The purpose of this blog is to share my sleepless nights...killing myself to survive in a jungle. A jungle full of wild animals, so wild that without hesitation they will eat you alive if they decided to...hehehe. In this blog i will post cases and other related articles. Sana Makatulong ^^

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

People vs. Sunico, et al [C.A., 50 o.g. 5880]

FACTS: The accused were election inspectors and poll clerks whose duty among others was to transfer the names of excess voters in other precincts to the list of a newly created precinct.Several voters were omitted in the list.Because their names were not in the list, some of them were not allowed to vote. The accused were prosecuted for violation of Secs. 101 and 103 of the Revised Election Code. The accused claimed that they made the omission in good faith.The trial court seemed to believe that notwithstanding the fact that the accused committed in good faith the serious offense charged, the latter are criminally responsible therefor, because such offense is malum prohibitum, and, consequently, the act constituting the same need not be committed with malice or criminal intent to be punishable. ISSUE: Is the act of the accused merely a mala prohibita? HELD: The acts of the accused cannot be merely mala prohibita - they are mala in se . The omission or failure to include a voter’s...
Read more

People v. Bautista [40 O.G. 2491]

FACTS: This case is by virtue of an appeal interposed by the Solicitor-General to the resolution of the Court of First Instance of Cavite dismissing said case for the following reasons: first, that the accused Sotero Peji Bautista was not given a preliminary investigation before trial; and second, that said accused had been twice put in jeopardy. The accused Bautista was charged by one Ong Loo in the justice of the peace court of Kawit, Cavite, with having violated the provisions of article 183 of the Revised Penal Code on May 30, 1935 by knowingly subscribing under oath a false affidavit. After the preliminary investigation required by law, the justice of the peace remanded the case to the Court of First Instance because it did not fall under his jurisdiction and he reached the conclusion that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the crime was committed by the accused. However , the provincial fiscal, filed another charging him with false testimony in a criminal case ...
Read more

Merencillo v People | 521 scra 31

Facts: Juanito Merencillo was charged of violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 and Direct bribery. Petitioner demanded from private complainant Ma. Angeles Ramasola Cesar P20,000.00 in exchange for the approval of the Certificate Authorizing Registration (CAR). Due to the repeated demand of the petitioner and delaying the release of CAR, private complainant seek the help of the authorities. As a result, petitioner was caught in the entrapment instituted by the police. After trial, the RTC found petitioner guilty as charged. Petitioner appealed the decision to the Sandiganbayan which was denied affirming the RTC decision. Hence, this petition for review of certiorari, contending that he was twice in jeopardy when he was prosecuted for violation of Sec. 3 (b) of RA 3019 and for direct bribery. Issue: WON the petitioner was placed in double jeopardy. Holding: No. Section 3(b) of RA 3019 begins with the following statement: Sec.3 In addition to acts or omissions of public offic...
Read more