Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #hernanDoIt
Most recents (8)
CRIMINAL LAW Chair’s Cases (thread)
•People v. Constantino GR 251636 (2022) – the test to determine when the act is mala in se and not malum prohibitum is whether it is inherently immoral or the vileness of the penalized act;
#IncrediBar2023 #HernanDoIt #HernandoBar2023
•People v. Constantino GR 251636 (2022) – the test to determine when the act is mala in se and not malum prohibitum is whether it is inherently immoral or the vileness of the penalized act;
#IncrediBar2023 #HernanDoIt #HernandoBar2023
·Chua v. SOJ GR 214960 (2022)- trust receipts law is malum prohibitum; mere failure of petitioners to turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods, or to return the good themselves if not sold under the trust receipts that were not novated, constitutes the gravamen of the offense.
·People v. Villegas, Jr GR 218210 (2019) - rape with homicide is a special complex crime or "two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse."
CRIMINAL LAW
ABERRATIO ICTUS – If the crimes committed against the target victim and third person, who was hit by reason of aberratio ictus, were produced by a single act, the accused is liable for a complex crime.
#IncrediBar2023 #HernandoBar2023 #HernanDoIt
1/4
ABERRATIO ICTUS – If the crimes committed against the target victim and third person, who was hit by reason of aberratio ictus, were produced by a single act, the accused is liable for a complex crime.
#IncrediBar2023 #HernandoBar2023 #HernanDoIt
1/4
Exceptions: accused is liable for separate crimes despite the application of the aberratio ictus rule, and not a complex crime:
a. Bullet that killed the target victim is different from the bullet that killed the third person
2/4
a. Bullet that killed the target victim is different from the bullet that killed the third person
2/4
b. Crime committed against the third person is merely a light felony such as slight physical injuries
c. Components of a complex crime are alleged in 2 different information
3/4
c. Components of a complex crime are alleged in 2 different information
3/4
REMEDIAL LAW
Revival of judgment - to secure the execution of a previous judgment which has become dormant after the passage of 5 years without it being executed upon motion of the prevailing party; a new and independent action where the cause of action is the judgment itself.
Revival of judgment - to secure the execution of a previous judgment which has become dormant after the passage of 5 years without it being executed upon motion of the prevailing party; a new and independent action where the cause of action is the judgment itself.
Defenses that may be invoked in an action to revive judgement:
· Jurisdictional defenses
· Prescription
· Payment
· Other defenses arising after the finality of judgment
#incrediBar2023 #HernanDoIt #HernandoBar2023
· Jurisdictional defenses
· Prescription
· Payment
· Other defenses arising after the finality of judgment
#incrediBar2023 #HernanDoIt #HernandoBar2023
Court having jurisdiction over an action for revival of judgment – may be filed either
(1) in the same court where the judgment was rendered; or
(2) in the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides or in any other place designated by the statutes
(1) in the same court where the judgment was rendered; or
(2) in the place where the plaintiff or defendant resides or in any other place designated by the statutes
REMEDIAL LAW
Factual-issue-bar Rule - Petition for review under Rule 45 is discretionary. It may only be availed if the appeal is on pure question of law. Thus, question of fact is not allowed to be raised because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. #IncrediBar2023
Factual-issue-bar Rule - Petition for review under Rule 45 is discretionary. It may only be availed if the appeal is on pure question of law. Thus, question of fact is not allowed to be raised because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. #IncrediBar2023
Instances when Supreme Court may pass upon questions of fact:
-Conclusions of CA is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures
-Inference is manifestly mistaken
-There is grave abuse of discretion
-Judgment is based on misapprehension of facts
1 of 3
-Conclusions of CA is grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures
-Inference is manifestly mistaken
-There is grave abuse of discretion
-Judgment is based on misapprehension of facts
1 of 3
-Findings of facts are conflicting
-CA went beyond the issues of the case or its judgment is contrary to the admission of the parties
-Findings of CA is contrary to lower court
-Finding of fact are conclusion without basis in evidence
2 of 3
-CA went beyond the issues of the case or its judgment is contrary to the admission of the parties
-Findings of CA is contrary to lower court
-Finding of fact are conclusion without basis in evidence
2 of 3
Prac Exercises
TYPICAL CONTRACT FORM PARTS:
Title
Announcement
Actors
Recitals
Agreement
Conditions
Signatories
Acknowledgement
Code: TAA-RAC-SA
#HernanDoIt
TYPICAL CONTRACT FORM PARTS:
Title
Announcement
Actors
Recitals
Agreement
Conditions
Signatories
Acknowledgement
Code: TAA-RAC-SA
#HernanDoIt
AFIDAVITS
Venue of Execution
Title
Person's Bona Fides
Oath
Statements
Signature
Jurat
Code: VeTiPeOStaSiJu
Venue of Execution
Title
Person's Bona Fides
Oath
Statements
Signature
Jurat
Code: VeTiPeOStaSiJu
Parts of a Typical Judicial Form
Caption
Title
Introduction
Body
Relief
Attorney’s Box
Addenda
Code: Cap-TIBRA-A
Caption
Title
Introduction
Body
Relief
Attorney’s Box
Addenda
Code: Cap-TIBRA-A
Chair’s Cases on Legal and Judicial Ethics (a thread)
· Turla v. Caringal AC 11641 (2019) – Falsehood in MCLE Compliance (Rule 1.1 of Canon 1, Rule 10.1 of Canon 10, Canon 17, Canon 18)
#incrediBar2023 #HernandoBar2023 #HernanDoIt
· Turla v. Caringal AC 11641 (2019) – Falsehood in MCLE Compliance (Rule 1.1 of Canon 1, Rule 10.1 of Canon 10, Canon 17, Canon 18)
#incrediBar2023 #HernandoBar2023 #HernanDoIt
· Francia v. Sagario AC 10938 (2019) – Non-filing despite receipt of legal fees from client; highly fiduciary nature of an attorney-client relationship (Rules 16.01 and 16.03 of Canon 16, Canon 17, and Rule 18.03 of Canon 18)
· Petelo v Rivera AC10408 (2019) – unauthorized practice of law (Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Rule 9.01 of Canon 9, and Rule 10.01, Canon 10)
Chair’s cases (Rem)
· Ramirez v. Elomina GR 202661 (2021) - MR was filed out of time; appeal is merely a statutory privilege
· Radaza v. Sandiganbayan GR 201380 (2021) – deficiency remains formal, non-jurisdictional, and curable at any stage of the criminal proceedings
· Ramirez v. Elomina GR 202661 (2021) - MR was filed out of time; appeal is merely a statutory privilege
· Radaza v. Sandiganbayan GR 201380 (2021) – deficiency remains formal, non-jurisdictional, and curable at any stage of the criminal proceedings
· PNB-Republic Bank v. Sian-Limsiaco GR 196323 (2021) – cancellation of mortgage is a personal action; no transfer or disposition of real property rights; mortgagor is a real party-in-interest in a representative capacity #incrediBar2023 #HernandoBar2023 #hernanDoIt
· Pineda v. Miranda GR 204997 (2021) – revival of judgment is different and distinct from the original judgment, cause of action is the decision itself and not the merits of the action
Q: May the court deny the prosecution's motion for arraignment beyond sixty (60) days from the time of the filing by the Accused of his Petition for Review with the DOJ?
Answer:
No. In the absence of any TRO or Writ of Preliminary Injunction from a higher tribunal, the court can
Answer:
No. In the absence of any TRO or Writ of Preliminary Injunction from a higher tribunal, the court can
only suspend the proceedings against the Accused for sixty (60) days from the filing of the Accused's Petition for Review with the DOJ.
The court's failure to proceed with the arraignment of the Accused without any TRO or Injunction is erroneous as "it disregards the requirements
The court's failure to proceed with the arraignment of the Accused without any TRO or Injunction is erroneous as "it disregards the requirements
of due process and erodes the court's independence and integrity." (ABS-CBN Corporation vs.
Felipe Gozon, et al., G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015).
#HernanDoIt
Felipe Gozon, et al., G.R. No. 195956, March 11, 2015).
#HernanDoIt
