L[aw]rd's Lair

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                                                                    ...

People of the Philippines vs. Genosa  FACTS:  Marivic Genosa, the Appellant on the 15 th of November 1995, attacked and wounded his husband, which ultimately led to his death. According to her, she did not provoke her husband when she got home that night it was her husband who began the provocation. Genosa said she was frightened that her husband would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby safely. In fact, she (appellant) had to be admitted later at the Rizal Medical Centre as she was suffering from eclampsia and hypertension, and the baby was born prematurely on December 1, 1995. Marivic Genosa testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband at least five (5) times, but Ben (her husband) would always follow her and they would reconcile. Genosa said that the reason why Ben was violent and abusive towards her that night was because ‘he was crazy about his recent girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos. The Appellant after being inte...

US vs. Jose Laurel                                                                                                                                                         (22 Phil. 252) FACTS: On the night of December 26, 1909, whi...

Mercado vs. Manzano and COMELEC G.R. No. 135083 FACTS:  Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Private respondent Eduardo Manzano are candidates for the position of Vice-Mayor of Makati City in the May, 1998 elections. Private respondent was the winner of the said election but the proclamation was suspended due to the petition of Ernesto Mercado regarding the citizenship of private respondent. Mercado alleged that the private respondent is not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United States. COMELEC granted the petition and disqualified the private respondent for being a dual citizen, pursuant to the Local Government code that provides that persons who possess dual citizenship are disqualified from running any public position. Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which remained pending until after election. Petitioner sought to intervene in the case for disqualification. COMELEC reversed the decision and declared private respondent qualified to run for the po...

Republic vs. Cesar Guy G.R. No. 41399 FACTS:  August 18,1956, Cesar Guy filed with the Court of First Instance a petition to be admitted as a citizen of the Philippines. The petition was given due course and after hearing, the Court issued order granting the application for citizenship of Cesar Guy. December 22, 1959, Two years later the trial court issued order allowing Cesar Guy to take his oath of allegiance as citizen of the Philippines, he took his oath the same day and then issued Certificate of Naturalization No. 27. September 23,1964, the Solicitor General filed petition with the court for the cancellation of the Certificate of Naturalization issued to Cesar Guy on the ground that the same was obtained fraudulently or illegally. --June 7, 1957 Cesar Guy filed with Bureau of Forestry a sworn application for the issuance of an ordinary timber license where he stated that he was a Filipino citizen though he was not. --He was found guilty of the crimes that demo...

Chan Teck Lao vs. Republic 55 SCRA 1 FACTS:  The application for naturalization of Chan Teck Lao was denied on October 31, 1949. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court on June 15, 1950, reversed this Court's decision. More than 10 years later, the Office of the Solicitor General filed the petition for the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization, raising the alleged jurisdictional question based on the subsequent Tan Ten Koc ruling 1960’s (an applicant must present positive evidence the newspaper where his petition was published was indeed of general circulation in the province where the proceeding was had) that there was no showing or proof that the Nueva Era was a newspaper of general circulation in the province of Tarlac, where the petitioner then resided. ISSUE:  Whether or not the Office of Solicitor General is correct in canceling the naturalization of Chan Teck Lao on the ground that he failed to follow the publication requirement. HOLDING:  No. Th...

In re: petition of Martin Ng 158 SCRA 492 FACTS:  Martin Ng filed with the Court of First Instance of Cebu an application for naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines, in accordance with Commonwealth Act No. 473. Assistant City Fiscal in representation of the Solicitor General declared that they have no ground for opposing the petition. The lower court then rendered judgment finding the petition to be well founded and adequately supported by competent evidence declaring that the petitioner is entitled to naturalization subject to subsequent compliance with the other requisites provided for in RA 530. After 2 years the petitioner filed with the court a “motion to set case for final hearing”. Motion granted and on the day scheduled petitioner presented proof of his compliance with the requirements. Unexpectedly, the Solicitor General filed an opposition on the ground of lack on petitioner’s part of lucrative business, trade or profession. However, the court overruled th...