J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0069: RICARDO DEL POSO y DELA CERNA,  V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. No. 210810, 7 DECEMBER 2016,  PERALTA, J.) (R.A. 7610; CHILD ABUSE; WHO ARE CHILDREN; WHEN QUESTIONS OF FACT CAN BE RAISED UNDER RULE 45; QUESTION OF FACT VIS A VIS QUESTION OF LAW; WHEN MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF LACK OF MOTIVE AND PASSION/OBFUSCATION APPLIES) (BRIEF TITLE: DEL POSO VS PEOPLE)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 dated January 28, 2014 of Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna is DENIED for lack merit and the Decision dated July 22, 2013, dismissing petitioner’s appeal and affirming the Decision dated July 1, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Manila in Criminal Case No. 05-239429, convicting petitioner of violation of Section 10 (a) of R.A No. 7610 and imposing upon petitioner the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of four ( 4) years, nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

MAY QUESTIONS OF FACT BE RAISED UNDER RULE 45?

AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE, QUESTIONS OF FACT MAY BE RAISED IN A RULE 45 PETITION IF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING IS PRESENT:

(1) WHEN THERE IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION;

(2) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARE GROUNDED ON SPECULATIONS;

(3) WHEN THE INFERENCE MADE IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN;

( 4) WHEN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS IS BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS;

(5) WHEN THE FACTUAL FINDINGS ARE CONFLICTING;

 (6) WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS WENT BEYOND THE ISSUES OF THE CASE AND ITS FINDINGS ARE CONTRARY TO THE ADMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES;

(7) WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS OVERLOOKED UNDISPUTED FACTS WHICH, IF PROPERLY CONSIDERED, WOULD JUSTIFY A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION;

(8) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE CONTRARY TO THOSE OF THE TRIAL COURT;

(9) WHEN THE FACTS SET FORTH BY THE PETITIONER ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE RESPONDENT; AND

(10) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE PREMISED ON THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND ARE CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 8

WHEN DOES QUESTION OF FACT EXIST?

A QUESTION OF FACT EXISTS “WHEN THE DOUBT OR DIFFERENCE ARISES AS TO THE TRUTH OR THE FALSEHOOD OF ALLEGED FACTS.

WHEN DOES QUESTION OF LAW EXISTS?

ON THE OTHER HAND, A QUESTION OF LAW EXISTS “WHEN THE DOUBT OR DIFFERENCE ARISES AS TO WHAT THE LAW IS ON A CERTAIN STATE OF FACTS.”

WHAT IS CHILD ABUSE?

SECTION 3 OF THE SAME LAW DEFINES CHILD ABUSE AS

3 (B) “CHILD ABUSE” REFERS TO THE MALTREATMENT, WHETHER HABITUAL OR NOT, OF THE CHILD WHICH INCLUDES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(1) PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL ABUSE, NEGLECT, CRUELTY, SEXUAL ABUSE AND EMOTIONAL MALTREATMENT;

(2) ANY ACT BY DEEDS OR WORDS WHICH DEBASES, DEGRADES OR DEMEANS THE INTRINSIC WORTH AND DIGNITY OF A CHILD AS A HUMAN BEING.

DEFINE CHILDREN?

THE SUBJECT STATUTE DEFINES CHILDREN AS PERSONS BELOW EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS OF AGE; OR THOSE OVER THAT AGE BUT ARE UNABLE TO FULLY TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES OR PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM ABUSE, NEGLECT, CRUELTY, EXPLOITATION OR DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE OF A PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY OR CONDITION.13

PETITIONER CONTENDS THAT THE COURT A QUO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF LACK OF INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A WRONG. IS HE CORRECT?

NO.

SUCH MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ONLY WHEN THE FACTS PROVEN SHOW THAT THERE IS A NOTABLE AND EVIDENT DISPROPORTION BETWEEN THE MEANS EMPLOYED TO EXECUTE THE CRIMINAL ACT AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

CAN THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PASSION OR OBFUSCATION APPLY?

NO.

THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF PASSION OR OBFUSCATION ONLY APPLIES IF THE ACT OF THE VICTIM IS BOTH UNLAWFUL AND SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE SUCH CONDITION OF MIND.

A CHILD WHO FELL ASLEEP WHILE ATTENDING TO A BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT :S NOT AN OFFENSE AT ALL AND COULD NOT GIVE RISE TO AN IMPULSE SUFFICIENT AND POWERFUL TO NATURALLY PRODUCE A JUSTIFIED DIMINUTION OF AN ADULT’S SELFCONTROL. IN THIS CASE PETITIONER BURNT THE CHILD WITH HOT IRON.

TO BE ENTITLED TO THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE [OF PASSION AND/OR OBFUSCATION THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS MUST BE PRESENT: (1) THERE SHOULD BE AN ACT BOTH UNLAWFUL AND SUFFICIENT TO PRODUCE SUCH CONDITION OF MIND; (2) THE ACT THAT PRODUCED THE OBFUSCATION WAS NOT FAR REMOVED FROM THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME BY A CONSIDERABLE LENGTH OF TIME, DURING WHICH THE PERPETRATOR MIGHT RECOVER HIS NORMAL EQUANIMITY.

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

scd-2016-0091-ricardo-del-poso-y-dela-cerna-vs-people-of-the-philippines

 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”.

CASE 2016-0068: NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION  VERSUS SPOUSES CONCHITA MALAPASCUA-MALIJAN and LAZARO MALIJAN,  (G.R. No. 211731, 7 DECEMBER 2016,  PERALTA, J.); CONCHITA MALAPASCUA-MALIJAN and HEIRS OF LAZARO MALIJAN VERSUS NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (G.R. No. 211818, 7 DECEMBER 2016,  PERALTA, J.) (SUBJECTS: EXPROPRIATION; JUST COMPENSATION; LEGAL RATE OF INTEREST; ATTORNEY’S FEES; EXEMPLARY DAMAGES (BRIEF TITLE: NPC VS. SPOUSES MALIJAN ET AL)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court dated May 11, 2014 of Conchita Malapascua-Malij an and Heirs of Lazaro Malijan in G.R. No. 211818 is DENIED for lack of merit, while the Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 dated April 21, 2014 of the National Power Corporation is GRANTED. Consequently, the Decision dated June 13, 2012 of the Court of Appeals and its subsequent Resolution dated March 12, 2014, reversing the Decision dated February 22, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Tanauan City, Batangas, are AFFIRMED with the modification that the award of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees is DELETED.

 SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

ON LEGAL RATE OF INTEREST

“Recently, the BSP Monetary Board (ESP-MB), in its Resolution No. 796 dated May 16, 2013, approved the amendment of Section 2 of Circular No. 905, Series of 1982, and accordingly, issued Circular No. 799, Series of2013, effective July 1, 2013, the pertinent portion of which reads:

The Monetary Board, in its Resolution No. 796 dated 16 May 2013, approved the following revisions governing the rate of interest in the absence of stipulation in loan contracts, thereby amending Section 2 of Circular No. 905, Series of 1982:

Section 1. The rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of any money, goods or credits and the rate allowed in judgments, in the absence of an express contract as to such rate of interest, shall be six percent (6%) per annum.

Section 2. In view of the above, Subsection X305.1 of the Manual of Regulations for Banks and Sections 4305Q.1, 4305S.3 and 4303P.1 of the Manual of Regulations for Non-Bank Financial Institutions are hereby amended accordingly.

This Circular shall take effect on 01 July 2013.

Accordingly, the prevailing interest rate for loans and forbearance of money is six percent (6%) per annum, in the absence of an express contract as to such rate of interest.”

XXXXX

ON EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

“Under Article 2229 of the Civil Code, “[ e ]xemplary or corrective damages are imposed, by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or compensatory damages.” As this court has stated in the past: “Exemplary damages are designed by our civil law to permit the courts to reshape behaviour that is socially deleterious in its consequence by creating negative incentives or deterrents against such behaviour.””

XXXXX

ON ATTORNEY’S FEES

The award of attorney’s fees is also unwarranted because of the lack of factual and legal justification. An award of attorney’s fees has always been the exception rather than the rule. To start with, attorney’s fees are not awarded every time a party prevails in a suit.37 Nor should an adverse decision ipso facto justify an award of attorney’s fees to the winning party.38 The policy of the Court is that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate.39 Too, such fees, as part of damages, are assessed only in the instances specified in Article 220840 of the Civil Code. Indeed, attorney’s fees are in the nature of actual damages.41 But even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, attorney’s fees may still be withheld where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party’s persistence in a suit other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.42 And lastly, the trial court must make express findings of fact and law that would bring the suit within the exception. What this demands is that the factual, legal or equitable justifications for the award must be set forth not only in the fallo but also in the text of the decision, or else, the award should be thrown out for being speculative and conjectural.”

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

 scd-2016-0090-national-power-corp-vs-sps-conchita-malapascua-malijan-and-lazaro-malijan-conchita-malapascua-malijan-and-lazaro-malijan-vs-national-power-co

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”.