Friday, July 31, 2015

VENUE IN LIBEL CASES:

 Under Article 360 of the RPC, as amended by Republic Act No. 4363, libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is either (1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or (2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. 

          If the private complainant opts for the second, the Information (formal indictment) must specifically state where the libelous article was printed and first published
         
          If the libelous article appears on a website, there is no way of finding out the location of its printing and first publication.

          It is not enough for the complainant to lay the venue where the article was accessed, as this will open the floodgates to the libel suit being filed in all other locations where the website is also accessed or capable of being accessed, and spawn the very ills the amendment sought to prevent.

          Thus, in cases where the libellous article appears on a website, the private complainant has the option to file the case in his/her place of residence, which will not necessitate finding out exactly where the libelous matter was printed and first published.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

LIE DETECTOR TEST (POLYGRAPH):

      A lie detector test is based on the theory that an individual will undergo physiological changes, capable of being monitored by sensors attached to his body, when he is not telling the truth.  The Supreme Court does not put credit and faith on the result of a lie detector test inasmuch as it has not been accepted by the scientific community as an accurate means of ascertaining truth or deception.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

AN ACTING APPOINTEE HAS NO CAUSE OF ACTION TO FILE A PETITION FOR QUO WARRANTO AGAINST THE NEW APPOINTEE:

     Quo warranto is a remedy to try disputes with respect to the title to a public office. Generally, quo warranto proceedings are commenced by the Government as the proper party-plaintiff. However, under Section 5, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, an individual may commence such action if he claims to be entitled to the public office allegedly usurped by another. The Supreme Court stressed that the person instituting the quo warranto proceedings in his own behalf must show that he is entitled to the office in dispute; otherwise, the action may be dismissed at any stage. Emphatically, Section 6, Rule 66 requires the petitioner to  state in  the  petition his right to the public office and the respondent's unlawful possession of the disputed position. As early as 1905, the Court already held that for a petition for quo warranto to be successful, the suing private individual must show a clear right to the contested office. His failure to establish this right warrants the dismissal of the suit for lack of cause of action; it is not even necessary to pass upon the right of the defendant who, by virtue of his appointment, continues in the undisturbed possession of his office. Since the petitioner merely holds an acting appointment (and an expired one at that), he clearly does not have a cause of action to maintain the present petition.

Friday, July 24, 2015

Provisional Remedies:

Provisional remedies are writs and processes available during the pendency of the action which may be resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and interests therein pending rendition, and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the case. They are provisional because they constitute temporary measures availed of during the pendency of the action, and they are ancillary because they are mere incidents in and are dependent upon the result of the main action

           Provisional remedies are not main actions. They are merely ancillary actions attached to the main or general action. They are in aid of the principal action and cannot exist independently of the principal action. The purpose of provisional remedies is to preserve or protect the rights or interests of the parties during the pendency of the principal action.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

WHEN A PRIVATE PROSECUTOR MAY PROSECUTE A CASE EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:

       A private prosecutor may prosecute the criminal action up to the end of the trial even in the absence of the public prosecutor if he authorized to do so in writing. This written authorization shall be given by either the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor. The written authorization in order to be given effect must however, be appointed by the court (Sec. 5, Rule 110, Rules of court; A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC, April 10, 2002 effective May 1, 2002). The written authorization to the private prosecutor shall be given because of either of the following reasons: (a) the public prosecutor has a heavy work load or, (b) there is a lack of private prosecutor (sec. 5, Rule 110, Rules of Court; A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC, April 10, 2002 effective May 1, 2002).