BY THE VERY WORDS OF RULE 15, SECTION 4 OF THE RULES OF COURT, THE MOVING PARTY IS REQUIRED TO SERVE MOTIONS IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO ENSURE THE RECEIPT THEREOF BY THE OTHER PARTY AT LEAST THREE DAYS BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. The purpose of the rule is to prevent a surprise and to afford the adverse party a chance to be heard before the motion is resolved by the trial court. Plainly, the rule does not require that the court receive the notice three days prior to the hearing date. (Republic vs. Diaz-Enriquez ).
Friday, February 12, 2016
Thursday, February 11, 2016
“[U]NDER THE DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL, AN ADMISSION OR REPRESENTATION IS RENDERED CONCLUSIVE UPON THE PERSON MAKING IT, AND CANNOT BE DENIED OR DISPROVED AS AGAINST THE PERSON RELYING THEREON. A party may not go back on his own acts and representations to the prejudice of the other party who relied upon them. In the law of evidence, whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing [to be] true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission, be permitted to falsify it.” (SPOUSES MANZANILLA VS. WATERFIELDS INDUSTRIES CORPORATION ).
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 6:40 PM
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
AN ADMISSION, VERBAL OR WRITTEN, MADE BY A PARTY IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAME CASE DOES NOT REQUIRE PROOF:
It may be made: (a) in the pleadings filed by the parties; (b) in the course of the trial either by verbal or written manifestations or stipulations; or (c) in other stages of judicial proceedings, as in the pre-trial of the case. When made in the same case in which it is offered, “no evidence is needed to prove the same and it cannot be contradicted unless it is shown to have been made through palpable mistake or when no such admission was made.” The admission becomes conclusive on him, and all proofs submitted contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith should be ignored, whether an objection is interposed by the adverse party or not. (Republic vs. Estate of Hans Menzi ).
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 1:42 PM
Friday, February 5, 2016
“[U]nder Section 6, the Information is sufficient if it contains the full name of the accused, the designation of the offense given by the statute, the acts or omissions constituting the offense, the name of the offended party, the approximate date, and the place of the offense.” The rule is that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the Information in order not to violate the accused’s constitutional right to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. However, accused never claimed that he was deprived of his right to be fully apprised of the nature of the charges against him due to the insufficiency of the Information.Also an Information which lacks essential allegations may still sustain a conviction when the accused fails to object to its sufficiency during the trial, and the deficiency was cured by competent evidence presented therein.” (PEOPLE VS. ASILAN ).
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 8:26 PM
Thursday, February 4, 2016
ARREST IS THE TAKING OF A PERSON INTO CUSTODY THAT HE MAY BE BOUND TO ANSWER FOR THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE:
An arrest is effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by his voluntary submission to the custody of the person making the arrest. (SANCHEZ VS. PEOPLE ).
Posted by Christian G. Villasis at 12:46 PM