Archive for March, 2012


TRIVIA 0036: HOW TO LOOK AND FEEL YOUNGER.

Filed under: Uncategorized — Leave a comment
March 29, 2012

 

 

TRIVIA 0036: HOW TO LOOK AND FEEL YOUNGER.

Look And Feel Younger

By Yahoo! Special Projects | Fabulous Mom – Tue, Mar 27, 2012 2:45 PM PHT

Top 6 wise moves to fight the aging process

 

Many of us are looking for ways to stay young and although you can’t stop the clock, you can fight the signs of aging and the aging process with a few wise moves. Aside from good skincare habits, maintaining an active lifestyle, and reducing calorie intake, the following tips will help you to look and feel younger for longer.

1. Use your brain

Although the brain isn’t a muscle, the old ‘use it or lose it’ adage still applies. Brain scans show that when people use their brains in unaccustomed ways, more blood flows into different areas of the brain, and new neural pathways form.

In a study in the journal Nature in 2004, young people were taught how to juggle. After three months, MRI scans showed enlargement of the grey matter in their brains—the part responsible for higher mental functions. When the participants in the study stopped juggling, their brains shrank again, suggesting that we need to keep our brains engaged to maintain mental agility and function. So, whether it’s a crossword puzzle, Sudoku, or a university degree, trying giving your brain a challenge every day and you’ll be more likely to keep your marbles!

Also, another study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that more frequent participation in mentally stimulating activities can lead to a reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease.

2. Be sociable

According toUSgovernment research, social isolation is a predictor of declining mental function in older age. Experts believe this may be down to not using a wide variety of communication skills.

Research shows that people who are part of a group—whether it’s a church or a book club—are healthier than solitary people when they are older, and that the wider the range of relationships (family, friends, work and so on) a person has, the less cognitive decline they will experience with aging. So, as well as tackling the crossword puzzle on your lonesome, make time in your life for shared activities—and ensure you spend time with as wide a range of people as possible.

3. Increase your intake of antioxidants

As we age, levels of harmful free radical levels rise, while the body’s production of antioxidants —the compounds which can ‘mop up’ free radicals—declines.

According to studies at the Human Nutrition Research Centre on Aging atTuftsUniversityinBoston, antioxidant-rich foods may slow aging processes in the body and brain. Researchers found that foods such as blueberries and spinach could increase the antioxidant power of human blood by 10 to 25 per cent—so try eating more of these.

The antioxidant vitamins A, C and E play a major role in protecting the body against free radicals, so aim not only to get your five-a-day, but also ensure that you take in a wide variety of fruit and veggies, especially those of strong color. Vitamin A in particular helps to keep the skin strong and healthy, which we get in our diet from foods rich in beta-carotene. Carrots are the obvious choice—but sweet potato, pumpkin and melon are also good sources.

4. Have more sex

It’s official: getting active between the sheets can help keep you youthful. Sex enhances emotional intimacy, relaxes us, decreases stress, and makes us feel great.

A study conducted by Psychology Today magazine found that the more active and satisfying a person’s sex life is, the fitter and healthier they tend to be. For example, athletes who were still competing in sport in their sixties had sex lives comparable to those 20 years younger. And it wasn’t just big talk—the researchers interviewed their spouses for verification!

Also, in his book Real Age, Michael Roizen reported that women who are unsatisfied with the quality or quantity of their sexual relationships have a life expectancy half a year less than is average for their age, while women who are satisfied with both the quality and quantity have a life expectancy one and a half years longer than average. For men, having fewer than five orgasms a year shortens life expectancy by two and a half years, while a man having more than 300 orgasms a year will add three years to his life expectancy.

5. Believe in yourself

As well as being physically, mentally and socially active, people who reach old age have a high level of what’s called ‘self efficacy’. Self efficacy is a blend of self belief and confidence, and studies show that it is a major distinguishing trait in centenarians.

Researchers reported that the older centenarians become, the more they make decisions on the basis of what they believe as opposed to what others expect. They place responsibility for their health with themselves and not their doctors. People with high self efficacy tend to see problems as challenges to be met, setbacks as a reason to double their efforts, and failure as a learning experience for next time.

6. Protect your skin

There are two factors affecting the way we age: intrinsic factors—caused by the genes we inherit—and extrinsic (external or environmental) factors, such as exposure to the sun’s rays and cigarette smoking. This is the area that you can take action in.

If you smoke, stop—and if you don’t wear a sun protection factor on your skin, start! Without protection from the sun’s rays, just a few minutes of exposure each day over the years can add up to cause noticeable changes and damage to the skin, such as freckles, age spots, spider veins and fine wrinkles. Cigarette smoking causes biochemical changes in our bodies that accelerate aging. A person who smokes 10 or more cigarettes a day for a minimum of 10 years is statistically more likely to develop deeply wrinkled, leathery skin than a non-smoker.

More Real Buzz stories
The benefits of Vitamin D
Are you looking after your back
Top 10 health mistakes to avoid

Comment

CASE 2012-0034: ELEANOR DE LEON LLENADO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND EDITHA VILLAFLORES (G.R. NO. 193279, MARCH 14, 2012, SERENO, J.) SUBJECT/S: BP 22; ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE; COMPUTATION OF INTEREST. (BRIEF: LLENADO VS. PEOPLE).

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment

CASE 2012-0034: ELEANOR DE LEON LLENADO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND EDITHA VILLAFLORES (G.R. NO. 193279, MARCH 14, 2012, SERENO, J.) SUBJECT/S: BP 22; ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE; COMPUTATION OF INTEREST. (BRIEF: LLENADO VS. PEOPLE).

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

DISPOSITIVE:

          Petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of ₱200,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus attorney’s fees of ₱20,000 and litigation expenses of ₱16,860.

          SO ORDERED.

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

 

 

Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

 

  
ELEANOR DE LEON LLENADO,

                                   Petitioner,

 

 

 

                    – versus –

 

 

 

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and EDITHA VILLAFLORES,

                                   Respondents.

 G.R. No. 193279

 

Present:

 

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,

BRION,

PEREZ,

SERENO, and

REYES, JJ.

 

      Promulgated:        

 

          March 14, 2012
     

x- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – -x

D e C I S I O N

SERENO, J.:

Petitioner was convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 82 in Criminal Case No. 54905 for violating Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) or the Bouncing Checks Law.

It appears that petitioner issued checks to secure the loans obtained from private respondent. Upon presentment, the checks were dishonored, leading to the filing with the MeTC of criminal cases docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 54905, 54906, 54907, and 54908 for four (4) counts of violation of B.P. 22.

Subsequently, petitioner settled the loans subject of Criminal Case Nos. 54906, 54907 and 54908 using the funds of the Children of Mary Immaculate College, of which she was president. Private respondent executed an Affidavit of Desistance for the three cases;[1][1] thus, only Criminal Case No. 54905 covering a check worth, ₱1,500,000, proceeded to trial.

  The MeTC found that all the following elements of a violation of B.P. 22 were present in the last check subject of the criminal proceedings: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he or she does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its presentment; and (3) the drawee bank’s subsequent dishonor of the check for insufficiency of funds or credit, or dishonor of the check for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment.[2][2] In ruling against petitioner, the MeTC took note that petitioner admitted knowledge of the check’s dishonor, and that the demand letter with Notice of Dishonor mailed to petitioner’s residence on 10 May 1999 was received by one Alfredo Abierra on 14 May 1999. Thus, petitioner was sentenced to pay ₱1,500,000, the amount of the dishonored check, and a fine of ₱200,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

The MeTC also held the Children of Mary Immaculate College liable for the value of the check for being the drawer thereof. Finally, the court ordered the payment of attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

On appeal with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), petitioner alleged that the receipt of the Notice of Dishonor was not sufficiently proven, and that the notice received by Abierra should not be held to be binding on her. However, on 26 November 2006, the RTC affirmed the Decision of the MeTC.

Petitioner subsequently filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. In her Petition, she alleged that the trial court erred in ruling that she had received a notice of dishonor and in holding the school also liable for the value of the check.

The CA ruled that the elements of a violation of B.P. 22 were established.[3][3] However, it held that the trial court erred in holding Children of Mary Immaculate College civilly liable.

Applying Lunaria v. People,[4][4] the CA modified the appealed judgment by imposing legal interest of 12% on the amount of the dishonored check. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision states:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED in part. The Decision dated November 26, 2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 75 of Valenzuela City, is MODIFIED in that petitioner is SENTENCED to pay a fine of ₱200,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Petitioner is ORDERED to indemnify private complainant in the amount of ₱1,500,000.00, the amount of the dishonored check, with 12% interest per annum from the date of judicial demand until the finality of this Decision plus attorney’s fees of ₱20,000.00 and litigation expenses of ₱16,860.00. The civil liability adjudged against Children of Mary Immaculate College is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED.[5][5]

 

Petitioner thereafter filed a Motion for Reconsideration.[6][6] Finding no merit in the motion, it was denied by the CA through its assailed Resolution[7][7] promulgated on 10 August 2010.

Hence, this Rule 45 Petition.

Petitioner now alleges that respondent failed to prove that there was actual receipt of the notice of dishonor. She also alleges, without expounding, that the ruling of the CA was not in accordance with laws and jurisprudence.

It is an established rule that the remedy of appeal through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court contemplates only questions of law and not questions of fact.[8][8] The issue in the case at bar is clearly a question of fact that rightfully belonged to the proper determination of the MeTC, the RTC and the CA.  All these lower courts found the elements of a violation of B.P. 22 present. Petitioner failed to provide any cogent reason for us to overturn these findings, or to consider this case as an exception to this general rule.

However, conforming to prevailing jurisprudence, we find the need to modify the ruling of the CA with regard to the imposition of interest on the judgment. It has been established that in the absence of stipulation, the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum to be computed from default, that is, from judicial or extrajudicial demand under and subject to the provisions of Article 1169of the Civil Code.[9][9] In Ongson v. People,[10][10] we held that interest began to run from the time of the extrajudicial demand, as duly proved by the creditor. Thus, petitioner should also be held liable for the amount of the dishonored check, which is ₱1,500,000, plus 12% legal interest covering the period from the date of the receipt of the demand letter on 14 May 1999 to the finality of this Decision. The total amount due in the dispositive portion of the CA’s Decision, inclusive of interest, shall further earn 12% interest per annum from the finality of this Decision until fully paid.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated 27 April 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31349 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Petitioner is ordered to indemnify private respondent the amount of the dishonored check, which is ₱1,500,000, with 12% interest per annum from the date of receipt of the extrajudicial demand on 14 May 1999 to the finality of this Decision. This total amount inclusive of interest shall further earn 12% interest per annum from the finality of the Decision until it is fully paid.

Petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of ₱200,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, plus attorney’s fees of ₱20,000 and litigation expenses of ₱16,860.

SO ORDERED.

 

 

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice

 

 

WE CONCUR:

 

 

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

Chairperson

 

 

 

 

    ARTURO D. BRION                                   JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ                    

         Associate Justice                                                   Associate Justice

 

 

 

 

BIENVENIDO L. REYES

Associate Justice

 

 

 

A T T E S T A T I O N

 

          I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

 

                                                            ANTONIO T. CARPIO

                                                                  Associate Justice

                                                                      Chairperson, Second Division

 

C E R T I F I C A T I O N

 

          Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

 

RENATO C. CORONA

                                                                            Chief Justice

 

 

 

[1][1]  CA Decision, rollo, p. 22.

[2][2] Tan v. Mendez, 432 Phil. 760 (2002).

[3][3] Penned by Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Jane Aurora C. Lantion concurring.

[4][4] G.R. No. 160127, 11 November 2008, 570 SCRA 572.

[5][5] Rollo, p. 33.

[6][6]Id. at 35-45.

[7][7]Id. at 55-56.

[8][8] Spouses Batingal v. Court of Appeals. G.R. No. 128636, 1 February 2001, 351 SCRA 60.

[9][9] Eastern Shipping Lines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97412, 234 SCRA 78.

[10][10] 504 Phil. 214 (2005).

Comment

CASE 2012-0033: RE: SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DATED JANUARY 11, 2010 OF ACTING DIRECTOR ALEU A. AMANTE, PIAB-C, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN; RE: ORDER OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN REFERRING THE COMPLAINT OF ATTYS. OLIVER O. LOZANO AND EVANGELINE J. LOZANO-ENDRIANO AGAINST CHIEF JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO [RET.]. (A.M. NO. 10-1-13-SC, MARCH 20, 2012, PER CURIAM) SUBJECT/S: MISQUOTING OR MISUSING CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS IN PLEADINGS[1][2] IN ORDER TO IMPUTE UNJUST ACTS TO MEMBERS OF SC CONSTITUTES GRAVE PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT. (BRIEF TITLE: SC ADMIN CASE OF ATTY. OLIVER LOZANO)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
March 28, 2012

CASE 2012-0033: RE: SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM DATED JANUARY 11, 2010 OF ACTING DIRECTOR ALEU A. AMANTE, PIAB-C, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN; RE: ORDER OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN REFERRING THE COMPLAINT OF ATTYS. OLIVER O. LOZANO AND EVANGELINE J. LOZANO-ENDRIANO AGAINST CHIEF JUSTICE REYNATO S. PUNO [RET.]. (A.M. NO. 10-1-13-SC, MARCH 20, 2012, PER CURIAM) SUBJECT/S: MISQUOTING OR MISUSING CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS IN  PLEADINGS[1][2] IN ORDER TO IMPUTE UNJUST ACTS TO MEMBERS OF SC CONSTITUTES GRAVE PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT. (BRIEF TITLE: SC ADMIN CASE OF ATTY. OLIVER LOZANO)

 

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

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby LIFT the indefinite suspension from the practice of law of Atty. Oliver Lozano and REINSTATE him to the status of a member in good standing in so far as the suspension imposed him by this Court is concerned.

 

            SO ORDERED.

 

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

 

 

 

 

Republic of thePhilippines

Supreme Court

Manila

 

EN BANC

 

Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum dated January 11, 2010 of Acting Director Aleu A. Amante, PIAB-C, Office of the Ombudsman.

 

X – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – X

 

Re: Order of the Office of the Ombudsman Referring the complaint of Attys. Oliver O. Lozano and Evangeline J. Lozano-Endriano Against Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno [ret.].

 

  

 

 

 A.M. No. 10-1-13-SC

 

 

 

 

 

 

A.M. No. 10-9-9-SC

 

Present:

 

CORONA, C.J.,

CARPIO,

VELASCO, JR.,

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,

BRION,

PERALTA,

BERSAMIN,

DEL CASTILLO,*

ABAD,

VILLARAMA, JR.,

PEREZ,

MENDOZA,

SERENO,

REYES, and

PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.

 

Promulgated:

 

March 20, 2012

x—————————————————————————————x

 

 

 

RESOLUTION

 

PER CURIAM:

 

 

We resolve the separate successive letter-petitions[2][1] of Atty. Oliver O. Lozano, addressed to the Supreme Court en banc, for the lifting of the indefinite suspension from the practice of law imposed by the Court in its Resolution of June 15, 2010.

 

In our Resolution of June 15, 2010, we found Atty. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline Lozano-Endriano guilty of grave professional misconduct when they misquoted or misused constitutional provisions in their pleadings[3][2] in order to impute unjust acts to members of this Court.  Subsequently, we have reinstated Atty. Lozano-Endriano in our August 23, 2011 Resolution, because of circumstances indicating lesser culpability on her part.

 

Professional misconduct involving the misuse of constitutional provisions for the purpose of insulting Members of this Court is a serious breach of the rigid standards that a member of good standing of the legal profession must faithfully comply with. Thus, the penalty of indefinite suspension was imposed.  However, in the past two years during which Atty. Lozano has been suspended, he has repeatedly expressed his willingness to admit his error, to observe the rules and standards in the practice of law, and to serve the ends of justice if he should be reinstated.  And in these two years, this Court has not been informed of any act that would indicate that Atty. Lozano had acted in any unscrupulous practices unsuitable to a member of the bar.

 

While this Court will not hesitate to discipline its erring officers, it will not prolong a penalty after it has been shown that the purpose for imposing it had already been served.  From Atty. Lozano’s letters-petitions, we discern that his suspension had already impressed upon him the need for care and caution in his representations as an officer of this Court.

 

Under these circumstances, this Court decides to grant Atty. Lozano’s letters-petitions with the expectation that he shall now avoid going to the extreme of employing contortions of and misusing legal provisions and principles to justify his positions, and instead focus his energies and talents towards a lawyer’s primary aim of promoting the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

 

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby LIFT the indefinite suspension from the practice of law of Atty. Oliver Lozano and REINSTATE him to the status of a member in good standing in so far as the suspension imposed him by this Court is concerned.

 

            SO ORDERED.

 

 

RENATO C. CORONA

Chief Justice

 

 

 

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

 

 

 

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice

 

 

 

 

TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO

Associate Justice

 

 

 

ARTURO D. BRION

Associate Justice
 

 

 

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

Associate Justice

 

 

 

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice

 

 

(On Leave)

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

 

 

 

ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate Justice

 

 

 

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

  

 

 

JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice

 

 

 

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

  

 

 

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Associate Justice

 

 

 

 

BIENVENIDO L. REYES

Associate Justice

  

 

 

 

ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE

Associate Justice

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1][2]           A criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, entitled “Oliver Lozano et al. v. Hilario Davide Jr., et al.,” OMB-C-C-09-0527, against Retired Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide and Retired Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez; and the Complaint for Impeachment filed before the House of Representatives, entitled “Lawyers League of the Philippines v. Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno,” dated September 8, 2009.

*               On leave.

[2][1]           Letters-Petitions of Oliver Lozano, addressed to the Supreme Court En Banc, dated February 20, 2012, December 2, 2011, September 27, 2011, June 27, 2011 and May 30, 2011.

[3][2]           A criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman, entitled “Oliver Lozano et al. v. Hilario Davide Jr., et al.,” OMB-C-C-09-0527, against Retired Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide and Retired Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez; and the Complaint for Impeachment filed before the House of Representatives, entitled “Lawyers League of the Philippines v. Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno,” dated September 8, 2009.

Comment