APPEALS IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS:

     The 48-hour appeal period in habeas corpus demonstrates the adequacy of such remedy in that no unnecessary time will be wasted before the decision will be re-evaluated.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

CLERICAL ERROR:

    No intent or the part of the lawmakers to remove the authority of the trial courts to make judicial corrections of entries in the civil registry. It can thus be concluded that the local civil registrar has primary, not exclusive, jurisdiction over such petitions for correction of clerical errors and change of first name or nickname, with R.A. No. 9048 prescribing the procedure that the petitioner and local civil registrar should follow. Since R.A. No. 9048 refers specifically to the administrative summary proceeding before the local civil registrar it would be inappropriate to apply the same procedure to petitions for the correction of entries in the civil registry before the courts.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

ARREST IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO:

         For this type of warrantless arrest to be valid, two requisites must concur:

      "(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and,

          (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer."

        A common example of an arrest in flagrante delicto is one made after conducting a buy-bust operation.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

RECANTATION OF TESTIMONY:

     The recantation of private complainants are insufficient to warrant the reversal of accused’s conviction. Recantations are frowned upon by the courts. A recantation of a testimony is exceedingly unreliable, for there is always the probability that such recantation may later on be itself repudiated. Courts look with disfavor upon retractions, because they can easily be obtained from witnesses through intimidation or for monetary consideration. It is also a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimony solemnly taken before courts of justice simply because the witness who gave it later changed his mind for one reason or another. This will make a mockery of solemn trials and put the investigation of crimes at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl

DEAF-MUTE WITNESS:

     A deaf-mute is not incompetent as a witness. All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.  Deaf-mutes are competent witnesses where they (1) can understand and appreciate the sanctity of an oath; (2) can comprehend facts they are going to testify on; and (3) can communicate their ideas through a qualified interpreter. (People vs. Hayag, 101 SCRA 67). Thus, in People vs. De Leon, 50 Phil. 539 and People vs. Sasota, 52 Phil. 281, the accused was convicted on the basis of the testimony of a deaf-mute.  Although in People vs. Bustos, 51 Phil 389, the testimony of a deaf-mute was rejected, this was because there were times during his testimony that the interpreter could not make out what the witness meant by the signs she used.

https://www.facebook.com/mvplawoffice?ref=hl