necessarily have the same means to return them from Davao to Manila. 

The Supreme Court said that the women were not chattels but Filipino citizens who had the fundamental right not to be forced to change their place of residence. 

The then mayor of Manila Justo Lukban loses this case.

UNITED STATES vs. AH CHONG (1910)

Halloween's approaching. I like the old creep stuff. "They're coming to get you Barbara.."  This one's Jeepers Creepers. I dunno for some reason  this movie reminds me of my sister. Who happened to be was here actually in my review pad a week ago. "Why is it that there are dust on your table?... give me that rug over there... and your books! it's all scattered on the couch!!... are these soiled clothes I'm looking at?" hehe. "Ate I wouldn't know where to get it if you arrange those books" Even up to now she still baby's me. My niece kept laughing.

Okay here's the case..

This is another landmark case in Criminal Law. The events in this case happened in 1908, the court decided it in 1910. No no no, this was not decided in the US. If you're trying to figure out why the case was entitled as such and not under People of the Philippines, it's because this crime happened during the American regime. If you'd go back a bit to your college Philippine history class discussions you'd remember we were governed by America through Philippine Commissions then.

I think the first Philippine Commission was appointed by then US President William McKinley. Yeah McKinley.. the famous McKinley road in Bonifacio Global City that pass through Dasma? The second was the Taft Commission, of course you all know where that is, some of you may have brawled with its traffic almost everyday.   It was I think the The Jones Act of 1916 (Jones Bridge right?) that ended these Commissions replacing it an elected Philippine Senate as the Legislature's upper house and changed the form of our Judiciary.

This case happened during the Taft Commission. I think you can find this in Phil Reports and not in the SCRA. I'm not sure. Worse is if you're directed to look for the original case, and it's recorded in the Official Gazette. Pag sinabing Philippine Gazette, pucha.. maghanda ka na ng gas mask para sa alikabok. Malaki yun libro na yon malalaki din sulat panahon pa yata nila Lolo Manuel L. Quezon yun. Nakakita na ako nun pucha... parang hinihigop ka sa past.. like a portal to the period years or somethin'. Sa bagay, gusto ko yon.. I think I'm a lost soul here in this modern world at times. I think there's had been a mistake there somewhere, I should've been born earlier in those era.. I secretly admire those glamorous circas.. pupunta ka lang sa Quiapo naka americana ka pa.. haha hanep!... planchadong-planchado buhok mo. Ang lalalim ng tagalog nyo "O irog ko.. pagdamutan mo ang aking wagas na pagibig" hahahaha!!!.. taena. Wag lang sa panahon ng Hapon ah.. pucha pagtinapon ako don mag-gigirilya ako. 

Tatlo lang yan.. SCRA, PHIL REPORTS, OFFICIAL GAZZETTE. In that order. Ngayon lagay mo na INTERNET before SCRA.. I dunno what their gonna do with those old books probably send them all to the National Library. Wag naman.. pagnagkasunog or ginera tayo & binomba yun.. e di wala na tayong legacy. I think law schools should preserve them kahit it's seldom used now by law students.

Let's really get to the case..

Nakakatawa tong kasong to. You come across this case in your 1st year law in Crim1. Hindi pwedeng hinde, coz this is a landmark case that discusses 'Mistake of Fact'.  Besides, it is still quoted and invoked today in criminal cases and litigation should a defense of a "mistake of fact" be needed. The accused here was absolved of stabbing and killing the person trying to enter his room because he thought it was a robber, but it was only his roommate.

Tatlo yan.. according to Justice Sandoval's book, who also happens to be my teacher in Crim Rev:  1. Error in Personae  (Mistake of Fact or Mistake of Identity) Akala mo si Pedro yun pala si Juan, or Akala mo ninanakawan ko yun pala barkada mo lang pala kunyare iniisnatch yun bag mo tapos tatawa nasaksak mo ng ballpen 2. Abrratio Ictus (Mistake in the Blow) Maybabarilin ka iba tinamaan.   3. Prater Intentionem (Injurious result is greater than that intended) Sasampalin mo lang na out balance sya tumama ulo sa bato patay.

Ganto nangyare dito..

Si Ah Chong was a cook... in Fort McKinley. One evening, before going to bed, he locked himself in his room by placing a chair against the door. (mejo paranoid eh) After having gone to bed, he was awakened by someone trying to open the door. So he called out twice "Who is there?", but received no answer. Fearing that the intruder was a robber, he leaped from his bed and called out again, "If you enter the room, I will kill you." But at that precise moment, he was struck by the chair that had been placed on the door and believing that he was being attacked he seized a kitchen knife, struck and fatally wounded the intruder who turned out to be his roommate Pascual Gualberto.

You know when I was reading this case during my freshman year I was wondering why the fuckin' dude wasn't answering. Those were 3 loud calls by Ah Chong actually. There was no account anywhere in the case that the one behind the door was deaf. And I wouldn't think naka headset tong loko na to nakikinig sa i-pod.. ni radio ata na malalaking tubo wala pa non.

I found out in one account it was said that Pascual who is a house boy or muchacho who in the spirit of mischief was playing a trick on Ah Chong during that time.

Ganon? Alam mo kase minsan mga boy mga bata pa to eh, mga malaro pa to eh. Lalo mga boy na bisaya.. bisaya mama ko kaya alam ko yan eh.  Well bisaya din ako ugali ko bisaya namana ko sa mama ko. Elvis ako, elbis, el bisaya. LOL. May mga house boy kase kame na bisaya noon.  Ganon.. naglolokohan sila, mga bugoy ba. Siguro naglolokohan din tong dalawang to previously... (hahaha heresay). "Sino yan?".... "Sino sabe yan? magsalita ka!" Tawa ng tawa naman tong isa sa likod ng pinto. "Pag pumasok ka!.. papatayin kita!! FPJ style to loko ka!" Lalo ngayon natuwa sa likod ng pinto si loko, kilig na kilig pa siguro tong bugoy na to. "FPJ pala ah.. ako si Lito Lapid!!" BLAGAG!! Pagpasok na pagpasok ni loko yun pinagsasaksak sya. Tsk tinde.

So seeing that Pascual was wounded, he called to his employers and ran back to his room to secure bandages to bind up Pascual's wounds. (which was the right thing to do.. other than flight) Well according to the account there had been repeated robberies in Fort McKinley not long prior to the date of the incident, one of which took place in a house where Ah Chong was previously employed as cook so he kept a knife under his pillow for his personal protection. (E kusinero yung tao eh what do you expect, natural a kitchen knife would always be his everyday companion.)

So the guy was arrested, trial ensued. Defendant admitted to stabbing his roommate, but said that he did it under the impression that Pascual was "a ladron (thief)" because he forced open the door of their sleeping room, despite the defendant's warnings.

Defendant was found guilty by the trial court of simple homicide, with mitigating circumstances, and sentenced to 6 years and 1 day presidio mayor (prision mayor)  the minimum penalty prescribed by law.

ISSUE:

May Ah Chong be held criminally responsible in the case at bar?  Did defendant here committed a crime by reason of a mistake as to the facts?

RULING:

The Court said Ah Chong must be acquitted.

By reason of a mistake as to the facts, the defendant did an act for which he would be exempt from criminal liability if the facts were as he supposed them to be.

So meaning if Pascual was actually a thief, he will not be criminally liable (even if  basing it now by virtue of Art.11 (1) of the RPC) but would constitute the crime of homicide if the actor had known the true state of the facts like if he knew that it was actually Pascual.

Well the rulebooks say that "A person voluntarily committing a crime or misdemeanor shall incur criminal liability, even though the wrongful act committed be different from that which he had intended to commit."

Voluntary act is a free, intelligent, and intentional act.  And if there's "malice" then it signifies the intent right? Alright let's throw in some latin legal maxims here..

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so. (there was no intent to kill his roommate)

Actus me incito factus non est meus actus - an act done by me against my will is not my act. (it was a form of self defense, thievery was rampant during those days) 

Ignorantia facti excusat - ignorance of a fact is an excuse (applies only when the mistake is committed without fault or carelessness, he placed the chair on the door and he called out 3 times as warning).

Court said defendant during that time acted in good faith, without malice, or criminal intent, in the belief that he was doing no more than exercising his legitimate right of self-defense. That had the facts been as he believed them to be he would have been wholly exempt from criminal liability on account of his act; and that he can not be said to have been guilty of negligence or recklessness or even carelessness in falling into his mistake as to the facts, or in the means adopted by him to defend himself from the imminent danger which he believe threatened his person and his property and the property under his charge. (Beautiful)

Don't forget this. This was a beautiful case in Criminal Law.

The Supreme Court reversed the  RTC ruling. And the defendant was acquitted. (and that seldom happens)

PEOPLE vs. GENOSA (2004)

"♫ This is my laast night with youu. ♪ Hold me like I'm more than just a frieend.. ♫ ♪Give me a memory I can use.. ♪"  -- Geez.. 11:15 in the evening and I'm.. trying to sing an Adele the most decent way I can on top of my voice in front of this fuckin' lagging computer.

Here's a landmark case, Criminal Law. The crime is parricide. You know the widely celebrated Lorena Bobbitt Case? 'Happened in the states. It made world-wide headings. Wife cut's the sleeping husband's dick? I'm wondrin' why it didn't happen here. Well the reason for that is her husband's philandering spree. Crazy woman isn't she? That's why when I'm gonna marry I'm really gonna take a close look at the woman's emotional and mental state. Baka pag natutulog ako biglang putulin yun (beep! beep!) ko eh. 'Wonder how it feels that must be crazy. A doctor friend I know said it can be put back together. "Really doc?" "Ofcourse" "But will it function same as its previous state prior?" "Kung maganda pagkagawa eh" "MAGANDA PAGKAGAWA??!!!  ARrGh!... hahah anu yun overhaul ng makina?" "Kailangan makuha mo sya ng maaga and fresh pa" "FRESH PA!!!... jusko day" (hehehe tawa ng tawa yung nurse eh) Geez, imagine grabbing your dick on your way out. Crazy.

Take note of this case, it's a fairly new case. This is a landmark case in Criminal Law. Listen... this is the first time in the Philippines that the "battered woman syndrome" was used as a defense. And it won. Well of course the  wife was already incarcerated but she was recommended for parole just because of this defense used by her lawyer. Atty. De Jesus is correct. It's better to use a defense, or do motions or petitions and plead which you think the court wouldn't grant than use about 10 pleadings that you know the court would grant. Malay mo nga naman i-grant katulad nito. At least you can really say that you have exhausted all remedies and did your job well.

Facts of the case states that ah.. the wife had suffered maltreatment from her husband for over eight years?.. That's too long. This is probably a long suffering sacrificing woman. But then again that remains to be proved. Sometimes women allow themselves to be pushed that far and bear it because their uneducated, they had no means, and they don't have anywhere else to go.  

The thing was.. she was 8 months pregnant when, one evening, her husband came home drunk and started battering her. (so binugbog). 

'Tang ina..

Shouting that his wife "might as well be killed so there will be nobody to nag" him.  So he dragged her towards a drawer where he kept a gun, but was not able to open the drawer because it was locked. 

So papatayin talaga ni kolokoy..

So he got out a cutter from his wallet, but dropped it. (Lasing na talaga eh) The wife was able to hit his arm with a pipe and escape into another room. 

Here's the thing..

The wife, thinking of all the suffering that her husband had been inflicting on her all those years and thinking that he might really kill her and her unborn child, distorted the drawer and got the gun. She shot her husband, who was by then asleep on the bed. And killed him.

So take note applying the principles of  Self Defense  1.  the Unlawful Aggression had ceased. 2. Holding a gun pointing it on a sleeping person is definitely not a reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel the attack... in fact there was no longer an attack. 3.   Lack of sufficient provocation.. this had been present, in fact she ran to the other room. But who knows, maybe there was, we can infer from the words of her husband "...so there will be nobody to nag" she really might have startled something but I wouldn't think it's enough. It's understandable in women. 

So she was tried and convicted for parricide, which is punishable by an indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua (20 years and 1 day to 40 years) to death. On appeal, she alleged "battered woman syndrome" as a form of self-defense.

ISSUE: 

Considering that the elements of a justifying circumstance did not suffice or not all the requisites of  Art. 11 were present to invoke self defense, may "battered woman syndrome" be regarded as a form of self-defense to exempt the accused from criminal liability?

RULING: 

The Supreme Court said YES.  (Kalain mo yon?) 

The court said, however, that the records lack supporting evidence that would establish all the essentials of the battered woman syndrome as manifested specifically in this case. 

But more specifically, the Court stated: 

By the time the wife killed her husband, there was no longer any aggression on his part to justify a claim of self-defense. 

However, the Court also found that the cycle of abuse inflicted by the husband resulted in POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER  on the part of the wife, which lessened her freedom of action, intelligence, and intent, resulting in a "psychological paralysis".

I dunno, maybe the lawyer had presented an amicus curiae such as a medical expert like a psychiatrist or a psychometrician to build up an opinion evidence.. reason why the court accepted it who knows? (nope I didn't read the actual case).   

Also, the battering she received at his hands before she killed him produced PASSION & OBFUSCATION (which is a mitigating circumstance) which overcame her reason. 

So these were appreciated by the Court as mitigating circumstances. What about the killing of someone while asleep, isn't that Treachery? An Aggravating Circumstance?

The Court found that there was no treachery. 

The wife's conviction was affirmed, but considering the mitigating circumstances, her sentence was reduced. Since she had already served more than the minimum sentence, the Court said that she might be considered for parole.

So pwede palang defense yon ah? Were looking at a precedent here. Hehe.

PEOPLE vs. NAVARRO (1998)

Shet.. sayang. Checking audio files of compilation of class lectures on my computer I have only recorded (using my smart phone) 2 lectures under Atty. De Jesus in my Remedial Law 2 class. Geez! to think that the guy is fast rising up as one of the best criminal lawyers in town and is such sharp individual where litigation is actually his forte, makes me cringe now thinking that I really should've  (dang!) took advantage and recorded every single teeny-weeny bit of his lectures which were full of smart practical advice and suggestions on remedying certain situations you'd get yourself into in future practice. But good thing I recorded his lectures on TRIAL perse. But still I don't think it's enough. I hope he'd be commissioned by the school to conduct symposiums or lectures on actual law practice. Thing is, the school doesn't seem to have the resources to facilitate gatherings like this much less have good facilities that could address these kind of student needs.          

Let's talk about one of the best doctrines there is in Criminal Law particularly in inducement of Evidence. The legal maxim Res Gestae. You must've come across this latin word when you were in your freshmen year but never gave a damn meticulously looking at it's meaning since you know it will be tackled in your higher year once you get to Evidence.

RES GESTAE.  What is Res Gestae?  (Tae ni Res.. tsk tsk.. don't even go there)  What is the Doctrine of Res Gestae?

The Latin root word means "things done" it means (As stated in.. the internet... I hope this is Black's Law Dictionary I'm lifting it from)  all circumstances surrounding and connected with a happening. 

Thus, the res gestae of a crime includes the immediate area and all occurrences and statements immediately after the crime. The doctrine provides that Statements made within the res gestae of a crime or accident may be admitted in court even though they are "hearsay" on the basis that spontaneous statements in those circumstances are reliable. In other words, res gestae is an exception to the Heresay Rule in our Rules of Evidence.  

Example: May krimen na nangyare.. and nakita mo..  you're the lone witness to a killing of a bystander by a holdupper, matapos nyang patayen nakita ka nya, sinabe nya "pagmagsumbong ka ikaw ang isusunod ko". Came the authorities investigating, kaya natakot ka, sabe mo di mo nakita. So walang kasong na file. After 3 months pumunta ka sa police station, deniscribe mo yung assailant. So lalabas ngayon 2 magkaiba ang testimony mo. How does Res Gestae work?    Ang Res Gestae ganito. Dahil takot ka magsalita sa first testimony mo.. the court will take judicial notice. "Ano ba.. takot ba to.. o ayaw magsalita o.. talagang walang nakita?".

Under the Hearsay rule kase courts normally refuses to admit as evidence statements that a witness says he or she heard another person say. The doctrine of res gestae provided an exception to this rule. Though previously a mere part of the common law Res gestae is now a doctrine used as an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence based on the belief that, because certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously, and without deliberation during the course of an event, they leave little room for misunderstanding/misinterpretation upon hearing by someone else and thus the courts believe that such statements carry a high degree of credibility. Res Gestae usually fall on 3 examples. 1. Words or phrases that either form part of, or explain, a physical act, 2. Exclamations that are so spontaneous as to belie concoction, and  3. Statements that are evidence of someone's state of mind.  In other words it's not premeditated but must have some form of spontaneity.  

Now the Case..

A case filed about January of 1994 submits two Informations, one for murder (under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code) and the other for violation of Presidential Decree 1866 (Illegal Possession of Unlicensed Firearm)  at the Alaminos Pangasinan RTC  against a certain NOEL NAVARRO. (Don't think about the Illegal Possession of Firearm too much, we'll focus more on the murder case. The violation of that special law was just used as an aggravating circumstance to raise the penalty 2 degrees higher, but there's nothing more to that)

Here's what happened.. 

On or about January 5 of 1991, in the evening, near Enoc Theater at Poblacion, Alaminos, Province of Pangasinan, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously shoot FERDINAND RABADON several times which caused his instantaneous death.

How did this happen?..

Well According to the Prosecution side:

January 5, 1991, about 9 in the evening, Jose Rabago (this guy is the witness) went to Enoc Theater located at Poblacion, Alaminos, Pangasinan to view some movie pictures exhibited outside the theater (yung mga 'Now Showing', 'Coming Soon').  When he was about to go home on board his motorcycle, he was invited by Ferdinand Rabadon, (this is the guy who got killed)  who was drinking beer inside Adela's Restaurant, to join him. Rabago obliged. (So obviously the two are good friends).

Later, Rabadon borrowed Rabago's motorcycle which he used in going to the bus terminal to check if his wife had already arrived from Zamboanga. Upon his return, Rabadon invited Rabago to Five Doors Disco (Pare tara disco tayo) but the latter opted to go home (Pagod na ako gusto ko na umuwe magpahinga eh amin na motor ko). Rabadon, who was still on the motorcycle holding its handle bars, offered to drive Rabago home (Okey sige tara uwi na tayo. Ako na magddrive angkas ka nalang pagod ka na eh).

When Rabago was about to mount the motorcycle, Noel Navarro and Ming Basial arrived. He was pushed by Ming Basila,  causing him to fall on his buttocks, after which Basila shot Rabadon twice at the back. While Rabadon was already lying down with his leg pinned by the motorcycle, Noel Navarro shot him three (3) times.

So tinulak  yun isa, binaril yung isa ng 5 times. twice dun sa isa, trice naman dun sa isa.. takbo ngayon yun tinulak.

Rabago ran away, but after noticing that Navarro and Basila left the scene, he returned and saw Rabadon dying and gasping for breath. 

Rabago then saw Virgilio "Itlog" Rabadon, (...bat naman itlog? mahilig ba sa itlog to?) a policeman, to whom he reported Rabadon's killing On January 6, 1991, Rabago was investigated by policeman Rolando Rabadon (Nu ba yan.. anu ba magkakamaganak ba to?) but he said that HE DID NOT SEE ANYTHING. 

During the hearing of the case, (Which was held 3 years after) Rabago explained that he did not divulge the identities of the assailants for fear of his life. He claimed that some policemen in Alaminos, Pangasinan were members of the Aguila Gang which killed people. The gang allegedly led by one Ramon Navarro, accused's brother.

Okay.. unsolved case right? Fast forward 3 years after...

The NBI interrogated Rabago on January 3, 1994, three years after the said killing at which time, Rabago named Noel Navarro and Ming Basila as the authors of Rabadon's killing.

Now According to the Defense side:

Accused-Appellant Noel Navarro denied any participation in the killing, stating that..

On January 5, 1991, in the evening, Ferdinand Rabadon was shot to death near the Enoc Theater at Poblacion, Alaminos, Pangasinan. Almost immediately after the shooting incident, Jose Rabago reported the incident to one policeman, Virgilio "Itlog" Rabadon, who was inside a restaurant near the Victory Liner Terminal. The policeman Rabadon responded by going to the place pointed to by Jose Rabago, but the victim was no longer at the place of the incident as he was brought to the hospital. Later, Jose Rabago was investigated by policeman Rolando "Lando" Rabadon regarding the shooting incident, but Jose Rabago, when asked, told policeman Rolando "Lando" Rabadon that HE DID NOT SEE ANYTHING. Considering the negative result of the police investigation, no case was filed by the police against anybody for the shooting to death of Ferdinand Rabadon.

"Three (3) years later, on January 5, 1994, at about 8:00 o' clock in the evening, a composite team of the NBI served a search warrant and warrant of arrest to Ramon Navarro, brother of accused-appellant in his residence and failing to find Ramon Navarro, the composite team of the NBI went to the house where accused-appellant was staying where they saw Noel Navarro. Accused-appellant was searched, but nothing was found in his body. Accused-appellant was arrested right then and there without any warrant of arrest shown to him by the NBI. In fact, it was admitted that the NBI composite team at the time had no warrant of arrest against accused-appellant.

The NBI composite team boarded accused-appellant in a white van and was brought to the house of Congressman Hernani Braganza in Alaminos, Pangasinan. Later, the NBI composite team went to Lucap, Alaminos, Pangasinan to fetch Fiscal Rabina and from there, they all proceeded to the police station of Alaminos, Pangasinan. 

The following day, January 6, 1994, Prosecutor Rabina filed the Information charging accused-appellant of murder for allegedly killing Ferdinand Rabadon on January 5, 1991, three (3) years earlier, without conducting a preliminary investigation. Also filed an Information for violation of P.D. 1866.  

The defense presented three witnesses: Jose Rabago, who recanted his previous testimony; NBI Director Teodoro Galang, who testified as to the circumstances surrounding the arrest of the appellant without warrant; and Noel Navarro, the appellant himself.

The Ruling of the Trial Court

Accused assisted by his counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and filed for petition for bail. A protracted full-blown hearing was ensued, and the prosecution and  defense presented their respective witnesses and documentary evidence. The petition was denied. Instead the lower court rendered an assailed decision declaring accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and to suffer the single and indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. And to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the sum of P50,000.00. 

But the court considered the illegal possession of firearm subject of the Information merely as an aggravating circumstance considering that the alleged firearm used was not recovered by the authorities and never presented in court.

The appellant contends that the lower court committed errors: So obviously there were issues of Illegal Arrest, Illegal Possession of Fire Arms, Credibility and Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence, and Res Gestae. Let's center on the issue of Res Gestae. 

ISSUE:

Did the trial court erred in not considering the report of Prosecution Witness Jose Rabago to policeman Virgilio "Itlog" Rabadon and the result of the investigation conducted by Policeman Rolando "Lando" Rabadon that his companion was killed, but did not tell policeman Virgilio "Itlog" Rabadon that accused-appellant and one Ming Basila killed the deceased, as part of the RES GESTAE;

RULING: 

Court said the appeal is devoid of merit.

The appellant contends that, in considering the statements which Rabago gave to both SPO2 Virgilio Rabadon and Patrolman Rolando Rabadon, the trial court erred in concluding that such statements were not part of res gestae.

At the outset, it must be stated that res gestae pertains to the admissibility of evidence, and not to its weight and sufficiency. The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.

The Court defined Res Gestae as follows:

"Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of the res gestae.

Rabago's statement to SPO2 Rabadon that someone had killed his companion can be considered part of the res gestae, and is thus admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. It was a spontaneous statement that was made right after a startling occurrence and that refers to such occurrence. However, the same cannot be said of his statement to Patrolman Rabadon, as it lacked the requisite spontaneity, having been given in answer to questions propounded in an investigation, a day after the incident in question.

The appellant seems to imply that when Rabago reported the incident to SPO2 Rabadon, Rabago's silence regarding the identity of the killers created doubt as to the appellant's culpability for such killing and, thus, should have been likewise considered by the lower court in appellant's favor as part of the res gestae. This proposition deserves scant consideration. Such omission cannot be taken to mean that appellant was NOT the culprit. The witness was simply silent as to the identity of the assailant. Such omission, as has been discussed, can be attributed to Rabago's fear of the Navarros.

WITNESSES' DELAYED REPORTING OF WHAT THEY KNOW ABOUT A CRIME DOES NOT RENDER THEIR TESTIMONIES FALSE OR INCREDIBLE, for the delay may be explained by the natural reticence of most people and their abhorrence to get involved in a criminal case. But more than this, there is always the inherent fear of reprisal, which is quite understandable, especially if the accused is a man of power and influence in the community. 

Actually in People v. Vias, it was held that "the natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case, as well as to give information to the authorities is a matter of judicial notice." 

The argument does not persuade. True, Rabago did not mention the name of the appellant when he reported the killing to both SPO2 Virgilio Rabadon and Patrolman Rolando Rabadon however, he explained that he was apprehensive about talking to the police, as he suspected that some of them were members of the dreaded Aguila Gang 

Here's the transcription of the cross-examination..

Q: Mr. Witness, when you were asked by policeman Lando Rabadon about what you learned of the shooting to death of Boyet Rabadon, you told him you did not see anything, why did you tell policeman Lando Rabadon that you did not see anything? 

Mister Wetness.. wen yu wer aaaahhh  askd by deee pulisman.. a cerrrtain aaaahh... SPO2 Lando Rrrrabadon... yu told hem yo dead nut sii anything for dat materrr. Why did yu tell polisman Landa Rabadonnnn  dat yuuu.. dat yuuu ded not see anything.... der you arrr... answerrr my question LOL.. 

(This is the beauty of the court litigation... kung sino yung madalas mag-carabao english yun yung usually ha.. pinakamagaling na criminal lawyer... at saka yung... pinakamalakas magmura hahahaha.. naampucha... these are the ones that are seasoned lawyers.. and have been to courtroom battles in and out and could really show you true battle scars) 

A: I was afraid, sir.  (I was afred ser) 
Q: And why were you afraid?  (An why wer yu afred?.. will yu tel dee honorable court why wer yu afred?)
A: I did not have confidence in the police. (I did nat hab cmpindence.. en da polis)
Q: Didn't you have confidence in the police? (Wen yu say yu did nat hab conpdens on da polis.. wat ar yu toking about?) 
A: Because some policemen are members of Aguila.
Q: And what is Aguila?
A: Aguila gang, sir. (Agela gang ser)
Q: What is the Aguila gang? (Gad demet  wat ar yu toking about misterrr aaah.. witnes? wat is ahh.. agela gang? is dat the same as the ah DDS.. the so-called Dabaw deth squad?) LOL
A: It is killing people, sir. (I know it is killing pipol.. but ar dey killing dose suspected wid aaah... wid aaah... aaahh.. drug use.. orr shall we col your honorr aah.. substance abuse?)

He further testified to the pervasive climate of fear engulfing his town: 

Q: In your affidavit, Mr. Witness, you mentioned that there were other witnesses to the killing. According to you, on January 5, 1994, there were other witnesses  and your answer was "yes", but nobody there talked anymore due to fear for their lives.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what about your statement that these other witnesses fear for their lives, was that not your statement in your sworn statement?  (An wat about yorr stetment dat this other witneses fffffeear for ther liiiiiiiives... was dat nat yorrr aaaah... stetment in yor own sworrn stetment.. misterrr aaah.. wetness?)
A: Yes, sir, they are afraid.
Q: And what about you, are you not afraid of the Navarros?
A: I am afraid, sir.
Q: Are you saying, Mr. Witness, that a lot of people here in Alaminos are afraid of the Navarros?
A: Yes, sir. 

Der yu arrr your honorr ah este...

With regard to Rabago's recantation of his previous testimony as a prosecution witness, narrating the killing of Rabadon and identifying the appellant as one of the malefactors, suffice it to say that this earlier testimony was clear, candid and consistent, as shown hereunder: 

Q: After Ming Basila shot Boyet Rabadon, what happened next?
A: Noel Navarro followed.
Q: What did Noel Navarro do after Ming Basila shot Rabadon from behind?
A: Boyet Rabadon was already lying down and he shot him.
Q: You said that Noel Navarro shot Ferdinand Rabadon, how many times did Noel Navarro shoot Boyet Rabadon?
A: Thrice, sir.
Q: Mr. Witness, considering that it was about nine o' clock in the evening when Ming Basila and Noel Navarro shot Boyet Rabadon, how were you able to see Basila and Noel Navarro shoot Boyet Rabadon?
A: There was a light, sir.
Q: How many lights were there?
A: About three.
Q: How far were you from Boyet Rabadon when Ming Basila and Noel Navarro shot him?
A: About three steps, sir.

This was one of the most credible witnesses that ever stood on the witness stand. Considering that Rabago had three different testimonies, and have recanted his statements at the course of the case, and the Doctrine of Res Gestae had to be applied? The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ruling finding consistency is his testimony.   

It must be stressed also that Rabago's testimony was compatible with the findings of Dr. Francisco E. Viray, the medicolegal officer who autopsied the victim's body. Rabago said that Rabadon had been shot five times, once in the nape and four times in other parts of his body. Such details of his testimony as a prosecution witness, aside from the fact that no ill motive or bias was ascribed to him by the appellant, lends earmarks of truth to said testimony.

ETEPHA A.G. vs. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS and WESTMONT PHARMACEUTICALS INC.

"Stay with me"

8:15 p.m. I was on top of a building yesterday at the Ortigas area to have coffee and talk to a gorgeous woman. As I wait for her I walked over to the open lounge. I looked at the skies, and I've figured 'why there's not even a slightest trace of a storm coming?'. I could see the metropolis. The lights, the neons. And deep inside me I felt like violin strings in rhythmic patterns were playing some overture like that of a Batman movie. I felt the Dark Knight was standing there like a watchful guardian gazing at our own Gotham City.

Listen you know what? I spent my childhood living and grew up and played in one of the streets in Quezon City, particularly Guyabano St. in Project 2 Q.C. I could say that's one of the best times my life have ever had. My friends and I we played in the streets maybe not all but most of the Pinoy games. Tex, jolens, skateboards, bikes, go-karts, banggaan ng Tonka. We were the type where we're all well kept, sheltered and loved, yung tipong mga likod namen may mga white towel my goodness LOL, yung iba madalas hinahabol ng yaya, kaya pagmagusap kame we understand each other quickly, no proving, walang ere, wala masyadong away. And we loved it when we go out and play at night during summers especially during the 'ber' months where everything looks celebrative, happy and bright? ang sarap maglaro lalo pag Christmas na.. kase alam namen makakahawak na naman kame ng gun powder hehe (patago nga lang).

You know origami? we took out papers? and try learned the folds and make airplanes? So we took out crayons and colored and branded our planes. Mga dominant colors and logos ng superheroes, yung favorite namen. So ako pinapili una.. 'gusto ko si Batman'.. but the group agreed sakin daw dapat si Superman. E di kinuha ko.. since sya may pinakamalakas na powers. My best friend took Greenlantern which is really his favorite of all times, others took Flash, Spiderman... and then somebody took Batman... I told my self "Dang!".   I'd choose Batman over Superman anytime. I dunno for me since I was a kid and first owned my first Batman DC Comics (Although the first comics I've owned was Iron Fist) I've always admired him. Why? I dunno why. Maybe the mystique, the black suit. The mysteriousness of his being. Or maybe because he doesn't have powers, he's human, he feels, he's just like me. He's the outstretch of what the human mind and body can do.. even though the character was just a pigment of one's imagination. That fact that I could identify with him is more real.

Don't you know that Batman started as a detective when he was first written? He wasn't suppose to be a superhero. He was just suppose to be a super scientific hi-tech dude. And Bruce Wayne was an epitome not of a self-made man, he was just a billionaire playboy. The only difference is he's a philanthropist, if you google the word 'philanthropist' it means 'the love of humanity'.  A conventional modern definition is "private initiatives, for the public good, focusing on quality of life". So in a way it more than fits him. He got all the resources.

But you know? if I ever was the one who wrote Batman in DC Comics? I'd write him in a different manner. Maybe I'd keep the billionaire playboy type image, but I'd rewrite its romantic aspect. I would have him fall in love not in an ordinary conventional way. I'd give him a touch of etherealism.

You see if you look at the love interests of Batman (or Bruce Wayne), majority of them are socialites. Yes.. if you think it's only Rachel (Rachel Dawes), you're dead wrong. The real Batman had a string of love interests. Julie Madison was the first one. And she's royalty. Linda Page, another socialite. Of course there's the reporter Vicki Vale. Selina Kyle of course as we all know she's Catwoman. Who else.. Thalia al Ghul who's the daughter of one villain. Pamela Isley of course remember her? Ms. Poison Ivy? Natalia Knight, otherwise known as Nocturna, Julia Penyworth the daughter of Alfred (playboy talaga to eh). Sino pa ba.. si Wonder Woman of course. Although alam ko friends lang sila non.. pero when we were kids and nanunuod kame ng Superfriends (when you say Superfriends that means not on the Avenger side, means I'm talkin' about the Justice League side)  ang tanong ko lage "Bakit si Batman laging nakasakay sa invisible plane ni Wonderwoman? Sila ba?" (hihihi). There were times tatalon si Wonderwoman from the plane so si Batman magdadrive "Whuuuuuuuhhuhuu!!.. sabi na nga ba may something to eh" Who else.. well there's Black Canary na sinulot nya kay Green Arrow. Si Jillian Maxwell. who when he met at a party naging suspicioso si Alfred and therefore led him to check her background, turned out she's another villain. (geez halos lahat may criminal record haha, well not naman lahat). Charlotte Rivers.. but she's just another reporter of course. And many others. But these are not what I'm talking about. What I'm looking for is something like Lorna Shore.. the museum curator he met back then when they were kids. It was love at first sight as Bruce was able to find peace when he was with her for the first time since he was 8 years old after his parents got murdered. Kaya lang ang babaw ng storyline nilang dalawa. He left Lorna Shore co'z the Joker was getting suspicious who were the most important people in his life other than his dead parents, and he just doesn't want anything grave to happen to her. And so he took off to distract the Joker to gear the danger away from her. But that doesn't prove anything when you don't face everything together. I want someone that never left his side.  

I'm looking for something that has depth, something like more of a spirit he carries with him in his battles. Yung hindi lang playboy and met her at the course of his adventures. I want something that is intact. Like it's a contiguous part of him. There must be a base or something, a place not to just go back there to strengthen his weapons, but to nurse his wounds and to feel a peaceful beautiful loving presence. Yung tipong napakagandang babae with ethereal beauty na nakatira in an old Victorian mansion katabi lang ng batcave. That he falls deeply in love and he grew up with, and was sadly taken away from him by death and since then on she remained with him wherever he goes. Dang! that would be something. Yung may substance. Yung nandun sa puso mo at talagang walang makakacompete. And comes out to him in a dream or something and helps him in times of dire need.  Boy I'd rewrite him like that.

Anyway here's the case mga 'pañero.

Respondent WESTMONT PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., a New York corporation, sought registration of trademark "ATUSSIN" a medicine used in the treatment of cough.  

Petitioner, ETEPHA, A. G., a corporation, objected. Petitioner claims  “ATUSSIN” is so CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR to its “PERTUSSIN” which is also used in treatment of coughs. And that the buying public will be misled into believing that Westmont's product is that of petitioner's which allegedly enjoys goodwill. (syempre nauna sila e)

So the Director of Patents is left with a choice..

May trademark ATUSSIN be registered, given the fact that PERTUSSIN, another trademark, which filed its objection had been previously registered in the Patent Office? — the DIRECTOR OF PATENTS ANSWERED AFFIRMATIVELY. 

Hence this appeal. Let's see if his decision will hold.

ISSUE: 

Was there a TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT?

RULING:

NONE.

Court said the objects of a trademark are :

1. "TO POINT OUT DISTINCTLY THE ORIGIN OR OWNERSHIP of the articles to which it is affixed

2. To secure to him who has been instrumental in bringing into market a superior article or merchandise the fruit of his industry and skill, and 

3.  To PREVENT FRAUD AND IMPOSITION."

1. NO COLORABLE IMITATION 

And the court stressed that we are to be guided by the rule that the validity of a cause for infringement is predicated upon COLORABLE IMITATION. The phrase "colorable imitation" denotes such a "CLOSE OR INGENIOUS IMITATION AS TO BE CALCULATED TO DECEIVE ORDINARY PERSONS, OR SUCH A RESEMBLANCE TO THE ORIGINAL AS TO DECEIVE AN ORDINARY PURCHASER, GIVING SUCH ATTENTION AS A PURCHASER USUALLY GIVES, AND TO CAUSE HIM TO PURCHASE THE ONE SUPPOSING IT TO BE THE OTHER."

2. IT'S COMMON PRACTICE

That the word "TUSSIN" figures as a component of both trademarks (Atussin & Pertussin) is nothing to wonder at. The Director of Patents aptly observes that it is "the common practice in the drug and pharmaceutical industries to 'fabricate' marks by using syllables or words suggestive of the ailments for which they are intended and adding thereto distinctive prefixes or suffixes". 

The "tussin" (in Pertussin and Atussin) was derived from the Latin root-word "tussis" meaning cough."Tussin" is MERELY DESCRIPTIVE; it is generic. It is accordingly barred from registration as trademark. 

E biro mo nga naman you register a generic word as your trademark e parang sinabe mo na na di nyo pede gamitin yung word na "love" kase ginamet ko na naparegister ko na. 

Iregister yon ng Director of Patents then it ends up as appellant having practically a monopoly of the word "tussin" in a trademark. Di ba?

Eto ang sabe ng korte... "While "tussin" by itself cannot thus be used exclusively to identify one's goods, it may properly become the subject of a trademark "by combination with another word or phrase". And this union of words is reflected in petitioner's Pertussin and respondent's Atussin, the first with prefix "Per" and the second with Prefix "A".

So there's no bone of contention right? 

3. VISUAL IMPRESSION

The court continued "The horizontal plain, block letters of Atussin and the diagonally and artistically upward writing of Pertussin leave distinct visual impressions. One look is enough to denude the mind of that illuminating similarity so essential for a trademark infringement case to prosper.

So yun naman pala eh.. horizontal yun lettering nung isa, yun isa naman diagonal upward.. sino pa ba magkakamali non? 

4. PHONETIC SIMILARITY

Eto pa sabe ng korte "As we take up Pertussin and Atussin once again, we cannot escape notice of the fact that the two words do not sound alike — when pronounced."

So it's clear there's no phonetic similarity between the two..

5. BY PRESCRIPTION

"Petitioner's and respondent's products are to be dispensed upon medical prescription.  The respective labels say so. An intending buyer must have to go first to a licensed doctor of medicine; he receives instructions as to what to purchase; he reads the doctor's prescription; he knows what he is to buy."

Yun ang akala nyo..

"We concede the possibility that buyers might be able to obtain Pertussin or Attusin without prescription. When this happens, then the buyer must be one thoroughly familiar with what he intends to get, else he would not have the temerity to ask for a medicine — specifically needed to cure a given ailment." 

Well at least the court conceded to the usual practice.. 

So the registration of Attusin was affirmed. Westmont wins this case. 

ANG LADLAD vs. COMELEC

Nung 1st year law ako ang halos biruan namen sa school yung sa CR ng lalake yung pagnagkasabaysabay kayo sa salamen grooming your selves before the class para sa mga chikababes sa klase. Yung tipong kararating mo pa lang before 5 p.m. para sa Criminal Law class mo daladala mo yung makakapal mong libro na yung iba di mo pa binasa at hinugot mo pa lang sa locker mo at may 30 minutos ka pa para magbasa LOL tas derecho ka sa CR para i-retouch mo yung napakagroovy mong naka-gel na hair haha! (mas importante pa talaga yung buhok e).

Pagdating mo nakahilera kayo sa salamen. Mga usual na mga banat habang nagsusuklay kayo eh "Gwapo na pre!" "Tama na yan Chip! gwapo ka naaa!!" haha. Tapos may biglang dadateng na susundot na lintik na sasabihin "Uy gwapo ah pakiss nga!" LOL. "Po' taena! hahaha" biglang magtatawanan kayo. Mga lalake yon ah. Hehe.

So sa kakabiroan namen we couldn't help carrying it outside. Kaya pag may pinahiram kang libro & binalik sayo.. "Chip eto na.. thanks pare... (biglang popose ngingite ng nakakaloko) I lab you pare" Ha ha ha. Kaya susuntukin mo sa balikat,  Tapos sa susunod paghumiram ka.. taena.. gagawin mo ren. I'm a bit homo-phobic pero natatawa talaga ako pag nagbibiruan kame barkada ng ganon. We couldn't help it minsan nadadala namen yun kulitan sa library. "O kinuha ko na yung SCRA ah.. jan yun xerox ah" "Ok pare thankyou pare... I love you pare" tatawa ng "Hihihihihi!!" taena. Biglang sisitsit yung librarian "(tok tok tok!) Sileeence!!!". LOL.

Let's get to the case. This one's for the 3rd gender. Obviously haha.

This is a fairly new case, in such a way na buhay pa mga proponents ng kaso na to.. of course led by no less than Professor Danton Remoto whom I have a disrespe...  no no no.. I mean a deep respect... (Lol sorry) for his brilliant commentaries in his radio program that I always try to listen to whenever I got the free time. Funny and brilliant, that’s what I can say for the good professor. 

Okay.. let’s see what happened here. 

Petitioner in this is case.. of course we all know... ANG LADLAD (aaaahhhyyy!!) LOL just kidding  is a national organization representing the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and trans-genders (LGBT) community.  I think this was during the hype of the 2006 National Election?.. Yup Arroyo administration. Kung anuano kasi ininsert nila sa Freedom Constitution.

This is the time when everyone was filing Petition for Accreditations  with of course our electoral body the COMELEC. Comelec kase has announced that pursuant to the constitutional provision that the state in its duty to promote social justice gives way for the marginalized group to be heard and be part of the decision making process of the nation.  I remember during that time everyone seemed to be grouping together creating a so called marginalized sector... mga trycicle driver, pedicab driver, barbero... magsasaka.. magbobote... so probably one gay fella said to another gay fella...  “E bat sila? E bat tayo hindweh... mas may karapwatan twayoo nwo! malakwe ang ambag natwen sa lipunan kaya di ba teh?”  “Ay korek ka jan baklush!!”  LOL. hehe joke lang. 

So in consideration of this new found ‘marginalized’ freedom  the LGBT community assembled themselves under one umbrella organization called ANG LADLAD with a soul intent to function as a political group. Of course it’s second step was to be recognized and be accredited as a political party. Hence,  it filed a petition for accreditation as a party-list organization to public respondent in this case, the COMELEC. 

However, due to moral grounds, the latter denied the said petition.  

So... the accreditation petition was denied. And to buttress their denial, COMELEC cited certain biblical and quranic passages in their decision. It also stated that since their ways are immoral and contrary to public policy, they are considered nuisance. In fact, their acts are even punishable under the Revised Penal Code in its Article 201. 

'Ahhyyy nakwooo! bruhang Comelec yan! Nuisance lang kamweh.. ganwon??' (LOL) 

So a motion for reconsideration (MR) was filed and denied, Hence petitioner filed this instant Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the ROC.  

So before the court Ang Ladlad argued that:

1. the denial of accreditation, insofar as it justified the exclusion by using religious dogma, violated the constitutional guarantees against the establishment of religion.

'dogma lang ang dahilahn your honor!!  isa itong pagyurak sa aming pagkatwao!! File kami ng file tapos kami ang nagsu-SUFFER ditwoh!!'  (LOL)

2. the Assailed Resolutions contravened its constitutional rights to privacy, freedom of speech and assembly, and equal protection of laws, as well as constituted violations of the Philippines’ international obligations against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

In its comment, the COMELEC reiterated their stand that: 

1.petitioner does not have a concrete and genuine national political agenda to benefit the nation and 

2.that the petition was validly dismissed on moral grounds. 

3.LGBT sector is not among the sectors enumerated by the Constitution and RA 7941 

4.that petitioner made untruthful statements in its petition when it alleged its national existence contrary to actual verification reports by COMELEC’s field personnel.

Okay so..

ANG CHORVA (Issue) :) (jok lang)

W/N Respondent erred in denying Petitioners application on moral and legal grounds.

ANG CHUK CHAK CHENES NG KORTE (ahahaha) (Ruling):

Respondent mistakenly opines that our ruling in Ang Bagong Bayani stands for the proposition that only those sectors specifically enumerated in the law or related to said sectors (labor, peasant, fisherfolk, urban poor, indigenous cultural communities, elderly, handicapped, women, youth, veterans, overseas workers, and professionals) may be registered under the party-list system. As we explicitly ruled in Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, “the enumeration of marginalized and under-represented sectors is not exclusive”. The crucial element is not whether a sector is specifically enumerated, but whether a particular organization complies with the requirements of the Constitution and RA 7941.

Our Constitution provides in Article III, Section 5 that “no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” At bottom, what our non-establishment clause calls for is “government neutrality in religious matters.” Clearly, “governmental reliance on religious justification is inconsistent with this policy of neutrality.” We thus find that it was grave violation of the non-establishment clause for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and the Koran to justify the exclusion of Ang Ladlad. Be it noted that government action must have a secular purpose.

Respondent has failed to explain what societal ills are sought to be prevented, or why special protection is required for the youth. Neither has the COMELEC condescended to justify its position that petitioner’s admission into the party-list system would be so harmful as to irreparably damage the moral fabric of society.

We also find the COMELEC’s reference to purported violations of our penal and civil laws flimsy, at best; disingenuous, at worst. Article 694 of the Civil Code defines a nuisance as “any act, omission, establishment, condition of property, or anything else which shocks, defies, or disregards decency or morality,” the remedies for which are a prosecution under the Revised Penal Code or any local ordinance, a civil action, or abatement without judicial proceedings. A violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, on the other hand, requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to support a criminal conviction. It hardly needs to be emphasized that mere allegation of violation of laws is not proof, and a mere blanket invocation of public morals cannot replace the institution of civil or criminal proceedings and a judicial determination of liability or culpability.

As such, we hold that moral disapproval, without more, is not a sufficient governmental interest to justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation in the party-list system. THE DENIAL OF ANG LADLAD’S REGISTRATION ON PURELY MORAL GROUNDS AMOUNTS MORE TO A STATEMENT OF DISLIKE AND DISAPPROVAL OF HOMOSEXUALS, RATHER THAN A TOOL TO FURTHER ANY SUBSTANTIAL PUBLIC INTEREST.

Ang Ladlad wins this case. Finally. A breath of fresh air for our LGBT brothers/sisters. 

Although ewan ko kung anu na nangyari dito.. I've never seen Danton sitting in Congress. Didn't they make it through the ballot count?....  Matanung ko nga si Proffessor Danton pag nakita ko. LOL.