1.
In drug cases, as a rule, the state has the
burden in proving the elements of the offense and the corpus delicti of the
charge. The illicit drug itself comprise the corpus delicti of the charge and
its existence is necessary to obtain judgment of conviction over the accused.
To establish that the illicit drug is owned by the accused himself, that state
should offer testimonies relating to its chain of custody and failure to do so
would mean failure to prove the corpus delicti of the charge hence, loses the
important element and an acquittal of the accused.
2.
A.
No. The respondent cannot be
subjected to double jeopardy since that the since case violating the manila
ordinance was rendered moot and academic. A moot and academic case is one that
ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so
that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value. Generally,
courts decline jurisdiction over such case or dismiss it on ground of mootness.
Since that there is no jeopardy that can be attached prior to the other the
respondent cannot be held double jeopardy.
B.
Rendering the case at bar dismissed on the
ground that it is moot and academic does not mean unconstitutionality over the
ordinance. The said ordinance is still valid within the city of Manila and
other cases in violation of the ordinance can still be penalized under it. An ordinance is valid as long as it is not
contrary to the fundamental law.
C.
The case was dismissed on the ground
that is moot and academic. Generally, a court cannot review over a case which
has been rendered moot except if the following circumstance are present:
1.
there
was a grave violation of the Constitution;
2.
the
case involved a situation of exceptional character and was of paramount public
interest;
3.
the
issues raised required the formulation of controlling principles to guide the
Bench, the Bar and the public; and
4.
the
case was capable of repetition yet evading review.
D.
Petitioner’s claim on
overbreadth doctrine cannot be applied in this case since that the said
doctrine can be applied only on cases where the freedom of speech is vitiated.
The case at bar is a criminal case of which is stemmed on obscenity prosecution
and in a case it was ruled that obscenity is not protected speech and no court
had recognized a fundamental right to create, sell, or distribute an obscene
materials. Thus,
a facial overbreadth challenge is improper as against an anti-obscenity
statute.
E.
3.
If I were Juan’s counsel, I
would raise the arrest done by law enforcers if either Juan was lawfully
arrested or not.
As a rule, for an arrest to be
lawful a warrant should be issued nevertheless, an arrest can also be done
without a warrant as long as it falls under the exception to law and one of it
is flagrante delicti which is an offense done by the person arrested with the
presence of the peace officer or private individual. Moreover, law enforcers
need not only personally witnessed the commission of the crime but also, they
must have personal knowledge of facts and circumstances indicating that the
person sought to be arrested committed it.
In the case at bar, Juan was
merely handing an item to Maria who did not exhibit any act that would give the
police officer a reasonable suspicion to believe that he had drugs in his
possession more especially of the distance between them and the peace officer.
Reasonable persons will act in a nervous manner more especially seeing a peace
officer despite its distance. There was no evidence to show that the police had
basis or personal knowledge that would reasonably doubt them to infer anything
suspicious.
4.
A. No. Anti-hazing law is not unconstitutional
since that this law has not shown a clear and unmistakable breached of the
Constitution.
Also, it is not a bill of attainder since that
there is no complete exclusion done by the court in determining the guilt and
imposable penalty over a certain individual or a group. A bill of attainder
would mean that the court encroaches its power to determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused and to impose the corresponding penalty, violating the
doctrine of separation of powers.
Constitutional presumption of innocence
happens when there is a logical connection between the fact proved and the
ultimate fact presumed. But, in the said case the petitioner had failed to show
that there is logical relation between the fact proved-presence of a person
during the hazing and the ultimate fact presumed their participation in the
hazing as a principal. As a rule, an accused’s presence during a hazing is
prima facie evidence of his or her participation and does not violate the
constitutional presumption of innocence. However, a finding of prima facie
evidence in Anti-hazing law does not shatter the presumptive innocence that an
accused enjoys because, before a prima facie evidence arises, certain facts
have still to be proved: the trial court cannot depend alone on such evidence,
because precisely, it is still merely prima facie.
B. No. Res inter alios acta provides that a
party’s right generally cannot be prejudiced by another’s act, declaration or
omission of another. This means that in res inter alios acta any confession of
one of the groups is not admissible against his co-accused as this would be
considered as hearsay against them. The said principle cannot be applied over
the Anti-hazing law since that hazing often includes conspiracy in any acts
done for their initiation rites.
A cruel and unusual punishment are those that
aimed at the form of character of the punishment rather than its severity with
respect to the duration or amount and it is flagrantly and plainly oppressive
and wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral
sense of the community. This punishment are those that were inflicted at the
whipping post, or in the pillory, burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel,
disemboweling and the like. Reclusion perpetua is not cruel as this kind of
punishment does not carry a degrading and inhuman punishment.
5.
A.
Buy-bust Operation is a legally effective and proven procedure,
sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors, the law
nevertheless requires strict compliance with the procedures laid down by it to
ensure that rights are safeguarded.
B.
Chain of Custody means the duly recorded
authorized movements and custody of seized drugs so this require that the
apprehending team who conducted the seized of the drugs to mark, inventory and
photograph the evidence in the manner as provided by the law.
C.
Insulating witness means that a
witness present during the marking, the actual inventory and taking of
photograph of the evidence conducted by an apprehending officer.
D.
Under the Rules of
Court, Rule 113, Section 5, a warrantless arrest, also known as "citizen’s
arrest," is lawful under three circumstances:
- When,
in the presence of the policeman, the person to be arrested has committed,
is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. This is the
"in flagrante delicto" rule.
- When
an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe,
based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to
be arrested has committed it. This is the "hot pursuit" arrest
rule.
- When
the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment
E.
F.
G.
A Miller Test is a guideline to seek
out whether such ordinance does not violate the application of the contemporary
community standards more especially on cases on against anti-obscenity.
6.
A.
No. Double jeopardy is not
present in this case, to give rise on double jeopardy the first jeopardy has
already been attached prior to the second jeopardy and such jeopardy has been
terminated either because the accused has already been convicted or acquitted
or the case against him has been dismissed or terminated without his express
consent. In the case at bar none of the elements are present to hold the
accused in double jeopardy.
Moreover, the accused cannot be
convicted for the said two offense, applying the statutory principle that if
the law is clear apply the law. In the case at bar, the law is clear that the
accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms, provided
that no other crime was committed by the person arrested. Thus, a special
complex crime may be applied for the offense-murder with the illegal use of the
unlicensed firearm.
B.
In Agote’s Doctrine it was ruled
that the law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal
possession of firearms, provided that no other crime was committed by the
person arrested. If the intention of the law in the second paragraph were to
refer only to homicide and murder, it should have expressed said so, as it did
in the third paragraph. Verily, where the law does not distinguish, neither
should we. Therefore, in the case at bar the accused will not be charged with
two offense since that murder has been committed other than the possession of
illegal firearms. So, the accused will only be held liable of the crime murder
with special complex of the offense illegal possession of firearms.
7.
No. The challenged ordinances do not violate
the fundamental law and applicable laws., Section 2 of Article XII aims
primarily not to bestow any right to subsistence fishermen, but to lay stress
on the duty of the State to protect the nation’s marine wealth. In accordance
with the Regalian Doctrine, marine resources belong to the state pursuant to
the first paragraph of Section 2, Article XIII of the Constitution, their
“exploration, development and utilization shall be under the full control and
supervision of the State.
8.
The
ordinance was not valid. Citing the case of in City
of Manila v. Garcia, this provide that: Squatting is unlawful and no
amount of acquiescence on the part of the city officials will elevate it into a
lawful act. In principle, a compound of illegal entry and official permit to
stay is obnoxious to our concept of proper official norm of conduct. Because,
such permit does not serve social justice; it fosters moral decadence. It does
not promote public welfare; it abets disrespect for the law. It has its roots
in vice; so it is an infected bargain. Official approval of squatting should
not, therefore, be permitted to obtain in this country where there is an
orderly form of government. As noted by Justice Sanchez, since the last global
war, squatting on another's property in this country has become a widespread
vice
9.
There are two residence of
plaintiff-Saludo. One of it his house at Pasay City where its purpose is
exercising his profession or doing business and his house in Southern Leyte for
doing his businesses and/or for his election or political purpose where he also
lives or stay physically and personally. So, we could say that his domicile is
in Southern Leyte as this is where he lives or stays physically and personally.
For purposes of election law,
the term residence is synonymous with domicile. The term residence, for the
same purpose, requires two elements to equate with the term domicile and these
are: 1. Intention to reside in the particular place; and 2. Personal or
physical presence in that place coupled with conduct indicative of such
intention.
10.
No comments:
Post a Comment