L[aw]rd's Lair

People v. Almeida 418 SCRA 254 FACTS: Teofilo, Chief of the Intelligence Section/Unit, received information that appellant, who was already arrested twice for drug pushing, had again resumed his operations. Thus, Teofilo decided to form a buy-bust team, composed of himself, Ricardo, Vivero, Deroca and Carlito, to entrap appellant. He also utilized the services of a civilian asset to act as the poseur-buyer. Immediately after the sale took place, appellant went inside and proceeded to the second floor of the house. Thereafter, Teofilo and Ricardo went inside the house. Upon reaching the second floor, Teofilo saw appellant repacking   shabu   while seated on the floor. The police also found another person, who was later identified as Gilbert Chico (Gilbert), sniffing   shabu . Vanessa was also there. On the second floor, the police found 34 small plastic sachets containing   shabu , one big plastic bag containing more   shabu , a canister, several ammun...

People v. Encinada  G.R. No. 116720, October 2, 1997, 280 SCRA 72 FACTS: Appeal from a decision of the RTC convicting appellant Roel Encinada of Illegal Transpotation of prohibited drugs from Surigao City to Cebu, under Sec. 4 of R.A. 6425 as amended by BP 179.                SPO4 Bolonia received a tip from an informant (4:00pm) that the appellant Encinada would be arriving in the morning of May 21, 1992 on board the M/V Sweet Pearl bringing with him “marijuana”. They were not able to secure warrant of arrest because the office was already closed. However, they still decided to pursue the apprehension of the appellant.                Morning of May 21,1992, when M/V Sweet Pearl docked SPO4 Bolonia with his team followed the appellant carrying two small colored plastic chairs and boarded a tricycle. The appellant was chased and orde...

Medina v. Orozco G.R. No. L-26723, December 22,  1966 FACTS: November 7, 1965, petitioner Arthur Medina was arrested and thereafter incarcerated in the Caloocan City jail, allegedly as one of those responsible for the death of one Marcelo Sangalang which occurred on October 31, 1965 in said city. At about 9:00 o'clock in the morning of the same day, November 7, 1965, the case against Medina and two others for Sangalang's murder was referred to a fiscal, who forthwith conducted a preliminary investigation in petitioner's presence. At about 3:40 p.m. on November 10, 1965, an information for murder was filed against petitioner Arthur Medina, and Antonio Olivar and Alexander Enriquez in the Caloocan branch of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. By court order, they were promptly committed to jail.   Petitioner claims violation of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code. The crime — for which petitioner is detained — is murder, a capital offense. The arresting officer...

Fiscal Eugenio Angeles et. al v. Hon. Francisco Jose                               G.R. No.L-6494, 96 Phil. 151, Nov. 24, 1954                                                                                                                                                      FACTS: Domingo Mejia was charged with the crime of damage to property in the sum of P654.22, and with less serious physical injuries through reckless negligence, committed in one single act. After preliminary investigation the respondent court dismissed the case on th...

CATU v. RELLOSA A.C. No. 5738, 546 SCRA 209, February 19, 2008 Administrative Case : Professional Misconduct for violating his Oath as a Lawyer and Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of professional Responsibility. FACTS: Complainant Wilfredo Catu is a co-owner of a lot and building erected at Malate, Manila. With his mother and brother, contested the possession of Elizabeth Catu and Antonio Pastor of one of the units in the building. The latter ignored demands to vacate the premises. Thus, a complaint was initiated against them in the Lupong Tagapamayapa in their barangay.                        Respondent Atty Vicente Rellosa, as Punong Barangay summoned the parties to conciliation meetings. But the parties failed to arrive at an amicable settlement, thus, respondent issued a certification for the filing of the appropriate action in court.                 ...

CIRCUMSTANCES (Part 2) Article 13. MITIGATING * Those circumstances which reduce the penalty of a crime. * Its effect, reduces the penalty of the crime but does not erase criminal liability nor change the nature of the crime Kinds: Privileged Ordinary Offset by any aggravating Cannot be offset Can be offset by a generic aggravating Effect on penalty Has the effect of imposing the penalty by 1 or 2 degrees lower than that provided by law If not offset, has the effect of imposing the penalty in the minimum period Kinds Minority, Incomplete self-defense, two or more mitigating without any aggravating (has the effect of lowering the penalty by one degree) Art. 64, 68, 69 Those circumstances enumerated in the par. 1 – 10 of Art. 13 I. Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances A. Justifying 1. Self-defense/relatives/stranger **Unlawful aggression must be pres...

CIRCUMSTANCES (part 1) DISTINCTION bet. JUSTIFYING-EXEMPTING J: affects the act, not the actor                                                          E: affects the actor, not the act J: act is within the bounds of the law, hence, it is legitimate and lawful in the eyes of the law    E: act is actually wrongful  BUT the actor acted without voluntariness. He is a mere tool/instrument. J: No crime – No criminal                                                                    ...