PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance .[1] The following are the minimum documentary requirements for bail:[2] A. Cash Bail Certified True Copy or Official Court Copy of the Information; Four (4) sets of the accused’s picture showing his/her front, left and right profiles, with the name and signature of the accused at the back of each picture; Accused’s left and right handprints; Barangay Certification intended for bail purposes, reflecting accused’s real name and residence; Location plan or house sketch of the accused as certified by the barangay; In case the accused is detained, Certificate of Detention showing the name, designation and signature of the personnel authorized to issue the said certificate where accused is

@projectjuris ELEMENTS OF OBLIGATION WITH DADA Know what are the elements of obligation to help you in your study of Obligations Law. #law #obliconlectures #philippinelaws #lawyer #projectjurisprudence #lawschool #obliconph ♬ original sound - Project Jurisprudence

@projectjuris FOUR-FOLD TEST IN LABOR LAW WITH DADA Know the basics of the Four-Fold Test in your study of Labor Law. #law #laborlawsph #philippinelaws #lawyer #projectjurisprudence #lawschool ♬ original sound - Project Jurisprudence

Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) states: ART. 293. Who are Guilty of Robbery.- Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery. To warrant a conviction of the crime of Robbery, the following elements must concur: 1) there is a taking of personal property ; 2) the personal property belongs to another ; 3) the taking is with animus lucrandi or intent to gain ; and 4) the taking is with violence against or intimidation of persons or with force upon things. [1] In Consulta v. People,[2] the Supreme Court held that animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act which can be established through the overt acts of the offender. The offender's intent to gain may be presumed from the forcible taking of useful property pertaining to another, unless special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrato

"Nunc pro tunc" is a Latin phrase that means "now for then." [1] A judgment nunc pro tunc is made to enter into the record an act previously done by the court, which had been omitted either through inadvertence or mistake.[2] It neither operates to correct judicial errors nor to "supply omitted action by the court."[3] Its sole purpose is to make a present record of a "judicial action which has been actually taken." [4] The concept of nunc pro tunc judgments was sufficiently explained in Lichauco v. Tan Pho,[5] thus: [A judgment nunc pro tunc] may be used to make the record speak the truth, but not to make it speak what it did not speak but ought to have spoken. If the court has not rendered a judgment that it might or should have rendered, or if it has rendered an imperfect or improper judgment, it has no power to remedy these errors or omissions by ordering the entry nunc pro tunc of a proper judgment. Hence a court in entering a judgment nunc

A judgment that lapses into finality becomes immutable and unalterable. It can neither be modified nor disturbed by courts in any manner even if the purpose of the modification is to correct perceived errors of fact or law. Parties cannot circumvent this principle by assailing the execution of the judgment. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.[1] A final and executory judgment produces certain effects. Winning litigants are entitled to the satisfaction of the judgment through a writ of execution. On the other hand, courts are barred from modifying the rights and obligations of the parties, which had been adjudicated upon. They have the ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution to enforce the judgment. [2] The rationale behind the rule was further explained in Social Security System v. Isip,[3] thus: The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally

When a judgment attains finality, it becomes immutable and unalterable, resisting even correction due to perceived errors of law or fact. Execution of the judgment becomes a matter of course. In Mercury Drug Corp. v. Spouses Huang:[1] A final and executory judgment produces certain effects. Winning litigants are entitled to the satisfaction of the judgment through a writ of execution. On the other hand, courts are barred from modifying the rights and obligations of the parties, which had been adjudicated upon. They have the ministerial duty to issue a writ of execution to enforce the judgment. It is a fundamental principle that a judgment that lapses into finality becomes immutable and unalterable. The primary consequence of this principle is that the judgment may no longer be modified or amended by any court in any manner even if the purpose of the modification or amendment is to correct perceived errors of law or fact . This principle known as the doctrine of immutability of judgm

Part of the constitutional rights guaranteed to an accused in a criminal case is to be informed of the nature and cause of the charge against him . Correlatively, the State has the obligation to sufficiently allege the circumstances constituting the elements of the crime. Thus, the Information must correctly reflect the charge against the accused before any conviction may be made.[1] In People v. Solar,[2] the Supreme Court made a pronouncement that in a criminal Information, the State must specify in detail the crime and any circumstance that may qualify the crime or aggravate an accused's liability. Hence, it is no longer sufficient to merely allege the qualifying circumstances of "treachery" or "evident premeditation" without including supporting factual averments. The prosecution must now include in the Information the specific acts and circumstances constituting the attendant circumstances in the crime committed.