0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
33 visualizzazioni8 pagine
The document discusses key rights related to property and contracts under the US and Philippine constitutions. It summarizes key cases related to property rights, contract rights, and police power. It also outlines the rights of accused persons during arrest or criminal investigation as defined in the Philippine constitution.
The document discusses key rights related to property and contracts under the US and Philippine constitutions. It summarizes key cases related to property rights, contract rights, and police power. It also outlines the rights of accused persons during arrest or criminal investigation as defined in the Philippine constitution.
The document discusses key rights related to property and contracts under the US and Philippine constitutions. It summarizes key cases related to property rights, contract rights, and police power. It also outlines the rights of accused persons during arrest or criminal investigation as defined in the Philippine constitution.
the protection of property. Capitalist-characterized the US. Unlike other states focus on liberty. In philippines property is the bottom of property.
US made of people gang, persecuted, came with US with nothing. Achieving their dreams, which is the American dream.
When the people form tHE US in mind that they are better country and they have better life.
Property rights can put the same category actually a lesser right, the supreme court also .. in the non-impairment clause. In America iron plot in the constitution the right of property is a condition of non impairment is actually very limited.
Property Contracts-prestation and consideration. The same things that right the whole oida of accumulation of wealth, you can see the contracts how tied up with property
The provision was first found in jone law 2016 a nd every constitution carries the same provision.
NON IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACT
Art. III, Sec. 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed. Civil Code, Art. 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Contract will be higher in general law. Contract cannot over write contractual provisions unless unlawful.
IN the US it subject to general Law cannot affect the provisions to conract. That was old law, apply to people vs pomar,.
In the philippines -contract -consent -general law
the wording seems to be iron plat.
Calalang v Williams Police power supposed to be benefit everone in general. If that is in the consent of the police power where you can revoke or modify the agreement.
Ortigas V CA -contract between ortigas and the buyer. -the annotation at the back of the title is the restriction. -what the lot can be used for -in this case it is used for residential subdivision, it is annotated at the back of the title. The restriction binds not only the buyer but also the subsequent buyer. -the transfers say that they want to build a commercial building. Why? To earn profit. -owner dont want to because it will increase also the tax will increase, there can be traffic, pollution, peace and order. -from a house you will own a condo. -ortigas want to imposed the restrictions. -there is an ordinance? Yes. Not just a local ordinance but it is LAW. -can that overwrite the contract? Yes. -does it impair the CONTRACT? NO/ -did the ordinance expressly impair the contract. -residence. Yes, but with options. -he can choose to maintain it as residence and put up a new building. BUT WHY CANt ORTIGAS AND COMPANY INSIST THAT HELL BE ALLOWED TO BUILD ONLY THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. -police power do regulates and restricts Invariably described as "the most essential, insistent, and illimitable of powers" and "in a sense, the greatest and most powerful attribute of government," the exercise of the power may be judicially inquired into and corrected only if it is capricious, whimsical, unjust or unreasonable, there having been a denial of due process or a violation of any other applicable constitutional guarantee. Police power is elastic and must be responsive to various social conditions; it is not confined within narrow circumscriptions of precedents resting on past conditions; it must follow the legal progress of a democratic way of life. -it will now promote, business along ortigas avenue. -categorized as police power, calalang vs wiliams, hierchy -as to owner, the effect of that, a right to use their property what Is provided for. -the argument is subsequent. The subsequent law is not just a law it classifies police power. -what if the subsequent restriction that they can only use the street for residence, forced out commercial. Ecxcluding restaurant etc only sari-sari store. What is the effect to someone who already put up sari-sari store. Also in Bel-air vs MMDA. -in the similar case also own by the ortigas, they are supposed to be residential. Contextual. The change in environment will back up the police power Will it be disadvantageous or advantageous. It gave another phase to police power. Police power can actually be use to unshuttle the use of the property. Police power was beneficial to the owner of the property. OPOSA V FACTORAN -the one who filed this case is minor. They used their children. Arguing the youths future. An environmental case in behalf of fish. -RTC say case dismiss that it is lack on cause of action went to SC. The court is there is an cause of action in RTC, the dismissal of the case is not proper and there is a cause of action. WHY? There is a cause of action because there is a right. Is there a law? No law. Talking about an agreement. The theory is that it is open only to the parties of contract. The court said that license and not contracts are involved. License is privilege grant in liberality. Is there a consideration? The consideration is the liberality. The privilege can be revoked just like a donation, when they used it the way you dont want to use it. Heirs of the owner want to get the property back. Remanded to trial court. ACESS TO COURT Who can go to court? Any person and property. Our court system is also based on the concept of property. Only those who have property can go to court. The first you do when you go to court is to pay. BUT THE COURT SAYS PAY FIRST. When you go to court you want something a sum of money. You have to say how much you are asking for. The court says. The court is now trying to harmonize in the constitutiom
ACAR V ROSAL Farmers ask for their right. Farmers want to get the money. Only 10 persons filed the case in behalf of 9000 farmers. Court asking for the whole 9000. 1.60 pesos each so court asking for 10k. the court say they can now litigate as pauper. The RTC did not consider them as Pauper because they considered working. SC said that they can be litigate as a Pauper. -they have right. No one can deprive the right. the rule of indigence. File first any amount that will be awarded can be deducted from the award. The court harmonize the two. Pauper-no income at all Indigent-income is not sufficient. RIGHTS IN GENERAL WAS DISCUSSED, now we talk about individual rights of accused. -have you been arrested? Stopped by police? -when does it start? Its starts in the gathering of evidence against you. When there is no warrant when they have initial contact. The form of initial contact is when you ARRESTED? INVITED? INVESTIGATED? WHY? Because the practice in the Philippines not actually arrest you but invite you. Habit of NBI is to invite when you did not come they will file a case against you. CRIMINAL SUBPOENA. CIVIL CASES SUMMONED aside from arrest people are also invited and also investigated. What is the point here? Leads to criminal liability. Once you had contact to the law and lead to criminal liability you are now entitled to rights. In the constitution there are rights which are not inherent. The right of the accused, directly to the people. Constitution rights in general but also provided the rights of the accused. Philippines criminal procedure is merely procedural. RIGHT OF THE PERSON 1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation must be informed in a language known to and understood by him of the reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other warnings, information or communication must be in a language known to and understood by said person; 2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him; 3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of his own choice; 4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer may also be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the court upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf; 5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be informed that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted except in the presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been made; 6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right to communicate or confer by the most expedient means telephone, radio, letter or messenger with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his counsel, or be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or international non- government organization. It shall be the responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished; 7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure that he understood the same; 8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must be informed that it must be done in writing AND in the presence of counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void even if he insist on his waiver and chooses to speak; 9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any manner at any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be questioned with warning that once he makes such indication, the police may not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced, or the interrogation must cease if it has already begun; 10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar him from invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of whether he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements; 11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
Rep. Act No. 7438 AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING, AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF. If one of the violations was violated will it be quashed? NO. only the evidence will be inadmissible.
In form of confession or the sinumpaang salaysay. For an extrajudicial confession to be admissible, it must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary (2) it must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel (3) it must be express (4) it must be in writing PEOPLE VS DEL ROSARIO robbery with homicide. How did the police get the confession? Was he arrested? NO. . four version of truth complainant prosecution court what really happened its an adversarial system-our system. He waives the two party to present their version, that is what we call the judicial truth, according to the court, he asked his brother in law to surrender his self in Subic. His brother in law is a police officer in Subic, the robbery happened in Olongapo. The police did asked Del Rosarion to bring them to the pawnshop were he pawned the jewelry. According to Del Rosario, he was mauled thats why he confessed. The court finding is credible, he said that he was tortured, and he is a relative of a police officer. Upon whom lies the burden that he was totured? To the accused. No evidence that he was tortured. The only evidence is his confession. The prosecution wants to present evidence. People v donato -hearing, who wanted to present evidence? Donato? File a motion to reconsideration, prosecution can present evidence for the purpose of the increase of bail. Not for the right because its his right. Can still file bail its a matter of right. even its a capital offense the burden is still in prosecution The purpose of bail is to ensure to attend the hearing. 3 kinds of bail. 1.cash bond 2. Surety bond 3. property bond (title annotated) if you will not attend the bail will be forfeited.. Paderanga vs CA -mayor paderanga, hospitalized. Get sick RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED -information, warrant of arrest, bail, arraignment PLEA guilty or not guilty, trial. PEOPLE V CALMA Proof beyond reasonable doubt-moral certainty Moral certainty is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evidence leaves the mind of the judge in that condition that he cannot say that he feels an abiding. Trace of evidence- the semen. According to the court theres not even an element, the court requires cannot even meet the element. The slightest penetration is evidence. Two kinds of evidence Testimonial and real evidence. Important to meet the stories to satisfy the court. FLORES Sufficient in form and substance. An accused has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him .sexually abuse error in the information will not quashial the information. Elements of rape. People v murillo PLEA Arraignment In People vs. Pastor, 23 the Court explained that while there is no definite and concrete rule as to how a trial judge must conduct a "searching inquiry", the following guidelines should nevertheless be observed: 1. Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into the custody of the law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations; and (c) under what conditions he was detained and interrogated during the investigations. This is intended to rule out the possibility that the accused has been coerced or placed under a state of duress either by actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent quarters or simply because of the judge's intimidating robes. 2. Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he had conferred with, and completely explained to, the accused the meaning and consequences of a plea of guilty. 3. Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused, such as his age, socio- economic status, and educational background, which may serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilty. 4. Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or nature of the penalty under the law and the certainty that he will serve such sentence. For not infrequently, an accused pleads guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment or upon bad advice or because of promises of the authorities or parties of a lighter penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty of the judge to ensure that the accused does not labor under these mistaken impressions because a plea of guilty carries with it not only the admission of authorship of the crime proper but also of the aggravating circumstances attending it, that increase punishment. cICHTD 5. Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which he is charged and fully explain to him the elements of the crime which is the basis of his indictment. Failure of the court to do so would constitute a violation of his fundamental right to be informed of the precise nature of the accusation against him and a denial of his right to due process. 6. All questions posed to the accused should be in a language known and understood by the latter. 7. The trial judge must satisfy himself that the accused in pleading guilty, is truly guilty. The accused must be required to narrate the tragedy or reenact the crime or furnish its missing details.
The lawyer did not make an effort at all. He never crossed exam. The trial court should have designated another counsel de oficio.
RIVERA The right to cross exam is lost. Even if the substitute lawyer might not