Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Perez, J.:
FACTS:
The petitioner on her answer contends that the burden on proving that
she does not possess natural-born status was on the private respondent. She
alleged that she re-established her domicile in the Philippines as early as
May 24, 2005; that she could re-establish even before she reacquired
natural-born citizenship under RA 9225, and the statement regarding the
period of residence in her 2012 COC for Senator was an honest mistake, not
binding and should give way to evidence on her true date of reacquisition of
domicile.
The COMELEC 2nd division cancelled the COC of the petitioner. On her
motion for reconsideration, the COMELEC En Banc denied it.
ISSUE:
HELD:
No. The supreme court ruled in favour of the petitioner, stating that
based on the official statistics from the Philippines Statistics Authority, the
probability of the petitioner being a Filipino Citizen is high. Furthermore, the
private respondent failed to have shown that her parents were aliens. Her
admission that she is a foundling did not shift the burden on her because
such status did not exclude the possibility that her parents were Filipinos
especially in this case where there is a high probability if not certainty that
her parents are Filipino.
Despite of the fact that the jus sanguinis is followed in our country
where a persons nationality at birth is the same as that of his natural
parents, the supreme court adopted the legal principles from Hague
Convention Statelessness. Stating further that it is rational and reasonable
and consistent with the sanguinis regime in our constitution.
In the case of Bengson III vs HRET, it was ruled by the Supreme Court
that a natural born citizen did not have to undergo the process of
naturalization to obtain Philippine Citizenship. This principle, however was
reversed in the instant case.
People vs Suplito
Mendoza, J.:
FACTS:
On appeal, the accused-appellant alleged that his counsel was not able
to cross-examine prosecution witness which, as a result, deprived him of the
opportunity to interpose, through counsel, timely objections to the questions
propounded to the witness during her direct examination and to cross
examine her immediately thereafter.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the contention of the accused is tenable.
HELD:
No. In the case at bar, the counsel for accused appellant arrived in the
middle of the cross examination and manifested that he would conduct his
cross-examination and asked for a copy of the transcript of stenographic
notes so that he could conduct his cross examination.