Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from August, 2013

Abdula vs. Guiani

Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
Post a Comment
Read more

La Chemise Lacoste. vs. Fernandez

La Chemise Lacoste. vs. Fernandez GR No. L-63796-97, May 2, 1984 FACTS: La chemise Lacoste is a French corporation and the actual owner of the trademarks “Lacoste,” “Chemise Lacoste,” “Crocodile Device” and a composite mark consisting of the word “Lacoste” and a representation of a crocodile/alligator, used on clothings and other goods sold in many parts of the world and which has been marketed in the Philippines (notably by Rustans) since 1964.  La Chemise Lacoste. VS. Fernandez Read: Asia Brewery, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals In 1975 and 1977, Hemandas Q. Co. was issued certificate of registration for the trademark “Chemise Lacoste and Q Crocodile Device” both in the supplemental and Principal Registry. In 1980, La Chemise Lacoste SA filed for the registration of the “Crocodile device” and “Lacoste”. Games and Garments (Gobindram Hemandas, assignee of Hemandas Q.Co.) opposed the registration of “Lacoste.”  La Chemise Lacoste. VS. Fernandez In 1983, La Chemise Lacoste f
Post a Comment
Read more

How to get a Postal ID?

It is very important that all of us must have valid IDs all the time. Everywhere we go, an identification card verifies our identity in order to make various transactions. Especially in dealing with any government or bank transactions, it always requires to present a valid ID. A Postal ID is one of those IDs that are considered valid and very easy to apply. It verifies the identity and address of a recipient of letters or parcels through the mail. It can also be used to apply for other government IDs. Before going to the Post Office, make sure that you bring the important documents required to apply for a postal ID. Below are the following general requirements: 1. Original copy of Birth Certificate by NSO or birth certificate authenticated By the Local Civil Registrar (LCR). If you don’t have a Birth Certificate, you must present a Certification of No Record from the Civil Registrar/Negative Certification from NSO. In addition to that, you must also present any of the foll
Post a Comment
Read more

Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas

Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas GR No. L-45358, January 29 1937 FACTS: The chief of the secret service of the Anti-Usury Board, of the Department of Justice, presented to Judge Eduardo Gutierrez David, an affidavit alleging that according to reliable information, the petitioner kept in his house, books, documents, receipts, lists, chits and other papers used by him in connection with his activities as a money-lender charging usurious rates of interest in violation of the law.  Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of Tayabas He did not swear to the truth of his statements upon his own knowledge of the facts but upon the information received by him from a reliable person. Upon the affidavit in question the Judge, on said date, issued the warrant which is the subject matter of the petition. With said warrant, several agents of the Anti-Usury Board entered the petitioner's store and residence at seven o'clock on the night, and seized and took possessio
Post a Comment
Read more

People vs. Montilla

People vs. Montilla GR No. 123872, January 30, 1998 FACTS: Appellant was apprehended by SPO1 Concordio Talingting and SPO1 Armando Clarin. The appellant, according to the two officers, was caught transporting 28 marijuana bricks contained in a traveling bag and a carton box, which marijuana bricks had a total weight of 28 kilos.  People vs. Montilla These two officers later asserted in court that they were aided by an informer in the arrest of appellant. That informer had informed them the day before that a drug courier, whom said informer could recognize, would be arriving with an undetermined amount of marijuana. Read: People vs. Sucro It was the same informer who pinpointed to the arresting officers the appellant when the latter alighted from a passenger jeepney.  People vs. Montilla Appellant disavowed ownership of the prohibited drugs. He claimed that he traveled with only some pocket money and without any luggage. He further averred that when he was interrog
Post a Comment
Read more

People vs. Copro

People vs. Copro GR No. L-37599, December 29, 1983 FACTS: Evelita Herrera, a young girl of 14 years, was vending fish. She was accompanied by a younger brother, Wilfredo Herrera who was about 10 years old.  People vs. Copro On the way they met appellant Florentino Copro who manifested his desire to buy fish and invited Evelita and her brother to go to his (Copro's) house under the coconut groves. Near a gate known in the place as "trangkahan ni Bining," Copro grabbed Evelita, held her arm and left breast and dragged her towards a Sampaloc tree which was some distance away. Evelita resisted but just the same, she was forcibly dragged by Copro.  People vs. Copro Wilfredo hurriedly went home and reported the matter to his parents. Read: Cabanas vs. Pilapil When the accused succeeded in dragging Evelita to the vicinity of the Sampaloc tree, she lost consciousness.  People vs. Copro Regaining it after some time, she felt pain in her private parts and notice
Post a Comment
Read more

Prudente vs. Judge Dayrit

Prudente vs. Judge Dayrit GR No. 82870, December 14 1989 FACTS: P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw, filed with the (RTC) an application for the issuance of a search warrant. In his application for search warrant, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw alleged, among others, as follows: That he has been informed and has good and sufficient reasons to believe that Nemesio Prudente has in his control or possession firearms, explosives handgrenades and ammunition which are illegally possessed or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense which the said Nemesio Prudente is keeping and concealing at the following premises of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines; That the undersigned has verified the report and found it to be a fact, and therefore, believes that a Search Warrant should be issued Respondent Judge issued Search Warrant which was enforced by some 200 WPD operatives.  Prudente vs. Judge Dayrit Petitioner moved to quash the search warrant.  He claimed
Post a Comment
Read more

People vs. Salanguit

People vs. Salanguit GR No. 133254-55, April 19, 2001 FACTS: Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied for a warrant in the RTC to search the residence of accused-appellant Robert Salanguit y Ko. He presented as his witness SPO1 Edmund Badua, who testified that as a poseur-buyer, he was able to purchase 2.12 grams of shabu from accused-appellant.  People vs. Salanguit The sale took place in accused-appellant's room, and Badua saw that the shabu was taken by accused-appellant from a cabinet inside his room. The application was granted, and a search warrant was later issued. The police operatives knocked on accused-appellant’s door, but nobody opened it. They heard people inside the house, apparently panicking. People vs. Salanguit The police operatives then forced the door open and entered the house. After showing the search warrant to the occupants of the house, Lt. Cortes and his group started searching the house. People vs. Salanguit They found 12 small heat-seal
Post a Comment
Read more

Popular posts from this blog

Javellana vs. Executive Secretary

Javellana vs. Executive Secretary G.R. No. L-36142, March 31 1973 - 50 SCRA 33 FACTS: On January 20, 1973, just two days before the Supreme Court decided the sequel of plebiscite cases, Javellana filed this suit against the respondents to restrain them from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed Constitution not found in the present 1935 Constitution. This is a petition filed by him as a Filipino citizen and a qualified and registered voter and as a class suit, for himself and in behalf of all citizens and voters similarly situated. Javellana also alleged that the President had announced the immediate implementation of the new constitution, thru his Cabinet, respondents including. Respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed constitution upon ground the that the President as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies; without power to approve proposed constitution; wi
Read more

TECSON VS. COMELEC

GR No. 161434, March 3 2004 FACTS: Respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) filed his certificate of candidacy on 31 December 2003 for the position of President of the Republic of the Philippines in the forthcoming national elections.  In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. Petitioner Fornier filed before the COMELEC a petition to disqualify FPJ and cancel his certificate of candidacy by claiming that FPJ is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, his parents were foreigners: his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject.  The COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of merit. ISSUE: Whether or not FPJ is a natural-born
Read more

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO G.R. NO. 73748, May 22, 1986 FACTS: President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 on February 25, 1986 announcing that she and Vice President Laurel were taking power. On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines." Petitioners alleged that the Aquino government is illegal because it was not established pursuant to the 1973 Constitution. ISSUE: Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate. HELD: Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics  where only the people are the judge. The Supreme Court further held that: The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in eff
Read more