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 nationwide entrance exam for aspiring law students underwent scrutiny before the Supreme Court on Tuesday during oral arguments on petitions seeking to invalidate the Philippine Law School Admission Test (PhiLSAT) and the law creating the body behind it. PhiLSAT is a standardized national qualifying examination administered by the Legal Educational Board (LEB) to measure the academic potential of a student seeking to study the law. xxx Two groups had filed separate petitions questioning RA 7662 and the LEB issuances imposing PhiLSAT before the high court: one group of lawyers, law professors, and students led by retired Makati regional trial court Judge Oscar Pimentel and another group of students from the Visayas who either failed to pass PhiLSAT or failed to take it. Petitioners said PhiLSAT hindered aspiring law students from enrolling in law schools because of the steep exam fee of P1,500 and the limited locations of testing centers. They also cited low passing ra

According to Aquino (2005), citing 6 Reyes and Puno 157 as primary authority, the Philippines has a broad concept of torts, so much so that it includes civil liability arising from criminal liability, and our laws include the following torts which are also considered so in other jurisdictions such as in the United States: [1] Defamation. This is also covered by our penal laws on libel and slander; [2] Fraud. This is also be covered by our penal laws on estafa; [3] Physical injuries. This is also covered by our penal laws on physical injuries, murder, homicide and others; [4] Violation of constitutional rights. Certain constitutional rights are also protected by the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) such as the law on arbitrary detention and, among others, Republic Act (RA) No. 7438; [5] Negligence. Reckless imprudence, if resulting in homicide, damage to property or physical injuries, is also a crime under Article 365 of the Penal Code; [6] Interference with contractual relatio

Azucena (2013) reports that, when the Labor Code was issued in 1974, Blas F. Ople, then Minister of Labor of President Marcos, explained that there are seven innovative principles that spread throughout the entire composition of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 442 , otherwise known as the Labor Code of the Philippines, namely: national development; strikes and lockouts; speedy labor justice; bargaining power; employment and unemployment; enforcement and implementation; and, tripartism. [1] NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. Labor relations must be made both responsive and responsible to national development. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare. The State also recognizes the indispensable role of the private sector, encourages private enterprise, and provides incentives to needed investments. In a case, the Supreme Court took the opportunity to reaffirm its concern for the lowly worker who, often at the mer

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

Below are three distinctions between a contract of deposit and a contract of mutuum. It must be noted that mutuum is a kind of loan while deposit is a special kind of lease of service. [1] PURPOSE. In deposit, the principal purpose is safekeeping or mere custody, while in mutuum, the consumption of the subject matter. In deposit, the depositor delivers to the depositary a thing and the latter has to keep it safe and return upon the former's demand. The thing cannot be consumed or used, whether it be personal or real property. Even if the thing bailed is perishable, there can be no reason for the bailee to consume or use it. In mutuum, the creditor delivers to the debtor a thing which is money or any other consumable thing. The debtor has no obligation to give the same thing as long as a thing of the equal value or nature is returned. The credit knows that the debtor will use the thing (especially money) and this is actually the motive of the debtor in entering into the cont

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.