WHAT TO EXPECT IN LAW SCHOOL

ABOUT ME

To know more about me, check out my Youtube channel.

ASTORGA vs. VILLEGAS

FACTS: RA 4065 was passed which amended the Revised Charter of the of the City of Manila and provided for the power, duties and rights of the vice-mayor of the city. It tumns out that the bill which was signed into law contained amendments different form those approved by the Senate, The President of the Philippines after learning of such, had already withdrawn his signature therefrom. This being the case, the Mayor of Manila issued circulars to the various departments of the local govemnment unit to disregard the provisions ofthe said law. thus, the petitioner, then vice-mayor of Manila filed a petition for Mandamus, lnjunction and/or Prohibition with Preliminary Mandatory and Prohibitory Injunction to compel the necessary parties to comply with the law. Respondents alleged, hovever, that the bill never became a law as it was not the bill approved by Senate, and in such a case, the entries in the journal, and not the enrolled bill itself should be the basis for the decision of the Court.

ROSALDES vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 173988, October 8, 2014

FACTS: On February 13, 1996, seven year old Michael Ryan Gonzales, then a Grade 1 pupil at Pughanan Elementary School located in the Municipality of Lambunao, Iloilo, was hurriedly entering his classroom when he accidentally bumped the knee of his teacher, petitioner Felina Rosaldes, who was then asleep on a bamboo sofa. Roused from sleep, petitioner asked Michael Ryan to apologize to her. When Michael did not obey but instead proceeded to his seat, petitioner went to Michael and pinched him on his thigh. Then, she held him up by his armpits and pushed him to the floor. As he fell, Michael Ryan’s body hit a desk. As a result, he lost consciousness. Petitioner proceeded to pick Michael Ryan up by his ears and repeatedly slammed him down on the floor. Michael Ryan cried.

After the incident, petitioner proceeded to teach her class. During lunch break, Michael Ryan, accompanied by two of his classmates, Louella Loredo and Jonalyn Gonzales, went home crying and told his mother about the incident. His mother and his aunt reported the incident to their Barangay Captain, Gonzalo Larroza who advised them to have Michael Ryan examined by a doctor.

Crime charged: violation of Anti-Child Abuse Law (Section 10 (a) of R.A. 7610)

RTC: convicted petitioner of child abuse

CA: affimed the conviction

BONGALON vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013

Not every instance of the laying of hands on a child constitutes the crime of child abuse under Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610. Only when the laying of hands is shown beyond reasonable doubt to be intended by the accused to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child as a human being should it be punished as child abuse. Otherwise, it is punished under the Revised Penal Code.

FACTS: On May 11, 2002, Jayson Dela Cruz (Jayson) and Roldan, his older brother, both minors, joined the evening procession for the Santo Niño at Oro Site in Legazpi City; that when the procession passed in front of the petitioner’s house, the latter’s daughter Mary Ann Rose, also a minor, threw stones at Jayson and called him “sissy”; that the petitioner confronted Jayson and Roldan and called them names like “strangers” and “animals”; that the petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand, and slapped Jayson on the face; that the petitioner then went to the brothers’ house and challenged Rolando dela Cruz, their father, to a fight, but Rolando did not come out of the house to take on the petitioner; that Rolando later brought Jayson to the Legazpi City Police Station and reported the incident; that Jayson also underwent medical treatment at the Bicol Regional Training and Teaching Hospital; that the doctors who examined Jayson issued two medical certificates attesting that Jayson suffered contusions.

Petitioner denied having physically abused or maltreated Jayson. He explained that he only talked with Jayson and Roldan after his minor daughters had told him about Jayson and Roldan’s throwing stones at them and about Jayson’s burning Cherrylyn’s hair. He denied shouting invectives at and challenging Rolando to a fight, insisting that he only told Rolando to restrain his sons from harming his daughters.

Crime charged: child abuse, an act in violation of Section 10(a) of R.A. 7610

RTC: found and declared the petitioner guilty of child abuse as charged

CA: affirmed the conviction, but modified the penalty

PEOPLE vs. GUTIEREZ

G.R. No. 208007 April 2, 2014

FACTS: The victim, AAA, who was then 10 years old and a Grade 2 student at Camp 7 Elementary School in Baguio City testified that on November 29, 2005, she went home from school at around 12 noon to have lunch. On the way home, she met Rodrigo at his house. He brought her to his room and laid her down on the bed. He then raised her skirt and removed her panties. He pulled down his pants and then inserted his penis into her vagina. According to AAA, Rodrigo stayed on top of her for a long time, and when he withdrew his penis, white liquid came out. He then gave her five pesos (P5.00) before she went back to school.

AAA went back to school at about 2:10 p.m. Her adviser, Agustina Chapap, asked her where she came from because she was tardy. AAA initially did not answer. When asked again why she was tardy, AAA admitted she came from “Uncle Rod.” She also admitted that she went there to ask for money. Chapap then brought AAA to Rona Ambaken, AAA’s previous teacher. Together, they brought AAA to the principal’s office. AAA was brought to the comfort room where Ambaken inspected her panties. The principal was able to confirm that AAA was touched since AAA’s private organ was swelling. Her underwear was also wet.

Another teacher, Jason Dalisdis, then brought AAA to Baguio General Hospital where her underwear was again inspected. Dr. Anvic Pascua also examined her. On the way to the hospital, Dalisdis passed by the barangay hall and the police station to report the incident. AAA also disclosed during trial that the accused-appellant had done the same thing to her about 10 times on separate occasions. After each act, he would give her ten (P10.00) or five (P5.00) pesos.

The prosecution also presented Dr. Asuncion Ogues as an expert witness. Dr. Ogues was the superior of Dr. Pascua who examined AAA. Dr. Ogues testified based on the medical certificate issued by the examining physician that there was blunt force penetrating trauma that could have been caused by sexual abuse. She also stated that there was another medico-legal certificate issued by Dr. Carag, surgical resident of the Department of Surgery of Baguio General Hospital, showing findings of some hematoma in AAA’s legs.

Crime charged: statutory rape

RTC: guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape Rodrigo appealed to the Court of Appeals claiming that AAA’s testimony fell short of the requirement of the law on the quantum of evidence required. He argued that she did not cry for help when her family’s house was just nearby, which was cause for reasonable doubt that the trial court failed to appreciate.

CA: affirmed RTC’s decision

IVLER vs. HON. MODESTO

G.R. No. 172716, November 17, 2010

FACTS: Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MeTC), with two separate offenses: (1) reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries for injuries sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Ponce; and (2) reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property for the death of respondent Ponce’s husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle.

Crimes charged: 1) reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries; and 2) reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property

On September 7, 2004, Ivler pleaded guilty to the charge in reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, Ivler moved to quash the Information of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to property for placing him in jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence.

MeTC: denied the motion to quash

RTC: denied Ivler’s Petition for Certiorari in dismissing his Motion to Quash

VALENZUELA vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 160188 June 21, 2007

FACTS: On May 19, 1994, at around 4:30 p.m., petitioner and Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guard who was then manning his post at the open parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing an identification card with the mark “Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU),” hauling a push cart with cases of detergent of the well-known “Tide” brand . Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner then returned inside the supermarket, and after five (5) minutes, emerged with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the open parking space.

Thereafter, petitioner left the parking area and haled a taxi. He boarded the cab and directed it towards the parking space where Calderon was waiting. Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi, then boarded the vehicle . All these acts were eyed by Lago, who proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the open parking area. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise, petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered . The filched items seized from the duo were four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one (1) case of Ultra 25 grams, and three (3) additional cases of detergent, the goods with an aggregate value of P12,090.00.

In arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft , petitioner cites two decisions rendered many years ago by the Court of Appeals: People vs. Diño and People vs. Flores. Both decisions elicit the interest of the Court, as they modified trial court convictions from consummated to frustrated theft and involve a factual milieu that bears similarity to the present case. Petitioner invoked the same rulings in his appeal to the Court of Appeals, yet the appellate court did not expressly consider the import of the rulings when it affirmed the conviction.

SULIMAN vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 190970, November 24, 2014

FACTS: Vilma Suliman and one Luz P. Garcia were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Manila with two (2) counts of illegal recruitment under Section 6, paragraphs (a), (l) and (m) of Republic Act No. 8042, otherwise known as the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995, as well as four (4) counts of estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. Only petitioner was brought to trial as her co-accused, Garcia, eluded arrest and remained at-large despite the issuance of a warrant for her arrest.

PEOPLE vs. BARRA

G.R. No. 198020, July 10, 2013

FACTS: An information was filed against Appellant Joseph Barra charging him of special complex crime of robbery with homicide committed against the victim Elmer Lagdaan. On October 9, 2003 at around 9:00 p.m., one witness stated that he was on his way home when in the light of a bright moon, he saw Barra enter the house of Lagdaan (victim), which was lit with a lamp, and poked a gun to the victim’s right forehead and demanded money. When the victim stated that the money was not in his possession, appellant shot him. The victim died due to massive hemorrhage secondary to gunshot wound. In his defense, Barra (appellant) denied the charges against him arguing that the elements for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide were not proven particularly the element of taking of personal property. Appellant also claimed that he was in Batangas City, with his brother Benjamin, visiting his sister when he was arrested and brought to Camarines Sur.