Archive for June, 2011


FORM 0024: AFFIDAVIT OF DISCREPANCY IN SIGNATURES

Filed under: PHILIPPINE LEGAL FORMS — Leave a comment
June 23, 2011

AFFIDAVIT OF DISCREPANCY IN SIGNATURES

(E.G. A KOREAN HAS KOREAN AND ENGLISH NAMES AND SIGNATURES)

 

 

REPUBLIC OF THEPHILIPPINES)

MAKATICITY                              ) S.S

 

 

SWORN STATEMENT

 

I,      KIM PARK, South Korean, born on June 25, 1970,and of legal age, with residence/office address at87 Santol St.,  AyalaAlabangVillage,MuntinlupaCity, after being duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and certify that:

 

1.     _______(write Signature in Korean Script)_________ is my Korean signature and is the specimen that appears in my valid identification cards, while ___write Signature English Script­­­____ is my English signature.

 

2.     Both specimens, as displayed above, are being used by me as my signatures.

 

3.     I execute this Sworn Statement to attest to attest to the truth of the foregoing and in   connection with the Bank’s requirement to present an English signature aside from my Korean signature.

 

 

 

                                                        KIM PARK

                                                           Affiant

 

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this _______ day of  ____________ affiant exhibiting to me his Passport bearing No. _____________ issued on _________________ at __Quezon City_  .

 

 

 

Doc. No.: ________

Page No.: ________

Book No.:________

Series of  ________

 

Comment

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PARENTS

Filed under: TRIVIA — Leave a comment

 

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PARENTS

About Obama’s father

By: Belinda A. Aquino
Philippine Daily Inquirer

8:06 pm | Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

 2share6 3

HONOLULU– A friend of mine inHawaiiwho read my recent commentary onUSPresident Barack Obama’s mother called to say it would be in keeping with the recently observed Father’s Day to write something about his father as well. My friend thinks Barack Obama Sr. has been getting a bum rap in the media as a womanizer, alcoholic, dead-beat father, an arrogant intellectual, and so on. He must have had a story, too.

I agree, and it’s only fair to hear the other side of the narrative.

Fortunately, through the Freedom of Information Act, many heretofore unknown details about the elder Obama have surfaced. After he went to Harvard to do his Ph.D. in economics, he never returned toHawaiito fetch his wife Ann Dunham and their baby Barry, now the president of theUnited States. After he passed his comprehensive exams in Harvard for his Ph.D. in 1964, he requested the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to extend his visa to enable him to finish. And this was where his troubles began.

AP correspondent Bob Salsberg reports that Obama’s request was denied by the INS. He returned to his nativeKenyawithout finishing his doctorate. This must have been painful to him. Of course, his visa was terminated.

Evidently, Harvard had written a memo to the INS expressing concern about the elder Obama’s “personal life and finances.” But this was not the first time the INS was concerned. Back inHawaiiin 1961, when Obama Sr. was still an undergraduate, the INS inHonoluluwas informed that he had married Stanley Ann Dunham, despite the fact that he already had a wife inKenya. Apparently, he had told his adviser at the university that he had divorced his wife inKenya, the same thing he told his future wife Ann, except that he was not telling the truth.

Lying to immigration was punishable then as now. In 1964, the director of Harvard’s international office wrote Obama Sr. that while he had indeed finished the academic requirements for his Ph.D., his department in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences “did not have the money to support him.” The letter added, “We have therefore come to the conclusion that you should terminate your stay in theUnited Statesand return toKenyato carry on your research and the writing of your thesis.”

If you are a foreign student inAmerica, something like this sounds like a death sentence. It is not known whether he appealed the INS decision or not. In any case, he already had a previous record that could be counted against him. He could have consulted a lawyer but either he couldn’t afford one or it didn’t occur to him.

Frustrated and unable to stay in theUS, Obama Sr. returned toKenya. Even if he was allowed a grace period to stay, he probably was not in a financial position to send for his wife and son back inHawaii. In the first place, Ann had already divorced him, compounding his woes.

Back inKenya, he was reported to have married again a third time. Some media reports even talked about a fourth marriage. He worked as a government economist and also for an oil company. His problems with money to support his families must have added to his personal woes.

His personal as well as professional life deteriorated to an alarming degree, affecting his work. One night in 1982 as he was driving home, his car crashed head-on into a tree and he was killed. He was only 46.

His only visit back inHawaiihappened when Barack Jr. was already 10 years old. The latter would eventually write the book “Dreams from My Father,” which became a bestseller shortly before he ran for US president in 2008.

It was a tragic end because the father was one ofKenya’s most promising young intellectuals in the 1960s sent to theUSto prepare themselves for future leadership positions inKenya. He was, according to reports, a very frustrated man, which was perfectly understandable.

Now, about the rumor mills. It appears from facts now known that Obama Sr. did not exactly abandon his wife and son. In those days, as now, once the INS terminated your visit under suspicion of wrongdoing, you had to clear out as soon as you could. To defy the order was to invite deportation. The INS was not very sympathetic to his prolonged stay despite his academic promise. Harvard issued a disclaimer saying it could not find in its files the memo it was supposed to have sent to the INS objecting to Obama Jr.’s request.

As to reports that he was so drunk he drove his car into a tree, we will never know whether these are true or not. In any case, both he and his former wife Ann, had they lived to their 60s and 70s, would have been so thrilled that their little Barry would become president of the US, the first from African-American ranks to achieve this position and status in the world. It is so sad that they had to die so young, which is a reflection of the hard times they lived in.

(A retired professor of political science and Asian studies, Belinda A. Aquino was also the founding director of the Center for Philippine Studies at theUniversityofHawaiiat Manoa.)

====================================

 

Obama’s mother

By: Belinda A. Aquino
Philippine Daily Inquirer

11:13 pm | Saturday, June 11th, 2011

 4share21 10

HONOLULU– The end of a fascinating recently published book has President Barack Obama saying: “It was a sense that beneath our surface differences, we’re all the same, and that there’s more good than bad in each of us. That’s precisely the naivete and idealism that was part of her. And that’s, I suppose, the naive idealism in me.”

Obama was reminiscing about his late mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, in a book written by journalist Janny Scott titled. “A Singular Woman.” It’s a riveting account of a feisty Kansas-born white woman with a curious mix of idealism and pragmatism. Scott interviewed about 200 people who knew Dunham intimately, including President Obama and his half-Indonesian half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng.

Her male first nameStanleyimmediately raises eyebrows. Her mother, Madelyn, was a Bette Davis fan and liked the film in which the actress played a character namedStanley. That was also the name of Ann’s father. But that was only the beginning of an extraordinary life for a girl born in 1942 that would spiral in and out ofKansastoHawaiitoIndonesiaand to many parts of the world. At age 17, she moved toHawaiiwith her parents, enrolled as a freshman at theUniversityofHawaii. And at 18, she married the first African graduate student, Barack Obama Sr., at the university, later giving birth to the future president ofAmerica, who was called Barry as a boy. At that time, interracial marriages were frowned upon or forbidden.

Barack Sr. went to Harvard to get his PhD and was supposed to send for his wife and Barry later. But the soon-to-be absentee husband returned instead to his nativeKenya, where he was already married before he went toHawaii.  In fact, he married again a third time on his return toKenya. It was many years before he saw Ann and Barry again.

Ann, meanwhile, had met another foreign student fromIndonesia, Lolo Soetoro, who was anEast-WestCentergrantee inHawaii.  She married him and joined him in Java, where she gave birth to Maya, who met her half-brother Barry only when he moved toIndonesiato be with the family.

But fate was unkind to the adventurous woman a second time around. Her marriage to Lolo didn’t work out either and they got divorced. It seemed Ann became more Indonesian as Lolo became more American. He worked for an American business firm in Java. Ann, determined to become an anthropologist, struggled to gather lots of field data on Indonesian village industries, like batik-making, to write up as a dissertation. She asked for extensions to finish her PhD and her understanding adviser, anthropology professor Alice Dewey, always obliged, knowing how talented Ann was.

So after two failed marriages with two young children needing care and education, an unfinished dissertation and an uncertain future, Ann immersed herself in work to tide her over. The Ford Foundation hired her and sent her to other places likeIndia,Bangladesh,PakistanandNew York, where she got involved in Women’s World Banking. Ann became an expert in microfinance, long before the term was invented, given her extensive expertise on Indonesian villages.

But her main priorities were Barry and Maya, and her love for them kept her going. She had home-schooled both of them inIndonesia, waking the boy at four in the morning to tutor him in his subjects. He would occasionally complain, but she would always say, “Look, buster, this is no picnic for me either.”

A workaholic, she barely slept, according to some friends. She was also messianic and was determined to help villagers improve their lives, crossing rivers and climbing mountains in remote places.

“She had an unusual ability to adapt,” notes Scott’s book. Despite her frenzied life, she never neglected her children. In 1984, she took Maya on a “grand tour” ofThailand,Bangladesh,IndiaandNepal. She constantly checked on Barry, now called Barack, arranging itineraries for him toHonolulu, to Java, to wherever he was at the time –Los Angeles,Columbiaand Harvard, where he was the first black president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review.

Ann was vainglorious about her “unusually gifted” son. She would continue to send him messages like, “If you want to grow into a human being, you’re going to need some values.” These values were shaped by her Midwestern roots and those of her adopted homeland,Indonesia. They include tolerance, compassion, hard work, discipline and caring for others.

The multiple stresses over her family stretching over oceans, her constant need for adequate financial resources, unfinished dissertation and work-related demands began to take a toll on her. She struggled to finish her dissertation now overdue by 20 years. Her adviser asked her to cut it down and focus on only one village industry. Still it spanned a thousand pages, a record in the annals of dissertation writing anywhere. Meanwhile, her father, Stanley Dunham, who had taken care of Barack in his teens inHawaii, died. Her mother was left alone occasionally taking care of Maya. In 1995, Ann fell ill with what was diagnosed as uterine cancer. Dreading gynecologists, she had ignored increasing signs of pain. Compounding her misery, she was denied disability benefits.

She died at age 52 with Maya and her mother at her side. Barack flew home toHonolulufromChicagowhere he was elected state legislator. In a solemn ceremony, he and Maya went over to their favorite beach on southeastOahuto scatter their mother’s ashes into the sea and wind – and into eternity.

What an incredible life indeed for a woman unlike any other. It was a bittersweet life and what was so sad was that, she didn’t live long enough to see her little boy Barry become the first African-American president of the United States. She would have been so proud!

Retired professor of political Science and Asian Studies, Belinda A. Aquino was also director of the Center for Philippine Studies at theUniversityofHawaiiat Manoa.

 

Comment

IMPORTANT NOTES ON TRIAL TECHNIQUES AND PLEADINGS BASED ON RECENT CASES

Filed under: TIPS FOR TRIAL LAWYERS — Leave a comment

SOME IMPORTANT NOTES ON TRIAL TECHNIQUES AND PLEADINGS

================================================

SOURCE 0003: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. GARRY DE LA CRUZ Y DE LA CRUZ (G.R. NO. 185717, 08 JUNE 2011) SUBJECTS: RA 9165;  BUY BUST OPERATION IN DRUG CASE; CHAIN OF COMMAND. (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. DE LA CRUZ).

 

TRIAL NOTE 0008:  IF YOU APPEAR AS COUNSEL OF ACCUSED,  ONE CHIEF GOAL IS TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE DOUBT THAT ACCUSED COMMITTED THE CRIME. IN YOUR MEMORANDUM, IT MAY BE BEST TO QUOTE THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT PERTINENT TO REASONABLE DOUBT.

 

In fine, We repeat what the Court fittingly held in People v. Ong, a case similarly involving a buy-bust operation, thus:

The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt.  While appellant’s defense engenders suspicion that he probably perpetrated the crime charged, it is not sufficient for a conviction that the evidence establishes a strong suspicion or probability of guilt.   It is the burden of the prosecution to overcome the presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required.

In the case at bar, the basis of acquittal is reasonable doubt, the evidence for the prosecution not being sufficient to sustain and prove the guilt of appellants with moral certainty.  By reasonable doubt is not meant that which of possibility may arise but it is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such an investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.  An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will prosper even though the appellants’ innocence may be doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence of the defense.  Suffice it to say, a slightest doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused.[1][44]

 

TRIAL NOTE 0009: IF YOU ARE HANDLING A DRUG CASE AND YOUR THEORY IS THAT THERE WAS NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE, YOU MAY CITE THE FOLLOWING EXCERPT FROM THE ABOVE SOURCE CASE:

In sum, considering the multifarious irregularities and non-compliance with the chain of custody, We cannot but acquit accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt.  The law demands that only proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt can justify a verdict of guilt.[2][41]  In all criminal prosecutions, without regard to the nature of the defense which the accused may raise, the burden of proof remains at all times upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[3][42]  As the Court often reiterated, it would be better to set free ten men who might probably be guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit.[4][43]

 

 

[1][44] G.R. No. 175940 [Formerly G.R. Nos. 155361-62], February 6, 2008, 544 SCRA 123, 141.

[2][41] People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640, 653.

[3][42] People v. Caiñgat, G.R. No. 137963, February 6, 2002, 376 SCRA 387, 396; citing People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 134309, November 17, 2000, 347 SCRA 109 and People v. Tacipit, G.R. No. 109140  March 8, 1995, 242 SCRA 241.

[4][43] Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009, 598 SCRA 41, 60; citing  People v. Sarap, G.R. No. 132165, March 26, 2003, 399 SCRA 503, 512.

=================================================

=================================================

=================================================

SOURCE 0002: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GONZALO BALDOGO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT (G.R. NO. 128106-07, 24 JANUARY 2003, CALLEJO, SR., J) SUBJECT: MURDER. (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. BALOGO)

 

TRIAL NOTE 0005:

WHY IS THE DECISION OF A TRIAL COURT  ALWAYS AFFIRMED?

BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT HAS THE UNIQUE ADVANTAGE OF MONITORING AND OBSERVING AT CLOSE RANGE THE ATTITUDE, CONDUCT AND DEPORTMENT OF WITNESSES.

In contrast, the trial court has the unique advantage of monitoring and observing at close range the attitude, conduct and deportment of witnesses as they narrate their respective testimonies before said court. 

 

TRIAL NOTE 0006:

IN PLEADINGS, LAWYERS USUALLY CITE THE FACT THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF OBSERVING THE DEMEANOR OF THE WITNESSES IN CONVINCING THE APPELLATE COURT THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT MUST BE UPHELD. IS THERE A “SUAVE”, MORE CONVINCING,  AUTHORITATIVE,  AND POETIC WAY  OF STATING THE ABOVE?

YES. THE FOREIGN DECISION CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE WHICH READS:

To him (THE JUDGE)  appears the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.  The brazen face of the liar, the glibness of the schooled witness in reciting a lesson, or the itching overeagerness of the swift witness, as well as the honest face of the truthful one, are alone seen by him.

………..Echoing a foreign court’s observation, this Court declared:

“Truth does not always stalk boldly forth naked, but modest withal, in a printed abstract in a court of last resort.  She oft hides in nooks and crannies visible only to the mind’s eye of the judge who tries the case.  To him appears the furtive glance, the blush of conscious shame, the hesitation, the sincere or the flippant or sneering tone, the heat, the calmness, the yawn, the sigh, the candor or lack of it, the scant or full realization of the solemnity of an oath, the carriage and mien.  The brazen face of the liar, the glibness of the schooled witness in reciting a lesson, or the itching overeagerness of the swift witness, as well as the honest face of the truthful one, are alone seen by him.”[15] (PEOPLE V. DELOVINO, 247 SCRA 637, 647 (1995).

 

TRIAL NOTE 0007:

ARE  THERE  EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT BE AFFIRMED BECAUSE THE JUDGE IS ABLE TO OBSERVE THE DEMEANOR OF THE WITNESSES?

YES. THE EXCEPTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

(A) WHEN PATENT INCONSISTENCIES IN THE STATEMENTS OF WITNESSES ARE IGNORED BY THE TRIAL COURT; 

(B) WHEN THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT ARE CLEARLY UNSUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE;  AND

(C) WHEN THE TRIAL COURT IGNORED, MISUNDERSTOOD, MISINTERPRETED AND/OR MISCONSTRUED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF SUBSTANCE WHICH, IF CONSIDERED, WILL ALTER THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE

The rule, however, is not iron clad.  This Court has enumerated exceptions thereto, namely:  (a) when patent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses are ignored by the trial court;  (b) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence;  (c) when the trial court ignored, misunderstood, misinterpreted and/or misconstrued facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, will alter the outcome of the case.[16]  In this case, the trial court found the youthful Julie credible and her testimony entitled to full probative weight.  Accused-appellant has not sufficiently demonstrated to this Court the application of any of the aforestated exceptions.

=========================================================

=========================================================

=========================================================

SOURCE 0001: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSE PEPITO D. COMBATE a.k.a. “PEPING” (G.R. NO. 189301, 15 DECEMBER 2010) SUBJECTS:  FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT RESPECTED; INCONSISTENCIES IN TESTIMONY;

 

TRIAL NOTE 0001:

DO WELL AT THE TRIAL COURT BECAUSE THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT ARE ENTITLED TO GREAT WEIGHT.

Time-tested is the doctrine that the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of a witness is entitled to great weight, sometimes even with finality.[1][7] The Supreme Court will not interfere with that assessment, absent any indication that the lower court has overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion.[2][8]

 

TRIAL NOTE 0002:

 MINOR AND INSIGNIFICANT INCONSISTENCIES IN THE TESTIMONY BOLSTER CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES.

Complementing the above doctrine is the equally established rule that minor and insignificant inconsistencies in the testimony tend to bolster, rather than weaken, the credibility of witnesses, for they show that the testimony is not contrived or rehearsed.[3][9] As the Court put it in People v. Cristobal, “Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.”[4][10]

 

TRIAL NOTE 0003:

TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Moreover, the testimony of a witness must be considered in its entirety and not merely on its truncated parts. The technique in deciphering a testimony is not to consider only its isolated parts and anchor a conclusion on the basis of said parts. In ascertaining the facts established by witnesses, everything stated by them on direct, cross, and redirect examinations must be calibrated and considered.[5][11] It must be stressed in this regard that facts imperfectly or erroneously stated in an answer to one question may be supplied or explained as qualified by the answer to other question. The principle falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not strictly applied to this jurisdiction.[6][12] As explained in People v. Osias:

It is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts. And it has been aptly said that even when witnesses are found to have deliberately falsified in some material particulars, it is not required that the whole of their uncorroborated testimony be rejected but such portions thereof deemed worthy of belief may be credited.

The primordial consideration is that the witness was present at the scene of the crime and that he positively identified [the accused] as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged x x x.[7][13] (Emphasis supplied.)

 

TRIAL NOTE 0004:

POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION PREVAILS OVER DEFENSE OF DENIAL

Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the defense of denial.[8][17]Accused-appellant was positively and categorically identified by the witnesses. They have no reason to perjure and accused-appellant was unable to prove that the prosecution witnesses were moved by any consideration other than to see that justice is done. Thus, the presumption that their testimonies were not moved by any ill will and bias stands, and, therefore, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.[9][18]

[1][7] People v. Sagun, February 19, 1999, 303 SCRA 382; People v. Villanueva, January 29, 1999, 302 SCRA 380.

[2][8] People v. Gado, 358 Phil. 956 (1998).

[3][9] People v. Sagun, supra note 7, at 397.

[4][10] People v. Cristobal, G.R. No. 116279, January 29, 1996, 252 SCRA 507, 517.

[5][11] Leyson v. Lawa, G.R. No. 150756, October 11, 2006, 504 SCRA 147.

[6][12] People v. Montemayor, 452 Phil. 283, 300 (2003).

[7][13] G.R. No. 88872, July 25, 1991, 199 SCRA 574.

[8][17] People v. Padilla, G.R. No. 167955, September 30, 2009, 601 SCRA 385.

[9][18] People v. Quilang, G.R. Nos. 123265-66, August 12, 1999, 312 SCRA 314.

Comment