Friday, April 24, 2015

PHOTOGRAPHS:

     According to American courts, photographs are admissible in evidence in motor vehicle accident cases when they appear to have been accurately taken and are proved to be a faithful and clear representation of the subject, which cannot itself be produced, and are of such nature as to throw light upon a disputed point. Before a photograph may be admitted in evidence, however, its accuracy or correctness must be proved, and it must be authenticated or verified first.

Thursday, April 23, 2015

ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF PRESUPPOSES THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO ACTUAL BREACH OF THE INSTRUMENTS INVOLVED OR OF RIGHTS ARISING THEREUNDER:

    An action for declaratory relief presupposes that there has been no actual breach of the instruments involved or of rights arising thereunder. Since the purpose of an action for declaratory relief is to secure an authoritative statement of the rights and obligations of the parties under a statute, deed, or contract for their guidance in the enforcement thereof, or compliance therewith, and not to settle issues arising from an alleged breach thereof, it may be entertained only before the breach or violation of the statute, deed, or contract to which it refers. Where the law or contract has already been contravened prior to the filing of an action for declaratory relief, the courts can no longer assume jurisdiction over the action. In other words, a court has no more jurisdiction over an action for declaratory relief if its subject has already been infringed or transgressed before the institution of the action.

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

CONFESSIONS TO THE MEDIA:

       The accused’s confessions to the media can be properly admitted. The confessions made in response to questions by news reporters, not by the police or any other investigating officer are admissible. The Supreme Court has held that statements spontaneously made by a suspect to news reporters on a televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. Appellant argues, however, that the questions posed to him by the radio broadcaster were vague for the latter did not specify what crime was being referred to when he questioned appellant. But, as the appellate court posited, appellant should have qualified his answer during the interview if indeed there was a need. Besides, he had the opportunity to clarify his answer to the interview during the trial. But, as stated earlier, he opted not to take the witness stand. (People vs. Hipona [2010]).

Tuesday, April 21, 2015

ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS:

     The obvious effect of Republic Act 9048 is merely to make possible the administrative correction of clerical or typographical errors or change of first name or nickname in entries in the civil register, leaving to Rule 108 the correction of substantial changes in the civil registry in appropriate adversarial proceedings.

Monday, April 20, 2015

INDISPENSABLE PARTIES:

     WHERE THE EJECTMENT SUIT IS BROUGHT BY A CO-OWNER, WITHOUT REPUDIATING THE CO-OWNERSHIP, THEN THE SUIT IS PRESUMED TO BE FILED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE OTHER CO-OWNERS AND MAY PROCEED WITHOUT IMPLEADING THE OTHER CO-OWNERS.  THE OTHER CO-OWNERS ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS INDISPENSABLE PARTIES TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE CASE. ON THE OTHER HAND, WHERE THE CO-OWNER REPUDIATES THE CO-OWNERSHIP BY CLAIMING SOLE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY OR WHERE THE SUIT IS BROUGHT AGAINST A CO-OWNER, HIS CO-OWNERS ARE INDISPENSABLE PARTIES AND MUST BE IMPLEADED AS PARTY-DEFENDANTS, AS THE SUIT AFFECTS THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF THESE OTHER CO-OWNERS.