Archive for September, 2016


CASE 2016-0059: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VERSUS LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO (G.R. No. 210710, 27 JULY 2016, PEREZ, J.) (SUBJECT/S: MURDER WITH UNLICENSED FIREARM; FRUSTRATED MURDER; CIVIL INDEMNITIES IN CASE OF DEATH RESULTING FROM MURDER) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. CINCO)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
September 14, 2016

CASE 2016-0059: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VERSUS  LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO (G.R. No. 210710, 27 JULY 2016, PEREZ, J.) (SUBJECT/S: MURDER WITH UNLICENSED FIREARM; FRUSTRATED MURDER; CIVIL INDEMNITIES IN CASE OF DEATH RESULTING FROM MURDER) (BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. CINCO)

 

 DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the 29 July 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01183 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant LUISITO GABORNE Y CINCO is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearm and shall suffer a penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility for parole and shall pay the Heirs of Sixto Elizan y Herrera Pl00,000.00 as civil indemnity, Pl 00,000.00 as moral damages, and Pl 00,000.00 as exemplary damages; and of the crime of Frustrated Murder and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty ranging from eleven ( 11) years of Pris ion Mayor as minimum, to eighteen ( 18) years of Reclusion Temporal as maximum and shall pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages.

 

All monetary awards for damages shall earn interest at the legal rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum from the date of finality of this judgment until fully paid.

 

In the service of his sentence, appellant, who is a detention prisoner, shall be credited with the entire period of his preventive imprisonment.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

 “Illegal Possession of Firearm as an aggravating circumstance in the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder


The CA appropriately appreciated the use of an unlicensed firearm as an aggravating circumstance in the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder. Under R.A. No. 1059, use of loose firearm in the commission of a crime, like murder, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. 58

 

In view of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 8294 and R.A. No. 10591, to Presidential Decree No. 1866, separate prosecutions for homicide and illegal possession are no longer in order. Instead, illegal possession of firearm is merely to be taken as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of murder. 59 It is clear from the foregoing that where murder results from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime is not qualified illegal possession but, murder.· In such a case, the use of the unlicensed firearm is not considered as a separate crime but shall be appreciated as a mere aggravating circumstance. Thus, where murder was committed, the penalty for illegal possession of firearms is no longer imposable since it becomes merely a special aggravating circumstance. 60 The intent of Congress is to treat the offense of illegal possession of firearm and the commission of homicide or murder with the use of unlicensed firearm as a· single offense.61

 

In the case at hand, since it was proven that accused-appellant was not a licensed firearm holder, 62 and that he was positively identified by the witnesses as the one who fired shots against the victims, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of the crimes of Murder and Frustrated Murder should be considered as an aggravating circumstance thereof.

 

The presence of such aggravating circumstance would have merited the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of Murder. However, in view of R.A. No. 9346, we are mandated to impose on appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.


Damages and civil liability

 

This Court resolves to modify the damages awarded by the appellate court in line with the recent jurisprudence.63 Appellant shall pay the Heirs of Sixto Elizan y Herrera Pl 00,000.00 as civil indemnity, Pl 00,000.00 as moral damages, and Pl00,000.00 as exemplary damages for the crime of Murder with the use of Unlicensed Firearm.

 

Appellant shall also be liable to pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P75,000.00 as exemplary damages for the crime of Frustrated Murder. In addition, interest at the rate of six percent ( 6%) per annum shall be imposed on all monetary awards from date of finality of this Judgment until fully paid.”


TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

scd-2016-0059-cinco

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

Comment

TRIVIA 0042: US VS. CHINA: WHO MATTERS MORE?

Filed under: TRIVIA — Leave a comment
September 13, 2016

TRIVIA 0042: US VS. CHINA: WHO MATTERS MORE?

No Free Lunch

US vs China: Who matters more?

By: Cielito F. Habito

@inquirerdotnet

Philippine Daily Inquirer

12:10 AM September 13th, 2016

SOME WORRY that our outspoken President may be unnecessarily antagonizing the United States for our country’s own good, while sounding deliberately gentle with China—in the name of pursuing an “independent foreign policy.” This piece’s title notwithstanding, I am not about to argue here that we must choose one over the other. It’s fair to say that historically, both of them have helped us, and wronged us as well. In the overall scheme of things, it may not be obvious who has been and who will prospectively be the better friend or worse foe to us Filipinos. It has been argued that our independence would be best asserted by being on good terms with everyone. Indeed, it would be in our best interest as a small country to be seen as impartial in dealing with other countries, particularly the world powers, and in defining our country’s standing in the global community.

Still, I thought it might be interesting to assess and compare the nature of our economic linkages with the two countries, as this looms large in any reckoning of our relationships with either of them. I will steer clear of the political and other dimensions of those relationships, as that would be straying beyond my own area of expertise. On economic relations, the most obvious measures for which we have the data are those pertaining to trade, investments, and overseas remittances.

How important are the United States and China to us as trading partners? Overall, it would appear that they are equally important, as combined exports and imports with each are both in the neighborhood of 13 percent of our total for all countries. The United States is more important to us as an export market, accounting for 15 percent of our total exports in value terms, against China’s 10.9 percent. As source of imports, the reverse is true, with our official figures showing less of our imports (10.8 percent) coming from the United States than from China (16.2 percent). The latter figure is likely to be even higher, given the rampant smuggling of goods into the country, particularly from China. Recently it was reported that China’s data on exports to us are 60 percent higher than our corresponding data on imports from it, indicating the extent of such undocumented imports.

What do we sell to the two countries? Dominating our exports to both (50 percent of our exports to China, and 39 percent to the United States) are electronic products, mostly in the form of intermediate products such as semiconductors and circuit boards. For China, mineral ores are also prominent (14.5 percent), with shiploads of virtual raw earth, mostly nickel ores, being shipped there every week. Rounding up our top five exports to China are chemicals, miscellaneous manufactures and machinery/equipment. For the United States, garments are our second top export (14 percent), followed by coconut oil, miscellaneous manufactures, and ignition wiring sets for motor vehicles. These give us some idea on which industries—hence which types of workers—benefit from our trade with either country, and correspondingly, who would be adversely affected by a cutback in trade, as fallout from possible political conflict. Offhand, it appears that proportionately more workers benefit from our exports to the United States than to China, with labor-intensive manufactures more prominent in our top five exports to the former.

What do we buy from the two countries? Topping our imports from both are electronic products in the form of basic components for further assembly and finished consumer products. These comprise nearly half (48.2 percent) of total imports from the United States against less than a fifth (19.3 percent) from China. Agricultural products in the form of animal feed stuffs, cereals and preparations (including flour), and other food and live animals are prominent imports from the United States, along with industrial machinery and equipment. From China, our other top imports are iron and steel, industrial machinery and equipment, miscellaneous manufactures, and metal products.

As source of foreign direct investments (FDI), the United States is far more important to us than China, accounting for 13 percent of total net FDI inflows in 2015, against China’s negligible 0.01 percent (less than $1 million). In 2014, only 2 percent of total Chinese investments into Asean reportedly went to the Philippines. Chinese Ambassador Zhao Jianhua is reported to have acknowledged that the Philippines invests more in China than China does in the Philippines. Its most visible investments here are in power, shipping and mining. The Chinese government owns a 40-percent stake in the National Grid Corp. of the Philippines, and is also reported to have acquired a controlling stake in Negros Navigation Corp. operating the 2GO Travel lines.

A recent article in the Journal of Political Risk lists some 25 Chinese mining firms known to have investments in the country as of 2012, albeit not officially recorded. It cites investigative media reports portraying Chinese mining companies to be engaged in “improper” and “less than legal” mining operations in the country. On the other hand, US investments in the country have a long history and are much more substantial and varied, spanning the agriculture, industry and services sectors.

As for remittances, Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas data report that nearly half (43 percent) comes from the United States, and less than 1 percent from China. It would seem from all this that on purely economic terms, we stand to lose more from antagonizing the Americans than the Chinese. But as we’ve stated at the outset, it’s best not to antagonize either. Whether in trade, investments or remittances, we need both—and we need much more.

* * *

cielito.habito@gmail.com

Comment

CASE 2016-0058: THELMA RODRIGUEZ, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND VS. SPOUSES JAIME SIOSON (G.R. NO. 199180, 27 JULY 2016, REYES J.) (SUBJECT/S: WHAT IS CONTRACT TO SELL; DOUBLE SALE; CONJUGAL PROPERTY) (BRIEF TITLE: RODRIGUEZ VS. SIOSON)

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES — Leave a comment
September 12, 2016

CASE 2016-0058: THELMA RODRIGUEZ, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND VS. SPOUSES JAIME SIOSON (G.R. NO. 199180, 27 JULY 2016, REYES J.) (SUBJECT/S: WHAT IS CONTRACT TO SELL; DOUBLE SALE; CONJUGAL PROPERTY) (BRIEF TITLE: RODRIGUEZ VS. SIOSON)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated May 26, 2011 and Resolution dated October 21, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94867 are AFFIRMED.

 

SO ORDERED”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

NERI AND THELMA EXECUTED TWO DEEDS OF SALE OVER A PARCEL OF LAND FOR AN AGREED PRICE. BUT THELMA  ONLY PAID PARTIAL. THEN NERI SOLD THE LAND TO SIOSON. WAS THERE DOUBLE SALE?

 

NO. BECAUSE THE CONTRACT EXECUTED BY NERI AND THELMA WAS MERELY A CONTRACT TO SELL.

 

BUT THE CONTRACT WAS TERMED DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE. IS THIS NOT EVIDENCE OF SALE?

 

NO.

 

THE REAL CHARACTER OF THE CONTRACT IS NOT THE TITLE GIVEN, BUT THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES.

 

WHAT IS A CONTRACT TO SELL?

 

IT IS A “BILATERAL CONTRACT WHEREBY THE PROSPECTIVE SELLER, WHILE EXPRESSLY RESERVING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY DESPITE DELIVERY THEREOF TO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER, BINDS HIMSELF TO SELL THE PROPERTY EXCLUSIVELY TO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER UPON FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITION AGREED UPON, I.E., THE FULL PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE.”

 

SUPPOSE THERE WERE TWO DEEDS OF SALE OVER SAME PROPERTY WHAT IS THE RULE?

 

IF THE PROPERTY IS MOVABLE PROPERTY THE  THE OWNERSHIP SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE PERSON WHO MAY HAVE FIRST TAKEN POSSESSION THEREOF IN GOOD FAITH.

 

IF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, THE OWNERSHIP SHALL BELONG TO THE PERSON ACQUIRING IT WHO IN GOOD FAITH FIRST RECORDED IT IN THE REGISTRY OF PROPERTY.

 

SHOULD THERE BE NO INSCRIPTION, THE OWNERSHIP SHALL PERTAIN TO THE PERSON WHO IN GOOD FAITH WAS FIRST IN THE POSSESSION; AND, IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF, TO THE PERSON WHO PRESENTS THE OLDEST TITLE, PROVIDED THERE IS GOOD FAITH.

 

THE DEED OF SALE WAS NOT SIGNED BY VIOLETA, SPOUSE OF NERI. CA SAID THE DEED OF SALE TO THELMA COULD NOT HAVE BEEN VALID. IS CA CORRENT?

 

NO.

 

THIS IS DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

 

FIRST, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, LOT 398-A, IS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF “NERI DELOS REYES, MARRIED TO VIOLETA LACUATA,” AND SO WAS ITS MOTHER LOT, LOT 398.

 

IN METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY V. TAN,47 IT WAS HELD THAT SUCH FORM OF REGISTRATION IS DETERMINATIVE OF THE PROPERTY’S NATURE AS PARAPHEMAL. THAT THE ONLY IMPORT OF THE TITLE IS THAT NERI IS THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IT BEING REGISTERED IN HIS NAME ALONE, AND THAT HE IS MARRIED TO VIOLETA;

 

AND SECOND, THE RECORD IS BEREFT OF PROOF THAT SAID PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED DURING NERI AND VIOLETA’S MARRIAGE -SUCH THAT, THE PRESUMPTION UNDER ARTICLE 116 OF THE FAMILY CODE THAT PROPERTIES ACQUIRED DURING THE MARRIAGE ARE PRESUMED TO BE CONJUGAL CANNOT APPLY.

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

 scd-2016-0058-thelma-rodriguez

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

 

 

Comment