Whatever Infos

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 Che...

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...

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...

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...

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 n...

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.  H...

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...