PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

Governor Gavin Newsom imposed a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty in California on Wednesday, granting a reprieve to 737 condemned inmates -- the largest death row population in the United States. "The death penalty has been an abject failure. It discriminates based on the color of your skin or how much money you make," he told a news conference. "It's ineffective, irreversible, and immoral." "It goes against the very values that we stand for -- which is why California is putting a stop to this failed system." Newsom, a Democrat who took office in January, has been a staunch opponent of the death penalty, last carried out in California in 2006. In a tweet, President Donald Trump denounced the decision as a slap in the face for victims and their families. "Defying voters, the Governor of California will halt all death penalty executions of 737 stone cold killers," he said. "Friends and families of the always forgo

In a further attempt to show compelling reasons, the proponents of the death penalty argue that its reimposition "would pose as an effective deterrent against heinous crimes."  HOWEVER, NO STATISTICAL DATA, NO SUFFICIENT PROOF, EMPIRICAL OR OTHERWISE, HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO SHOW WITH ANY CONCLUSIVENESS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PRESCRIPTION OF THE DEATH PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AND THE COMMISSION OR NON-COMMISSION THEREOF. This is a theory that can be debated on and on, in the same manner that another proposition — that the REAL DETERRENT  to crime is the certainty of immediate arrest, prosecution and conviction of the culprit without unnecessary risk, expense and inconvenience to the victim, his heirs or his witnesses — can be argued indefinitely. This debate can last till the academics grow weary of the spoken word, but it would not lessen the constitutionally-imposed burden of Congress to act within the "heinousness" and "compelling reasons" li

Under Article 2220 of the Civil Code, moral damages may be awarded in case of breach of contract where the breach is due to fraud or bad faith: Art. 2220. Willful injury to property may be a legal ground for awarding moral damages if the court should find that, under the circumstances, such damages are justly due. The same rule applies to breaches of contract where the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Moral damages are not awarded as a matter of right but only after the party claiming it proved that the breach was due to fraud or bad faith. Moral damages are not recoverable simply because a contract has been breached. They are recoverable only if the party from whom it is claimed acted fraudulently or in bad faith or in wanton disregard of his contractual obligations. The breach must be wanton, reckless, malicious or in bad faith, and oppressive or abusive. Further, the following requisites must be proven for the recovery of moral damages: [1] There must be an INJUR

WASHINGTON POST:  An Italian appeals court — a panel of three female jurists — acquitted two men of rape in 2017, in part because the judges agreed with the defendants’ argument that the victim LOOKED LIKE A MAN and therefore they COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ATTRACTED  to her. Now that ruling has been overturned and a retrial has been ordered. The reasoning behind the appeals court’s ruling, revealed Friday through the Italian Supreme Court’s retrial order, triggered outrage over the weekend. Hundreds of people on Monday protested outside the appeals court in Ancona, the city of 100,000 on Italy’s Adriatic coast, where the alleged rape occurred. The case dates to 2015, when a 22-year-old woman reported that she had been attacked. Her injuries were, according to doctors, consistent with rape, and that her blood showed a high level of benzodiazepines, a type of tranquilizer, seemingly backing up her lawyer’s claim that her drinks had been spiked at a bar after an evening class. In 2016

A person has no obligation to pay for the debts of his stepfather. (Nacar v. Nistal G.R. No. L-33006, December 8, 1982)  ChanRobles Virtual Law Library gives the following synopsis of the case: To recover a sum of money, respondent Japitana filed a complaint entitled, "Claim against the Estate of the Late Isabelo Nacar with Preliminary Attachment" against the petitioner before the Municipal Court of Esperanza, Agusan del Sur. On the basis of the said complaint, the provincial sheriff was ordered to attach seven (7) heads of cattle in possession of the petitioner, although actually only four (4) carabaos were attached. Claiming ownership of the attached carabaos, Antonio Doloricon filed a complaint in intervention. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss, to dissolve writ of attachment and to order the return of the seized carabaos, was, upon opposition of the private respondent, denied by the respondent court. Hence, the instant recourse. Upon posting a P1,000.00 bond, a preliminar

NARCISO BUENAVENTURA and MARIA BUENAVENTURA, Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MANOTOK REALTY, INC. Respondents. (G.R. No. 50837. December 28, 1992) SUMMARY BY PARAS (2008):  The defense of laches applies independently of prescription. Laches is different from the statute of limitations. Prescription is concerned with the fact of delay, whereas laches is concerned with the effect of delay. Prescription is a matter of time; laches is principally a question of inequity of permitting a claim to be enforced, this inequity being founded on the same change in the condition of the property or the relation of the parties. Prescription is statutory; laches is not. Laches applies in equity, whereas prescription applies at law. Prescription is based on fi xed time; laches is not. CASE: Before Us is a petition for review on certiorari of a Decision of the Special Former Ninth Division of the Court of Appeals rendered on February 19, 1979, in CA-G.R. No. 08249-SP (Reyes, Sundiam [P], a

MELITON GALLARDO and TERESA VILLANUEVA, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, MARTA VILLANUEVA VDA. DE AGANA, VISITACION AGANA KIPPING, PEDRO V. AGANA, MARCELO V. AGANA, JR., TERESITA AGANA SANTOS and JESUS V. AGANA, respondents. (G.R. No. 67742. October 29, 1987) SUMMARY BY PARAS (2008):  In determining whether a delay in seeking to enforce a right constitutes laches, the existence of a confidential relationship between the parties is an important circumstance for consideration. A delay under such circumstance is not as strictly regarded as where the parties are strangers to each other. The doctrine of laches is not strictly applied between near relatives, and the fact that parties are connected by ties of blood or marriage tends to excuse an otherwise unreasonable delay. CASE:  This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside or reverse the decision * of the Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) promulgated on May 22, 1984 in AC-G.

MANUELA GREY ALBA, ET AL., Petitioners-Appellants, v. ANACLETO R. DE LA CRUZ, objector-appellee. (G.R. No. L-5246. September 16, 1910) These petitioners, Manuela, Jose, Juan, and Francisco, surnamed Grey y Alba, are the only heirs of Dona Seguna Alba Clemente and Honorato Grey, deceased. Remedios Grey y Alba, a sister of the petitioners, was married on the 21st day of march, 1903, to Vicente Reyes and died on the 13th of July, 1905, without leaving any heirs except her husband. The four petitioners, as coowners, sought to have registered the following-described property: "A parcel of land situated in the barrio of Talampas, municipality of Baliuag, Province of Bulacan, upon which are situated three houses and one camarin of light material, having a superficial area of 52 hectares, 51 ares, and 22 centares; bounded on the north by the highway (calzada) of Talampas and the lands of Rita Ruiz Mateo; on the east by the lands of the said Rita Ruiz Mateo, Hermenegildo Prado, Poli

More often than not, where the alleged victim survives to tell her story of sexual· depredation, rape cases are solely decided based on the credibility of the testimony of the private complainant. In doing so, we have hinged on the impression that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she has been sexually abused, unless that is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. However, this misconception, particularly in this day and age, not only puts the accused at an unfair disadvantage, but creates a travesty of justice. The "women's honor" doctrine surfaced in our jurisprudence sometime in 1960. In the case of People v. Tana, the Court affirmed the conviction of three (3) armed robbers who took turns raping a person named Herminigilda Domingo. The Court, speaking through Justice Alejo Labrador, said: It is a well-known fact that women, especially Filipinos, would not admit that they have been abused unless that abuse had

FACTS OF THE CASE: HUSBAND and WIFE died without leaving a will but leaving two children, XXX and YYY. XXX administered the property until her death on February 15, 1955. The children of YYY, were given their shares of the fruits of the property, though irregular and at times little, depending on the amount of the harvest. On April 23, 1963, the children of YYY sent a letter of demand to the heirs of XXX for partition, and on June 14, 1963, or within a period of approximately 8 years from X’s death, filed their complaint against X’s heirs. ISSUE: Are the children of YYY barred by laches or prescription? HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT: The children of YYY CANNOT  be held guilty of laches, nor is their claim barred by prescription. They were NOT  guilty of negligence nor did they sleep on their rights. Prescription generally does not run in favor of a co-heir or co-owner as long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. While implied or constructive trust prescribes in 1