Keep in touch for more videos about our review lectures for Remedial Law and passed the Bar.
Saturday, December 15, 2018
All new lawyers are now mandatorily required to render 120 hours of pro bono
The legal profession is imbued with public interest. As such, lawyers are charged with the duty to give meaning to the guarantee of access to adequate legal assistance under Section 11, Article III of the 1987 Constitution by making their legal services available to the public in an efficient and convenient manner compatible with the independence, integrity and effectiveness of the profession. As a way to discharge this constitutional duty, covered lawyers as defined herein are obliged to render pro bono legal aid services to those who otherwise would be denied access to adequate legal services.
So comes the IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ―RULE ON COMMUNITY LEGAL AID SERVICE.
So comes the IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS OF A.M. No. 17-03-09-SC OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ―RULE ON COMMUNITY LEGAL AID SERVICE.
Covered lawyers shall refer to those who have signed the Roll of Attorneys from 2018 and above.
Covered lawyers, are required to render one hundred twenty (120) hours of pro bono legal aid services to qualified parties enumerated in Section 5, within the first twelve (12) months from admission to the Bar of the covered lawyers, counted from the time they signed the Roll of Attorneys. For this purpose, covered lawyers shall report to the chairperson of their IBP Chapter Legal Aid Committee, or the chairperson, director, or supervising partner or lawyer from the Accredited Legal Aid Service Provider of their choice for their compliance with this CLAS Rules. Covered lawyers who are based outside the jurisdiction of their Home Chapters may opt to report to the NCLA Director or the chairperson of the IBP Host Chapter of their choice for their compliance with this CLAS Rules.
Friday, December 14, 2018
Filter database by area and by address where there is only one condition in where clause.
Filter database by area and by address where there is only one condition in where clause.
For more videos, please go to my channel, or message me if you have questions.
Monday, December 10, 2018
Filter database selection from datagridview using Visual Studio
Codes:
Imports System.Data.OleDb
Imports System.Data
Imports System.Data.DataTable
Public Class CashBlotterDatePrint
Private Sub Button2_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button2.Click
Me.Close()
End Sub
Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click
Dim dt As New DataTable
Dim str As String = "Select * from CashBlotter where eDate >= #" & DateTimePicker1.Value.ToShortDateString & "# and eDate <= #" & DateTimePicker2.Value.ToShortDateString & "# Order by edate, ID"
Dim da As New OleDb.OleDbDataAdapter(str, con)
da.Fill(dt)
da.Dispose()
Dim rptDoc As CrystalDecisions.CrystalReports.Engine.ReportDocument
rptDoc = New CrystalReport78
rptDoc.SetDataSource(dt)
Report_Daily_Withdrawal.CrystalReportViewer1.ReportSource = rptDoc
Dim txt1 As CrystalDecisions.CrystalReports.Engine.TextObject = rptDoc.ReportDefinition.Sections(1).ReportObjects("Text19")
txt1.Text = DateTimePicker1.Value.ToShortDateString
Dim txt2 As CrystalDecisions.CrystalReports.Engine.TextObject = rptDoc.ReportDefinition.Sections(1).ReportObjects("Text20")
txt2.Text = DateTimePicker2.Value.ToShortDateString
Report_Daily_Withdrawal.Show()
End Sub
End Class
For information on the coding I used above, leave a comment below.
For more videos, please go to my channel in youtube. You can drop your comments on possible tutorial that we can tackle.
Friday, December 7, 2018
Editing Tutorial using Lightroom Create Cinematic Effect in Lightroom 5
Months ago, we were fun of using presets in our editing of photo images for Lasare Photography especially for weddings.
Today, I will be showing to you how to achieve a cinematic effect for photos using Lightroom 5 without any presets.
For more videos, please visit my youtube channel.
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Glider attempt: funshoot and edit using Camtasia Studio
It has been our first time using a glider in shooting a funshoot video so the frames are a little bit wavy. My computer graphics driver is not working so I cannot use sony vegas or premiere. I left without option but use Camtasia Studio which is much lighter.
Music is copyright to Grace Vanderwaal: Moonlight.
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
How to make a cinematic effect in photo using Lightroom 5 tutorial
Cinematic effect in photos has been the recent trend in editing photos. In this video tutorial, I will share to you how I edit photos using quick tools in lightroom 5. We will not use any preset for this tutorial.
Photo was taken using my Nikon D7100 and using 50mm lens.
For any question or suggestion. Leave us a comment.
For more videos,please visit my Channel at Youtube/c/GenesisMAuza
How to edit using lightroom to turn black and white background only
Sometimes there is a need for us to highlight only the subject in order to give it emphasis. There can be a lot of ways to do the same. Turning the background as black and white is the common process. In this tutorial, I will show you how to turn the background color as black and white while keeping the subject color intack.
If you have questions, leave a comment below.
For more videos, visit my Channel at Youtube Genesis M. Auza.
How to edit nose line of woman for pageant posters using brush tool in lightroom tutorial
In creating this tutorial, I went over to my library and found this photo. To proceed to this tutorial, you will need an imstalled application for Lightroom.
Just comment below if you need any "how-to" tutorial.
Just comment below if you need any "how-to" tutorial.
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
Act 3326 must have to be amended ASAP
Zaldivia v Reyes G.R. No. 102342, July 3, 1992, 211 SCRA 277 EN BANC
Facts: A complaint was filed before the fiscal’s office constituting an offense in violation of a city ordinance. The fiscal did not file the complaint before the court immediately but instead filed it 3 months later. The defendant’s counsel filed a motion to quash on ground that the action to file the complaint has prescribed. The fiscal contends that the filing of the complaint before his office already interrupts the prescription period.Issue: Whether or not the filing of information/complaint before the fiscal office constituting a violation against a special law/ordinance interrupts prescription.
Held: The mere filing of complaint to the fiscal’s office does not interrupt the running of prescription on offenses punishable by a special law. The complaint should have been filed within a reasonable time before the court. It is only then that the running of the prescriptive period is interrupted.
**Act 3326 is the governing law on prescription of crimes punishable by a special law which states that prescription is only interrupted upon judicial proceeding.
LUIS PANAGUITON, JR., petitioner vs. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, RAMON C. TONGSON and RODRIGO G. CAWILI, respondents. G.R. No. 167571 November 25, 2008 SECOND DIVISION
Facts: The petitioner filed a complaint in the prosecutor’s office a complaint against Cawili and Tongson for violation of BP 22, a special law which do not provide for the prescription of penalty in Quezon City. City Prosecutor only found probable cause against Cawili and dismissed the charges against Tongson. Petitioner filed appeal before DOJ. DOJ granted the petition and directed City Prosecutor to conduct reinvestigation of the case. In March 15, 1999, more than four years has elapsed, Assistant City Prosecutor dismissed the case holding the case already prescribe after four (4) years. The filing of the complaint before the Quezon City Prosecutor did not interrupt the running of the prescriptive period as the law contemplates judicial, and not administrative proceedings. The petitioner reach the Supreme Court and argued that delays in DOJ flip-lopping decision and CA pronouncement would result in grave injustice to him since the delays in the case were clearly beyond his control Issue: Whether or not the filing of information/complaint before the fiscal office constituting a violation of a special law/ordinance interrupts prescription.
Held: The filing of information/complaint before the fiscal office constituting a violation of a special law/ordinance interrupts prescription. While it may be observed that the term "judicial proceedings" in Sec. 2 of Act No. 3326 appears before "investigation and punishment" in the old law, with the subsequent change in set-up whereby the investigation of the charge for purposes of prosecution has become the exclusive function of the executive branch, the term "proceedings" should now be understood either executive or judicial in character: executive when it involves the investigation phase and judicial when it refers to the trial and judgment stage. With this clarification, any kind of investigative proceeding instituted against the guilty person which may ultimately lead to his prosecution should be sufficient to toll prescription. Indeed to rule otherwise would deprive the injured party the right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are not under his control.
OBSERVATION AND COMMENTS:
There is no question that Act No. 3326, appropriately entitled An Act to Establish Prescription for Violations of Special Acts and Municipal Ordinances and to Provide When Prescription Shall Begin, is the law applicable to offenses under special laws which do not provide their own prescriptive periods. The pertinent provisions read:
XXX. Sec. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof and the institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment. XXX (Emphasis supplied)
In the Panaguiton case, which was decided of later date, the court has adopted a liberal construction of the law to favor the right of the victim (offended party) arguing that judicial proceeding should be interpreted to mean that it includes both administrative and judicial proceedings because of the change in the government set-up which vested the executive department the investigative process. This decision however which was rendered by the Second Division of the Supreme Court has a lot of problems and fails to convince due to the following reasons to wit:
The correct interpretation of Act No. 3326 should be that: the case shall be deemed commenced only when it is filed in court xxx. This means that the running of the prescriptive period shall be halted on the date the case is actually filed in court and not on any date before that. This interpretation is in consonance with the afore-quoted Act No. 3326 which says that the period of prescription shall be suspended "when proceedings are instituted against the guilty party." The proceedings referred to in Section 2 thereof are "judicial proceedings," contrary to the submission of the Solicitor General that they include administrative proceedings. His contention is that we must not distinguish as the law does not distinguish. As a matter of fact, it does. (Zaldivia V. Reyes);
The interpretation of the law to cater the current and prevailing time is as if a judicial legislation which cannot be done without violation of the enshrined principle of separation of powers between the three branches of the government, e.g. Judiciary and Congress. A crime punished by a special law/ordinance, which may prescribe even if complaint is filed seasonably with the prosecutor’s office if, intentionally or not, he delays the institution of the necessary judicial proceedings until it is too late should not justify a misreading of the applicable rules beyond their obvious intent as reasonably deduced from their plain language. The remedy is therefor to amend Art. 3326 which power is properly vested in the Congress.
The law is clear and there is no room for construction.
The doubt as to the provision of Art. 3326 which resulted from the change of the Government set up should be interpreted to favor the accused. It is well-settled rule that in case of doubt, criminal law must be interpreted in favor of the accused. (P v. Santos). Such change in the set-up which eventually benefited the accused because the government has not amended the law yet should be interpreted to favor the accused;
The exercise of the rule making power of the Supreme Court does not allow to diminish, increase or modify substantive rights under Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5) of the Constitution. Prescription in criminal cases is a substantive right. To allow therefor a construction of the law, totally foreign from its meaning, tends to diminish this right of the accused;
The original offended party in a criminal case is the state, hence, it’s fault of delays in the prosecution of or investigative processes should not redound to the detriment and prejudice of the accused. This is without however prejudice to the right of offended party in the civil aspect which may arise other than the damages ex-delicto; and
Zaldivia Case is an En Banc decision which compared to Panaguiton which was only ruled by the Second Division of the Supreme Court. Thus Zaldivia Doctrine should still be the prevailing doctrine following AM No. 10-4-20-SC, sec. 3 par (i) where it provides that the Suprme Court En Banc shall sit in matters and cases xxx where a doctrine or principle laid down by the Court En Banc or by a Division may be modified or reversed xxx. Panaguiton, having been decided by SC second division only, should yield over Zaldivia case;
In wise, it is respectfully submitted that our Congress should amend Sec. 2 of Act No. 3326 so that it reads:
Xxx
SEC. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the discovery thereof by the offended party, by the authority, or its agent, and the institution of judicial or administrative proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
xxx
Philippine president Duterte's war on drugs: Challenge to the law enforcers and the judiciary
“We cannot solve crime by dismantling the very foundations of the society that we seek to protect.”
The whole history of the Philippines has been in whole a quest for achieving true freedom and peace. But real peace, I believe, has always been nothing but a golden treasure at the end of the rainbow. To these days, our country has never tasted of its rewards.
Our forefathers have fought different races that occupied our lands be it from the Spaniards, Americans, and Japanese. But today, we are fighting a war different from ever before. We are now fighting with a modern enemy - something that have emerged from our own weaknesses. Something that feed on those who are addicted, dependent and corrupt. It has unsurprisingly plagued all walks of life.
The cry of the masses to end this threat of dangerous drugs terrorizing the lives of many Filipinos has catapulted a man known for his visceral action in fighting crimes to the highest office of the land bannered with his slogan to end criminalities in three (3) to six (6) months.
My question now, is how do you feel hearing the news everyday of people who are killed allegedly in legitimate police operations and by unknown ‘vigilantes’? Are all those people who were killed in these reports precisely were members of and part of this narcotics trade? Maybe yes or maybe not. But for sure, the dead will tell no tales.
The fight against drugs and its illegal traffic by the Government is now becoming very hot. The dangerous drugs trade has become a curse and a scourge to our society. In the fight to eradicate this menace, law enforcers should be equipped with the resources to be able to perform their duties better. However, we cannot, in any way, compromise our society’s fundamental values enshrined in our Constitution. Otherwise, we will be seen as slowly dismantling the very foundations of society that we seek to protect. (People v. Cogaed, GR. No. 200334)
The peace officers should be more mindful of the provisions of the Bill of Rights in the prosecution of the accused. As it happened, peace officers should not allow their over-zealousness to get the better of them, resulting in their disregard of the requirements of a valid search and seizure that renders inadmissible vital evidence they had invalidly seized. (People v. Mengote 210 SCRA 174, 182)
This should be a lesson to other peace officers. The impulsiveness may be the very cause of the acquittal of persons who deserve to be convicted, escaping the clutches of the law because, ironically enough, it has not been observed by those who are supposed to enforce it. (People v. Mengote 210 SCRA 174, 182)
Sadly, no matter how good this administration desire for solving criminality, if the people are not equipped with the right armoury – which is education, both in the law enforcers and the public in general, this is hardly victorious.
Those in the administration of justice would have no right to expect ordinary people to be law-abiding if we do not insist on the full protection of their rights. Some lawmen, prosecutors, and judges may tend to gloss over an illegal search and seizure as long as the law enforcers show the alleged evidence of the crime regardless of the methods by which they were obtained. This kind of attitude condones law-breaking in the name of law enforcement. Ironically, it only fosters the more rapid breakdown of our system of justice, and the eventual denigration of society. While we appreciate and encourage the efforts of law enforces to uphold the law and to preserve the peace and security of society, we nevertheless admonish them to act with deliberate care and within the parameters set by the Constitution and the law. Truly, the end never justifies the means. (Pepole v. Nuevas GR No. 170233)
Indeed, we can note of the growing number of acquittals for dangerous drugs cases to the failure of enforces to observe the proper arrest, search and seizure procedure under the law. Some bona fide arrest and seizures in dangerous drugs cases result in the acquittal of the accused because of drug enforcement operatives compromise the integrity and evidentiary worth of the seized items. It behoves the Courts to remind law enforcement agencies to exert greater effort to apply the rules and procedures governing the custody, control and handling of seized drugs.
It is recognized that strict compliance with the legal prescriptions of RA 9165 may not always be possible. Thus, non-compliance therewith is not always necessarily fatal. However, the lapses in the procedure must be recognized, addressed and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary values of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved. (People v. Garcia, GR. No. 173480)
When we come to the point where we realize that all these that we do have been a mistake, let us not blame all alone the government for all the faults without implicating our own selves for not being vigilant enough to participate in the call for making our society free from all criminalities. Fair enough, all these nonsense of the world started from the problems within ourselves.
The whole history of the Philippines has been in whole a quest for achieving true freedom and peace. But real peace, I believe, has always been nothing but a golden treasure at the end of the rainbow. To these days, our country has never tasted of its rewards.
Our forefathers have fought different races that occupied our lands be it from the Spaniards, Americans, and Japanese. But today, we are fighting a war different from ever before. We are now fighting with a modern enemy - something that have emerged from our own weaknesses. Something that feed on those who are addicted, dependent and corrupt. It has unsurprisingly plagued all walks of life.
The cry of the masses to end this threat of dangerous drugs terrorizing the lives of many Filipinos has catapulted a man known for his visceral action in fighting crimes to the highest office of the land bannered with his slogan to end criminalities in three (3) to six (6) months.
My question now, is how do you feel hearing the news everyday of people who are killed allegedly in legitimate police operations and by unknown ‘vigilantes’? Are all those people who were killed in these reports precisely were members of and part of this narcotics trade? Maybe yes or maybe not. But for sure, the dead will tell no tales.
The fight against drugs and its illegal traffic by the Government is now becoming very hot. The dangerous drugs trade has become a curse and a scourge to our society. In the fight to eradicate this menace, law enforcers should be equipped with the resources to be able to perform their duties better. However, we cannot, in any way, compromise our society’s fundamental values enshrined in our Constitution. Otherwise, we will be seen as slowly dismantling the very foundations of society that we seek to protect. (People v. Cogaed, GR. No. 200334)
The peace officers should be more mindful of the provisions of the Bill of Rights in the prosecution of the accused. As it happened, peace officers should not allow their over-zealousness to get the better of them, resulting in their disregard of the requirements of a valid search and seizure that renders inadmissible vital evidence they had invalidly seized. (People v. Mengote 210 SCRA 174, 182)
This should be a lesson to other peace officers. The impulsiveness may be the very cause of the acquittal of persons who deserve to be convicted, escaping the clutches of the law because, ironically enough, it has not been observed by those who are supposed to enforce it. (People v. Mengote 210 SCRA 174, 182)
Sadly, no matter how good this administration desire for solving criminality, if the people are not equipped with the right armoury – which is education, both in the law enforcers and the public in general, this is hardly victorious.
Those in the administration of justice would have no right to expect ordinary people to be law-abiding if we do not insist on the full protection of their rights. Some lawmen, prosecutors, and judges may tend to gloss over an illegal search and seizure as long as the law enforcers show the alleged evidence of the crime regardless of the methods by which they were obtained. This kind of attitude condones law-breaking in the name of law enforcement. Ironically, it only fosters the more rapid breakdown of our system of justice, and the eventual denigration of society. While we appreciate and encourage the efforts of law enforces to uphold the law and to preserve the peace and security of society, we nevertheless admonish them to act with deliberate care and within the parameters set by the Constitution and the law. Truly, the end never justifies the means. (Pepole v. Nuevas GR No. 170233)
Indeed, we can note of the growing number of acquittals for dangerous drugs cases to the failure of enforces to observe the proper arrest, search and seizure procedure under the law. Some bona fide arrest and seizures in dangerous drugs cases result in the acquittal of the accused because of drug enforcement operatives compromise the integrity and evidentiary worth of the seized items. It behoves the Courts to remind law enforcement agencies to exert greater effort to apply the rules and procedures governing the custody, control and handling of seized drugs.
It is recognized that strict compliance with the legal prescriptions of RA 9165 may not always be possible. Thus, non-compliance therewith is not always necessarily fatal. However, the lapses in the procedure must be recognized, addressed and explained in terms of their justifiable grounds, and the integrity and evidentiary values of the evidence seized must be shown to have been preserved. (People v. Garcia, GR. No. 173480)
When we come to the point where we realize that all these that we do have been a mistake, let us not blame all alone the government for all the faults without implicating our own selves for not being vigilant enough to participate in the call for making our society free from all criminalities. Fair enough, all these nonsense of the world started from the problems within ourselves.
2018 Hot Areas for Remedial Law
General Principles
Jurisdiction (There will always be a question on this.)
Civil Procedure
Actions; (Cause of Actions, joinder & Splitting, Motion to Dismissal; R16, Counterclaim)
Fresh Period Rule
Certiorari (Modes, R45 vs. R65, Question of Law vs. Question of facts)
Default (Order of default, effects, remedies
Demurrer to evidence (civil vs. criminal)
Modes of discovery (subpoena duces tecum, production and inspection of documents)
Dismissal (Grounds R.16, res judicata)
Forum shopping
Judgment (remedies, grounds for annulment, enforcement and revival, foreign judgment, judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment)
Parties (Effect of death of party; Third party claim)
Pleadings (Amendment of complaint)
Prejudicial Question
Pre-trial
Provisional Remedies
Attachment, Injunction
Special Civil Actions
Summons
Venue (Please take note that venue of action is usually coupled to questions on jurisdiction)
Criminal Procedure
Jurisdiction
Parties
Acquittal Effect
Actions
Complaint vs. Information
Information; amendment
Motion to quash information
Arrest (Warrantless arrest, search warrant)
Bail (Matter of right; Take note of increase in amount of bail)
Arraignment and Pre-trial (Plea of guilty to lesser offense
Demurrer to evidence (without leave of court, demurrer in civil vs. criminal)
Double Jeopardy
Prejudicial questions
Extradition
Provisional Dismissal
Judgment
Evidence
Evidence Admissibility
Best Evidence Rule, Secondary Evidence
Burden of proof vs. burden of evidence Preponderance, substantial, proof beyond reasonable doubt
Character Evidence
Confession
Legislative vs. Adjudicative Facts
Hearsay Evidence and its exceptions
Independent Relevant Statement
Judicial Notice
Memorandum
Offer of Evidence, res inter alios acta
Opinion Rule
Parol Evidence Rule
Privilege Communication (Marital)
Witness (Competence and Examination)
Jurisdiction (There will always be a question on this.)
Civil Procedure
Actions; (Cause of Actions, joinder & Splitting, Motion to Dismissal; R16, Counterclaim)
Fresh Period Rule
Certiorari (Modes, R45 vs. R65, Question of Law vs. Question of facts)
Default (Order of default, effects, remedies
Demurrer to evidence (civil vs. criminal)
Modes of discovery (subpoena duces tecum, production and inspection of documents)
Dismissal (Grounds R.16, res judicata)
Forum shopping
Judgment (remedies, grounds for annulment, enforcement and revival, foreign judgment, judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment)
Parties (Effect of death of party; Third party claim)
Pleadings (Amendment of complaint)
Prejudicial Question
Pre-trial
Provisional Remedies
Attachment, Injunction
Special Civil Actions
Summons
Venue (Please take note that venue of action is usually coupled to questions on jurisdiction)
Criminal Procedure
Jurisdiction
Parties
Acquittal Effect
Actions
Complaint vs. Information
Information; amendment
Motion to quash information
Arrest (Warrantless arrest, search warrant)
Bail (Matter of right; Take note of increase in amount of bail)
Arraignment and Pre-trial (Plea of guilty to lesser offense
Demurrer to evidence (without leave of court, demurrer in civil vs. criminal)
Double Jeopardy
Prejudicial questions
Extradition
Provisional Dismissal
Judgment
Evidence
Evidence Admissibility
Best Evidence Rule, Secondary Evidence
Burden of proof vs. burden of evidence Preponderance, substantial, proof beyond reasonable doubt
Character Evidence
Confession
Legislative vs. Adjudicative Facts
Hearsay Evidence and its exceptions
Independent Relevant Statement
Judicial Notice
Memorandum
Offer of Evidence, res inter alios acta
Opinion Rule
Parol Evidence Rule
Privilege Communication (Marital)
Witness (Competence and Examination)
Tuesday, October 2, 2018
Sleeping in one's right : A ground for discouragement of claims grown stale for non-assertion
It is the cardinal principle in Land Registration that a torrens title is indefeasible and imprescriptible.
However, it is not absolute.
Public policy requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of claims grown stale for non-assertion; thus laches is an impediment to the assertion or enforcement of a right which has become, under the circumstances, inequitable or unfair to permit.
The following are the essential elements of laches:
(1) Conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation complained of;
(2) Delay in asserting complainant's right after he had knowledge of the defendant's conduct and after he has an opportunity to sue;
(3) Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and
(4) Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant.
[G.R. No. 112519. November 14, 1996]
CATHOLIC BISHOP OF BALANGA, represented by CRISPULO TORRICO, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and AMANDO DE LEON.
Monday, September 10, 2018
Is a person convicted of Reclusion Perpetua eligible to be granted parole?
It is important in this connection that Section 2 of Act. No. 4103 provides that the Act shall NOT apply to persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life-imprisonment; to those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of piracy; to those who are habitual delinquents; to those who have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence; to those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms thereof; to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year, not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof. Act No. 4103 (As Amended by Act No. 4225 and Republic Act No. 4203 (Emphasis supplied)
In Republic Act No. 9346, an Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, Section 3 thereof provides that persons convicted of offenses punished with Reclusion Perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225) states that the Act shall not apply to, among others, persons convicted of offenses punishable with the death penalty, or life imprisonment. Notably, there was no reference to persons convicted of offense punishable with Reclusion Perpetua. However, the Court, in several cases, has considered the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to be synonymous to life imprisonment for purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and has ruled that this law does not apply to persons convicted of offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua.
Parole is extended only to those convicted of divisible penalties. Reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty and carries no minimum nor maximum period. Section 5 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that it is after “any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him” that the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may consider whether such prisoner may be granted parole. With no “minimum penalty” imposable on those convicted of a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua, then even prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 9346, persons sentenced by final judgment to reclusion perpetua could not have availed of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (Concurring Opionion of Justice Tinga in People v. Tubongbanua, 532 Phil. 434 (2006) as cited in A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC (Aug. 4, 2015)
It should be remembered also that in the light of Section 21 of R.A. No. 7659 which amended Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code by specifically fixing the duration of Reclusion Perpetua at twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, the issue reached the Supreme Court on whether reclusion perpetua is already a divisible penalty or not. The Supreme Court in People vs. Conrado B. Lucas, G.R. No. 108172-73, January 9, 1995 held that:
“Since the issue of whether the amendment of Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code by Section 21 of R.A. No. 7659 has made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty is one of first impression and of sufficient importance, the First Division referred the motion for clarification to the Court en banc. The latter accepted the referral.
After deliberating on the motion and re-examining the legislative history of R.A. No. 7659, the Court concludes that although Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty.” (Emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, in People vs. Diomedes Magallano and Marcelo Magallano, G.R. No. 114872, January 16, 1997, citing the case of People vs. Saliling, G.R. No. 117732, the Supreme Court again clarified that:
xxx
“As has heretofore been the nature of this penalty, reclusion perpetua, remains as an indivisible penalty without any minimum, medium, or maximum period. As such, it should be imposed in the case at bar in its entire duration in accordance with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code regardless of the presence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance that may have attended the commission of the crime. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx
The Board of Pardons and Parole issued Resolution No. 24-4-10 – Amending and Repealing Certain Rules and Sections of the Rules on Parole and Amended Guidelines for Recommending Executive Clemency of the 2006 Revise Manual of the Board of Pardons and Parole. Now rule 2.2. on Disqualification for Parole, xxx par. i. provides that those convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences were reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of Republic Act. No. 9346 enacted on June 24, 2006, amending Republic Act. 7659 dated January 1, 2004.
Based on the foregoing discussions, it is very clear that one who is convicted and meted out with a penalty of reclusion perpetua is not eligible for the grant of executive clemency/parole.
In Republic Act No. 9346, an Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, Section 3 thereof provides that persons convicted of offenses punished with Reclusion Perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
Section 2 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103 as amended by Act No. 4225) states that the Act shall not apply to, among others, persons convicted of offenses punishable with the death penalty, or life imprisonment. Notably, there was no reference to persons convicted of offense punishable with Reclusion Perpetua. However, the Court, in several cases, has considered the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to be synonymous to life imprisonment for purposes of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and has ruled that this law does not apply to persons convicted of offenses punishable with reclusion perpetua.
Parole is extended only to those convicted of divisible penalties. Reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty and carries no minimum nor maximum period. Section 5 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law provides that it is after “any prisoner shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him” that the Board of Indeterminate Sentence may consider whether such prisoner may be granted parole. With no “minimum penalty” imposable on those convicted of a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua, then even prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 9346, persons sentenced by final judgment to reclusion perpetua could not have availed of parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. (Concurring Opionion of Justice Tinga in People v. Tubongbanua, 532 Phil. 434 (2006) as cited in A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC (Aug. 4, 2015)
It should be remembered also that in the light of Section 21 of R.A. No. 7659 which amended Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code by specifically fixing the duration of Reclusion Perpetua at twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, the issue reached the Supreme Court on whether reclusion perpetua is already a divisible penalty or not. The Supreme Court in People vs. Conrado B. Lucas, G.R. No. 108172-73, January 9, 1995 held that:
“Since the issue of whether the amendment of Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code by Section 21 of R.A. No. 7659 has made reclusion perpetua a divisible penalty is one of first impression and of sufficient importance, the First Division referred the motion for clarification to the Court en banc. The latter accepted the referral.
After deliberating on the motion and re-examining the legislative history of R.A. No. 7659, the Court concludes that although Section 17 of R.A. No. 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua from twenty (20) years and one (1) day to forty (40) years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. It shall then remain as an indivisible penalty.” (Emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, in People vs. Diomedes Magallano and Marcelo Magallano, G.R. No. 114872, January 16, 1997, citing the case of People vs. Saliling, G.R. No. 117732, the Supreme Court again clarified that:
xxx
“As has heretofore been the nature of this penalty, reclusion perpetua, remains as an indivisible penalty without any minimum, medium, or maximum period. As such, it should be imposed in the case at bar in its entire duration in accordance with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code regardless of the presence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance that may have attended the commission of the crime. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx
The Board of Pardons and Parole issued Resolution No. 24-4-10 – Amending and Repealing Certain Rules and Sections of the Rules on Parole and Amended Guidelines for Recommending Executive Clemency of the 2006 Revise Manual of the Board of Pardons and Parole. Now rule 2.2. on Disqualification for Parole, xxx par. i. provides that those convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences were reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of Republic Act. No. 9346 enacted on June 24, 2006, amending Republic Act. 7659 dated January 1, 2004.
Based on the foregoing discussions, it is very clear that one who is convicted and meted out with a penalty of reclusion perpetua is not eligible for the grant of executive clemency/parole.
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Dapat si-ak! Bar Exam Answer must be brief, logical and complete: An advice by Judge Doctor, and Atty. Amora which I can share to the aspiring lawyers
In case you did not know, the bar exams will be taken by thousands of examinees. More or less, 6800 aspiring lawyers take the bar examinations every year. This number is very big when you are talking about the Bar. Why? The examination is written essay and only one examiner for each subject checks the examination notebooks of examinees. Hence, there is a necessity to write a brief, logical and complete bar exam answers.
What does “brief” answer mean?
It does not mean one sentence, nor three sentences only.
“Brief” answers in the bar does not mean that you need to write only a one-sentence answer. According to Judge Doctor, our Professor in the College of Law for Political Law Review class:
“Brief” answer does not mean that your answer must be so short that in doing so, it is as though you have no answers at all. “Brief” answer means that you write direct to the point answers. Whenever you are confronted with a question, the answer must be responsive in order to be direct to the point. Hence, any answer which is not direct to the point can never be brief because it will always go around the bush.”
According to Atty. Amora, our Professor also in the College of Law for Civil Law Review class, exam answer must not be too long. Answers must always be kept short. “Dapat si-ak”, said by Atty. Amora. In my own understanding of his statement, “dapat si-ak” – referring to the Boholano context of chopping wood using an axe where every blow must cause the firewood to break - which if connected to the study in law means that every time you throw[write] a statement in the examination notebook, ALL MUST BE SIGNIFICANT AND MUST REVOLVE ON THE APPLICABLE LAWS in relation to the issues of the case. Therefore, every statement must not be useless. Any statement which solicits doctrines and laws or solicits ideas which are not applicable to the case are therefore garbage.
For example:
==========================================================================
Question: Is there rape committed by a man having sexual intercourse through force with a gay who underwent sexual reassignment?
Answer:
None. Under the law, rape, in first form, is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a WOMAN either by force, threat, or intimidation as among others.
It is crystal clear that a gay (man) cannot be a victim under the first form of rape which requires sexual commerce with a WOMAN even if attended by force, threat, or intimidation.
Even assuming that a person had sexual transplant to have that genital of a woman, the law cannot admit of extended application for those persons. Penal laws are ought to be interpreted strictly against the state and liberally in favor of the accused. Thus, a person's act should not be brought into the hands of the law when it is not clearly within them. Where the law requires gender as an element of the crime, it must be so established for the crime to be committed.
However, the person who had sexual intercourse with a gay(man) can be held liable for rape thru sexual assault, the second form of rape. Under the law, sexual assault is committed by any person inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice or any instrument into the genital or anal orifice of another person attended by force, threat, or intimidation as among others.
In here, the man who inserted his penis into the genital of the gay can be said to have inserted an instrument or object which is his very organ. In one case, SC ruled that finger is an object. There is no cogent reason to rule that penis is not an object when the SC has held that object does not necessarily purport to be an inanimate object but can also be part of the body of a person.
Moreover, whenever a person is charged of rape thru sexual intercourse, he cannot be convicted of rape in the second form if the same is established instead of the crime charged.
Rape thru sexual assault is not inherent in the first form. At most, the accused can only be convicted of acts of lasciviousness, a crime inherent in both cases.
=========================================================================
Notice that the above suggested answer is quite long. The question calls only for the discussion of the first form of rape, yet the answer discusses further about the rape in the second form. This in a way solicits further a law or idea which is no longer required by the examiner.
Solicitation of doctrines, laws, or ideas which are not part of the questions nor the issues of the case violate the basic instructions in the Bar Examination. It is not allowed in the actual bar exam.
How to write logical answer?
Follow simple rules in logic –
Position
Major premise
Minor premise
Conclusion
Responsive Answer
Legal Basis
Analysis to the facts
Conclusion
Answers which follows the above logic are usually the ones which are complete.
Should answers be written in paragraphs or can it be written in a single paragraph?
There are those who passed the bar using the three-paragraph rule and there are those who used single paragraph in writing their examination answers.
The beauty, may be, in using paragraphs in writing answers is that it becomes easy for the examiners to read the exam notebooks and easy for him to identify your responsive answer, discussion of the law, analysis to the facts, and conclusion.
Above anything else, you must understand that the Supreme Court does not require nor provide for the exact form as to how bar exam answers should be written. Hence, it is all up to the examinees how to approach the Bar Examinations.
Monday, July 16, 2018
RevGov to pave way to federal state?
If federal system will come, will the politicians change? Will they stay the same? If federal system will come, will people ever change during elections or will they stay the same?
Recently, election for ABC President has been done. The vote-buying has reached its top. Change?
Not so much will change by changing from unitary form to federal form of government. Only the concentration of power will be different. Feudalism will come back in the end making the strongest clans rise up in every district.
Let us be humble and honest enough, there is no magic which will cure all the myriad ills of our nation. There is no medicine which is a "cure-all".
If there is cure, then that is when we truly realize that the corruption is within each one of us.
See for yourself during elections. We have become hungry ghost waiting for "uwan-uwan".
If we demand for change, then let us start not by pointing finger towards public officials or other people.
Let us wake up. That is the cure.
Thursday, July 12, 2018
Quick guide on how to make a bar exam answer that is direct to the point, brief, logical and complete
There are really a lot of ways on how to answer bar examinations. But exploring these different versions in the actual bar exams may not be so good given the short period of time. Given only a short period of four hours in the actual bar exams for each subject, there is no time for you to think on how to formulate your answers that is direct to the point, brief, logical and complete.
What we usually suggest is to follow a system and practice this as much as possible to frame up the mind to think the way it should be for the actual bar exams.
We follow a very simple system in the exam answers:
Responsive Answer, + a very short recall of material fact (Yes/no, ____________);
Legal basis (Under the law, _________);
Application (In this case, ___________);
Conclusion (Therefore, ____________);
For example, you are confronted with a possible question in the Bar Exams for criminal law like:
B is an aspiring Lawyer taking now his formal bar review class in ABC Law Review Center. B, having a problem catching up with the review lectures, recorded the discussion of A, a bar reviewer for Criminal Law, without the latter’s consent. Can B be held liable for violating the Anti-wire Tapping Law?
Responsive answer
The question is a simple Yes/No Question. In order to give a responsive answer, you must give a yes/no response, with an additional recall of material fact in the given problem which leads you to your position. So why bother giving a short recall of some material facts? The reason is simple. This gives the examiner the hint as to which problem you are and to which he is checking. In checking the exam notebooks, the examiner will have no time in reading again the problem for each number the fact that he will be checking 6000+ notebooks. Be sure to give the shortest statement in recall of your material fact. We always want to keep our answers brief and concise.
Next is legal basis. In giving the legal basis, we usually start with a phrase like:
Under the law;
The law substantially provides that;
The law in substance provides that;
The law states to the effect that;
(Note: The first four must be used in recalling a provision of law. We used “under the law” if we have memorized the law. If we have not memorized the provisions of law, we used the other opening phrases. In giving legal basis, we usually do not provide for the Article number. Why? Giving the article number can be a two-bladed weapon. It can either impress your examiner if you can perfectly recall the article number or either it can cause your flunking in the bar because unfortunately you have cited the wrong article number. Citing article number especially in Labor Law is very dangerous considering that the Labor Code has undergone so much amendments.
In addition, why bother giving the article number when it is not even the law itself?
However, there are some cases where it becomes inevitable to cite Article or Rule number like in 2017 Bar Examination for Remedial Law where the question calls for different modes of appeal.
In the case of;
In our jurisprudence;
In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that;
(Note: You do not have to cite GR nor SCRA numbers. It is very dangerous and would only waste your time in the actual bar examinations. Citing cases is also not advisable. When you cite like People vs. Santos, the examiner will think that you are only bluffing. Actually, there are hundreds of cases titled People vs. Santos. You can cite however celebrated cases.)
Under the doctrine of;
It is well-settled rule in our jurisdiction that;
It is well-settled rule;
It is well-entrenched rule;
Elementary is the rule which states that;
It is well-entrenched in the legal maxim which states that;
(Note: Above are heroes. If you cannot remember the law nor the jurisprudence, resort with a doctrine, or a legal maxim in law.)
In our jurisdiction;
(Use it if you cannot remember anything at all.)
Application and analysis to the facts
Examiners are not only interested in your knowledge of the laws but also in your ability to use such knowledge to the applicable issues of the problem. Bar examination is composed of 60% to 70% of analytical problems. Mere knowledge of law is not sufficient.
To give hint to your examiners of your analysis to the issues of the case, you may use:
In the case at hand;
In the case at bar;
In this case;
The facts showed that;
It the case, it can be gleaned that;
Conclusion.
Concluding statements become important to show your examiners that your logic is well-crafted. Concluding statements must always conform to your responsive answer.
Concluding words:
Hence,
Therefore;
Thus;
So.
We hope that this system will guide you and would be able to help you in your journey to the bar. God bless you.
Note however, that we do not guarantee any correctness of this method. But this is how we made it in the bar and several others.
What we usually suggest is to follow a system and practice this as much as possible to frame up the mind to think the way it should be for the actual bar exams.
We follow a very simple system in the exam answers:
Responsive Answer, + a very short recall of material fact (Yes/no, ____________);
Legal basis (Under the law, _________);
Application (In this case, ___________);
Conclusion (Therefore, ____________);
For example, you are confronted with a possible question in the Bar Exams for criminal law like:
B is an aspiring Lawyer taking now his formal bar review class in ABC Law Review Center. B, having a problem catching up with the review lectures, recorded the discussion of A, a bar reviewer for Criminal Law, without the latter’s consent. Can B be held liable for violating the Anti-wire Tapping Law?
Responsive answer
The question is a simple Yes/No Question. In order to give a responsive answer, you must give a yes/no response, with an additional recall of material fact in the given problem which leads you to your position. So why bother giving a short recall of some material facts? The reason is simple. This gives the examiner the hint as to which problem you are and to which he is checking. In checking the exam notebooks, the examiner will have no time in reading again the problem for each number the fact that he will be checking 6000+ notebooks. Be sure to give the shortest statement in recall of your material fact. We always want to keep our answers brief and concise.
Next is legal basis. In giving the legal basis, we usually start with a phrase like:
Under the law;
The law substantially provides that;
The law in substance provides that;
The law states to the effect that;
(Note: The first four must be used in recalling a provision of law. We used “under the law” if we have memorized the law. If we have not memorized the provisions of law, we used the other opening phrases. In giving legal basis, we usually do not provide for the Article number. Why? Giving the article number can be a two-bladed weapon. It can either impress your examiner if you can perfectly recall the article number or either it can cause your flunking in the bar because unfortunately you have cited the wrong article number. Citing article number especially in Labor Law is very dangerous considering that the Labor Code has undergone so much amendments.
In addition, why bother giving the article number when it is not even the law itself?
However, there are some cases where it becomes inevitable to cite Article or Rule number like in 2017 Bar Examination for Remedial Law where the question calls for different modes of appeal.
In the case of;
In our jurisprudence;
In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that;
(Note: You do not have to cite GR nor SCRA numbers. It is very dangerous and would only waste your time in the actual bar examinations. Citing cases is also not advisable. When you cite like People vs. Santos, the examiner will think that you are only bluffing. Actually, there are hundreds of cases titled People vs. Santos. You can cite however celebrated cases.)
Under the doctrine of;
It is well-settled rule in our jurisdiction that;
It is well-settled rule;
It is well-entrenched rule;
Elementary is the rule which states that;
It is well-entrenched in the legal maxim which states that;
(Note: Above are heroes. If you cannot remember the law nor the jurisprudence, resort with a doctrine, or a legal maxim in law.)
In our jurisdiction;
(Use it if you cannot remember anything at all.)
Application and analysis to the facts
Examiners are not only interested in your knowledge of the laws but also in your ability to use such knowledge to the applicable issues of the problem. Bar examination is composed of 60% to 70% of analytical problems. Mere knowledge of law is not sufficient.
To give hint to your examiners of your analysis to the issues of the case, you may use:
In the case at hand;
In the case at bar;
In this case;
The facts showed that;
It the case, it can be gleaned that;
Conclusion.
Concluding statements become important to show your examiners that your logic is well-crafted. Concluding statements must always conform to your responsive answer.
Concluding words:
Hence,
Therefore;
Thus;
So.
We hope that this system will guide you and would be able to help you in your journey to the bar. God bless you.
Note however, that we do not guarantee any correctness of this method. But this is how we made it in the bar and several others.
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
Common carriers?
#Uber
#Grab
Why grow interest upon the issues below? Well, this will help us enlighten our minds on how the modern world has grown so much that our own laws have been left behind - sleeping cold in the memories of our congressmen. This will help urge each one of us to study the vanishing gap of the cyber and physical life and some of its effects in our existing laws so that we can be prepared for all possible modernization measures to cope up with the changing times.
To start:
LTFRB faces true difficulties with how to regulate the Grab and Uber Companies. Surely, there is no question that LTFRB is clothed with the power to regulate common carriers in our country. However, there is this cloud of doubt on how to classify the earlier mentioned companies -whether they are embraced in our ancient definition of common carriers or not.
So we have now the following questions:
Can we classify Uber and Grab as common carriers?
Does LTFRB have jurisdiction to regulate these companies in the first place?
If these companies cannot be regulated by LTFRB, is there any way to regulate these comapnies.
I guess most of you have already answered the question. And I bet you have classified the comapnies as common carriers just as how the LTFRB contended.
I humbly submit that such contention is unfounded and without legal leg with which to stand on.
Who are common carriers? Art. 1732 of the New Civil Code which took effect on August 30, 1950 or roughly 67 years from now provides: Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.
Our early definition of common carriers way back in early 50's has been confined to carriage of passengers or goods or both thru trains, jeepnies, buses, boats and planes. That is the prevailing condition during those times. Come the case of Industrial Corp. Vs. Court of Appeals, we have accepted a way higher meaning of common carriers such it includes now those pipeline operators who are transporting oil and other petroleum products through its pipes. We have also considered the Electricity distributors as common carriers. The electricity has been considered as goods. True enough, the law does not make any distinction whether the transportation of passengers or goods be by motor vehicle.
Having said that, does the definition include now the services provided for by Grab and Uber companies to qualify them as common carriers?
Uber was launched in 2010 as an aggregator of “black car” services in San Francisco. It has quickly become one of the world’s most influential companies. Startups pitch venture capitalists on “the Uber for x,” as they once talked of imitating Amazon.com or Google. Worth over $50 billion as of mid-2015, Uber is the world’s most highly-valued, venture-backed private company. It now operates in over 300 cities worldwide and has over one million drivers in its network. Uber’s revenues are already in the billions of dollars.(KEVIN WERBACH, Associate Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania., werbach@wharton.upenn.edu.)
Uber is the most prominent example of a deeply important trend. However, it is widely misunderstood. Descriptions of Uber and its competitors usually lump them as examples of “the Sharing Economy” or “Collaborative Consumption” because they encourage private drivers to share their cars with paying passengers on an on-demand basis, or the descriptions focus on the functionality of its smartphone-based, ride-hailing app. However, at its core, Uber is an Internet-enabled network or simply a software.
There is a misconception. The public actually believe that the Grab and Uber and the private-vehicle owners offering transport services are the same and one entity. They are not.
Hiding behind the "cloud" or "internet" as layman understood it, Uber operates as a software business allowing exchange of information of its users - the private car owners who utilizes the app and the riding public.
The service provided by Grab and Uber can hardly be considered, as yet, as public utility under our existing laws because it supplies merely a venue in the cyber-world of exchange of information. It does not transport itself passengers or goods. Being a software company, it merely offers no more less than data which people can use. Nothing in our jurisprudence has yet defined "data" as a form of goods. To hold "data" as a form of goods would surely hold out many other companies such as Facebook, Google, Wordpress, OLX, Twitter, and Youtube, as common carriers, because they also carry data, which is totally absurd.
However, LTFRB has all the powers to regulate the private-car owners who are in the actual engagement of transporting the passengers. One that holds itself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for hire as public employment and not a casual occupation has been used as among the determinative elements of common carrier. Art. 1732 avoids any distinction between person or enterprise offering transportation service on occassional, episodic, and unscheduled basis. Neither does the law distinguish between a carrier offering its services for the general public, that is the community or population and one who offers business only from narrow segment of the general population.
Now to say that private car owners who uses the Grab and Uber app as not common carriers because they only offer in private contract to those who uses the app and not to the general public is clearly not tenable. The fact that it holds out to the segment of population who are app-user public for transportation means they are cyrstal clear embraced in the definition of the law.
The power of the state, exercised by the LTFRB, to regulate public utilties engaged in transport services hinges on tbe police power in order to promote common good. When private property is used for public purpose and is affected with public interest, it ceases to be "juris privati" only and becomes subject to regulation. The regulation is to promote the common good. For example, with the regulation, state can make sure that these people engaged in transport services will comply with the prescribed requirements for the accomodation of PWD, the standard fares, and privileges for students.
Submission to regulation maybe withdrawn by the owner by discontinuing use; but as long as use of the property is continued, the same is subject to public regulation. (RP vs. Manila Elec. Com. Nov. 15, 2002)
Now. LTFRB, in order to remove the gap as between Uber or Grab and the private car owners, opined that the companies are actually the operators of these transport services and so the employers of the drivers. That is the reason why we hear a lot of news compelling Uber and Grab to comply with labor laws like the prescribed working hours.
This leads us to a way far. The Labor laws basically define the relation of the employers to their employees and not to the public as users of the services of the employers. To apply labor laws in the main issue is simply absurd.
Granting arguendo that the comapnies and the drivers are one such that the former holds out as the operator of public convenience, this is where LTFRB is confronted of much larger problem of closing down the whole operation of the companies in our country for failure to comply with the Constitutional requirement for operators of public utility which requires full beneficial ownerahip of 60% of outstanding capital stock and 60% of the voting shares. (Gamboa vs. Teves, June 28, 2011) Uber and Grab are 100% not owned by Filipinos. They are foreign companies.
The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) is the agency created by virtue of Exec. Order No. 202, series of 1987, under the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), which handles the issuance of authority to any entity (corporate or individual) wishing to engage in public land-based transportation service.SEC. 5. provides for the Powers and Functions of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board. Nowhere can we find any power which the agency over regulation of information-sharing.
The goals of LTFRB, which are really noble by themselves, are unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambits of police powers of the state. Yet the desirability of these ends do not sanctify any and all means for their achievement. There is really a need to update our laws and cloth the right agencies with authority to the emerging needs of police regulations for activities which by far have rendered inutile our ancient and unupdated laws.
If at all, the best solution to address the existing condition using the available laws and jurisprudence that we have is to directly regulate the private-car owners. To regulate the Grab and Uber company, we can use the existing taxation laws in order to tax these foreign companies for income derived from sources within the country.
Let us know your own view. Comment down.
#Grab
Why grow interest upon the issues below? Well, this will help us enlighten our minds on how the modern world has grown so much that our own laws have been left behind - sleeping cold in the memories of our congressmen. This will help urge each one of us to study the vanishing gap of the cyber and physical life and some of its effects in our existing laws so that we can be prepared for all possible modernization measures to cope up with the changing times.
To start:
LTFRB faces true difficulties with how to regulate the Grab and Uber Companies. Surely, there is no question that LTFRB is clothed with the power to regulate common carriers in our country. However, there is this cloud of doubt on how to classify the earlier mentioned companies -whether they are embraced in our ancient definition of common carriers or not.
So we have now the following questions:
Can we classify Uber and Grab as common carriers?
Does LTFRB have jurisdiction to regulate these companies in the first place?
If these companies cannot be regulated by LTFRB, is there any way to regulate these comapnies.
I guess most of you have already answered the question. And I bet you have classified the comapnies as common carriers just as how the LTFRB contended.
I humbly submit that such contention is unfounded and without legal leg with which to stand on.
Who are common carriers? Art. 1732 of the New Civil Code which took effect on August 30, 1950 or roughly 67 years from now provides: Common carriers are persons, corporations, firms, or associations engaged in the business of carrying or transporting passengers or goods or both, by land, water, or air, for compensation, offering their services to the public.
Our early definition of common carriers way back in early 50's has been confined to carriage of passengers or goods or both thru trains, jeepnies, buses, boats and planes. That is the prevailing condition during those times. Come the case of Industrial Corp. Vs. Court of Appeals, we have accepted a way higher meaning of common carriers such it includes now those pipeline operators who are transporting oil and other petroleum products through its pipes. We have also considered the Electricity distributors as common carriers. The electricity has been considered as goods. True enough, the law does not make any distinction whether the transportation of passengers or goods be by motor vehicle.
Having said that, does the definition include now the services provided for by Grab and Uber companies to qualify them as common carriers?
Uber was launched in 2010 as an aggregator of “black car” services in San Francisco. It has quickly become one of the world’s most influential companies. Startups pitch venture capitalists on “the Uber for x,” as they once talked of imitating Amazon.com or Google. Worth over $50 billion as of mid-2015, Uber is the world’s most highly-valued, venture-backed private company. It now operates in over 300 cities worldwide and has over one million drivers in its network. Uber’s revenues are already in the billions of dollars.(KEVIN WERBACH, Associate Professor of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania., werbach@wharton.upenn.edu.)
Uber is the most prominent example of a deeply important trend. However, it is widely misunderstood. Descriptions of Uber and its competitors usually lump them as examples of “the Sharing Economy” or “Collaborative Consumption” because they encourage private drivers to share their cars with paying passengers on an on-demand basis, or the descriptions focus on the functionality of its smartphone-based, ride-hailing app. However, at its core, Uber is an Internet-enabled network or simply a software.
There is a misconception. The public actually believe that the Grab and Uber and the private-vehicle owners offering transport services are the same and one entity. They are not.
Hiding behind the "cloud" or "internet" as layman understood it, Uber operates as a software business allowing exchange of information of its users - the private car owners who utilizes the app and the riding public.
The service provided by Grab and Uber can hardly be considered, as yet, as public utility under our existing laws because it supplies merely a venue in the cyber-world of exchange of information. It does not transport itself passengers or goods. Being a software company, it merely offers no more less than data which people can use. Nothing in our jurisprudence has yet defined "data" as a form of goods. To hold "data" as a form of goods would surely hold out many other companies such as Facebook, Google, Wordpress, OLX, Twitter, and Youtube, as common carriers, because they also carry data, which is totally absurd.
However, LTFRB has all the powers to regulate the private-car owners who are in the actual engagement of transporting the passengers. One that holds itself out as ready to engage in the transportation of goods for hire as public employment and not a casual occupation has been used as among the determinative elements of common carrier. Art. 1732 avoids any distinction between person or enterprise offering transportation service on occassional, episodic, and unscheduled basis. Neither does the law distinguish between a carrier offering its services for the general public, that is the community or population and one who offers business only from narrow segment of the general population.
Now to say that private car owners who uses the Grab and Uber app as not common carriers because they only offer in private contract to those who uses the app and not to the general public is clearly not tenable. The fact that it holds out to the segment of population who are app-user public for transportation means they are cyrstal clear embraced in the definition of the law.
The power of the state, exercised by the LTFRB, to regulate public utilties engaged in transport services hinges on tbe police power in order to promote common good. When private property is used for public purpose and is affected with public interest, it ceases to be "juris privati" only and becomes subject to regulation. The regulation is to promote the common good. For example, with the regulation, state can make sure that these people engaged in transport services will comply with the prescribed requirements for the accomodation of PWD, the standard fares, and privileges for students.
Submission to regulation maybe withdrawn by the owner by discontinuing use; but as long as use of the property is continued, the same is subject to public regulation. (RP vs. Manila Elec. Com. Nov. 15, 2002)
Now. LTFRB, in order to remove the gap as between Uber or Grab and the private car owners, opined that the companies are actually the operators of these transport services and so the employers of the drivers. That is the reason why we hear a lot of news compelling Uber and Grab to comply with labor laws like the prescribed working hours.
This leads us to a way far. The Labor laws basically define the relation of the employers to their employees and not to the public as users of the services of the employers. To apply labor laws in the main issue is simply absurd.
Granting arguendo that the comapnies and the drivers are one such that the former holds out as the operator of public convenience, this is where LTFRB is confronted of much larger problem of closing down the whole operation of the companies in our country for failure to comply with the Constitutional requirement for operators of public utility which requires full beneficial ownerahip of 60% of outstanding capital stock and 60% of the voting shares. (Gamboa vs. Teves, June 28, 2011) Uber and Grab are 100% not owned by Filipinos. They are foreign companies.
The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) is the agency created by virtue of Exec. Order No. 202, series of 1987, under the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), which handles the issuance of authority to any entity (corporate or individual) wishing to engage in public land-based transportation service.SEC. 5. provides for the Powers and Functions of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board. Nowhere can we find any power which the agency over regulation of information-sharing.
The goals of LTFRB, which are really noble by themselves, are unimpeachable and certainly fall within the ambits of police powers of the state. Yet the desirability of these ends do not sanctify any and all means for their achievement. There is really a need to update our laws and cloth the right agencies with authority to the emerging needs of police regulations for activities which by far have rendered inutile our ancient and unupdated laws.
If at all, the best solution to address the existing condition using the available laws and jurisprudence that we have is to directly regulate the private-car owners. To regulate the Grab and Uber company, we can use the existing taxation laws in order to tax these foreign companies for income derived from sources within the country.
Let us know your own view. Comment down.
Auza Law Reviewers
We are ever greatful that we have made it in the Bar, thanks to the people who have shared their knowledge in the laws specially the faculty in the College of Law of BIT International College.
As a form of gratitude, we are giving these reviewers for free to all the College of Law students, and anybody who is interested.
We hope that these materials will be helpful in your own journey to the Bar.
Click the link below to download.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1aMxISiLH5r1CNsBuVphIMHe-q3jyGJP5
As a form of gratitude, we are giving these reviewers for free to all the College of Law students, and anybody who is interested.
We hope that these materials will be helpful in your own journey to the Bar.
Click the link below to download.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=1aMxISiLH5r1CNsBuVphIMHe-q3jyGJP5
CHR cannot be removed without amending the 1987 Constitution
In the recent attempt of our congress to cripple the Commission on Human Rights by giving it an alarming hand-to-mouth budget is a blatant evasion and disregard of the intendments of the Constitution which created the Commission. The same should be struck down for being constitutionally offensive as it is a clear insidious act of annilation of an organ created by the basic law which cannot be done without amending the law itslef.
HUMAN RIGHTS, I suppose we all know that. But for the purpose of reminding us, allow me to quote - Human Rights is the basic set of moral rights that all human beings are entitled to receive such as the right to life, liberty, freedoms of speech and religion, the right of due process and equal protection of the laws.
Respect to Human Rigths is a peremptory norm of International Law from which no derogation is allowed thru law, treaty or any form of agreement.
This is a norm accepted by every civilized State which has the status of a peremptory, absolute, mandatory, uncompromising custom of International Law.
Our 1987 Philippine Constituion, nothing less, has created our independent office of the Commission on Human Rights under Section 17, Article XIII as a hallmark to our high regards on the respect to human rights. But how does it function? What are the mandates of this Commission?
Sadly, what we only see or hear from the traditional media is the Commission speaking in cases when there are alleged abuses made by persons in authority in the performance of their duties.
This leads to the frustration of many of us Filipinos asking are not these victims of rape, murder, robbery and many other cases perpetrated by alleged drug addicts also victims of human rights violations.
The answer is a plain yes. All these people who have been killed, raped, robbed, kidnapped, etc., are also victims of human rights violations regardless of who the offenders are.
The reports in media have created a certain pattern as though the function of the Commission were only to monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights. However, the powers and functions of the Commission far exceed than what we hear or see from daily news shown to us by the media.
The first mandate of the CHR is to investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights. In this, we can infer that the law makes no distinction as to who the offender is - whether it is a private or person in authority. Hence, needless to say, CHR can investigate all kinds of violations done against any individual committed by any other person.
But do not get the CHR wrong if no one can be prosecuted or adjudged as violator of human rights or be punished for criminal offense. The CHR is only tasked to investigate and not to prosecute. It is not among the prosecution arms of the government.
The complete enumeration of the powers and functions of CHR are as follows:
Section 18. Art. XIII of the 1987 Constitution. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and functions:
(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights;
(2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;
(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and legal aid services to the under-privileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection;
(4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;
(5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the primacy of human rights;
(6) Recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families;
(7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights;
(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority;
(9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its functions;
(10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and
(11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.
Notice that there are so many powers of the CHR and they are by themselves unimpeachable and only serve for the better protection of human rights enshrined under the Bill of Rights.
However, we only hear less of these being exercised. Maybe because they have been paid only to advertise to wrongs of the present administration? I don't know.
The law is not by itself the one corrupt, nor is the Commission. If there is one, it is the people that could be running the office. And let us not turn a blind eye against the reality that this is happening in almost all instrumentalities and agencies of the government.
But honestly enough, why should we cast the blame on others when the very corruption we hate so much initially started from us.
Saturday, July 7, 2018
VB code update all entries in datagridview row
Dim dr As New DialogResult
dr = MessageBox.Show("Are you sure you want to save?", "Deskware", MessageBoxButtons.OKCancel, MessageBoxIcon.Question)
If dr = Windows.Forms.DialogResult.OK Then
Dim zz As Double
zz = DataGridView1.RowCount
ToolStripProgressBar1.Visible = True
ToolStripProgressBar1.Minimum = 0
Dim currentrow As New DataGridViewRow
For Each currentrow In DataGridView1.Rows
ToolStripProgressBar1.Value = ToolStripProgressBar1.Value + 1
Dim strs = "Select * from Individual_loan_ledger WHERE (acct_no = '" & currentrow.Cells(0).Value.ToString & "' and Loan_no = '" & currentrow.Cells(4).Value.ToString & "' and Sched = #" & DateTimePicker1.Value.ToShortDateString & "#)"
Dim cmds As New OleDbCommand(strs, con)
If con.State = ConnectionState.Closed Then con.Open()
Dim drs As OleDbDataReader = cmds.ExecuteReader
If drs.HasRows Then
'Update the individual_loan_ledger table if there is record found.
If con.State = ConnectionState.Closed Then con.Open()
Dim st As String = "UPDATE [Individual_loan_ledger]SET Date_paid = #" & DateTimePicker1.Value.ToShortDateString & "#, Principal = " & currentrow.Cells(11).Value & ", Interest = 0, Balance= " & currentrow.Cells(10).Value - currentrow.Cells(11).Value & ", Penalty = 0, discount = 0, savings = 0,cbu = 0, addon1 = 0, addon2 =0,addon3 = 0 WHERE(acct_no = '" & currentrow.Cells(0).Value.ToString & "' and Loan_no = '" & currentrow.Cells(4).Value.ToString & "' and Sched = #" & DateTimePicker1.Value.ToShortDateString & "#)"
Dim cmd As New OleDbCommand(st, con)
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery()
Else
'Insert new row for individual_loan_ledger if no row to update about payment or sched is not found.
If con.State = ConnectionState.Closed Then con.Open()
Dim st As String = "INSERT INTO [Individual_loan_ledger](Loan_no, Loan_type, eName, Sched, Date_paid, principal, interest,Balance,penalty, acct_no, emo, eyr )VALUES ( '" & currentrow.Cells(4).Value.ToString & "', '" & currentrow.Cells(5).Value.ToString & "', '" & currentrow.Cells(2).Value.ToString & "', #" & DateTimePicker1.Value.ToShortDateString & "#, #" & DateTimePicker1.Value.ToShortDateString & "#, " & currentrow.Cells(11).Value & ", 0, " & currentrow.Cells(10).Value - currentrow.Cells(11).Value & ", 0, '" & currentrow.Cells(0).Value.ToString & "', " & DateTimePicker1.Value.Month & ", " & DateTimePicker1.Value.Year & ")"
Dim cmd As New OleDbCommand(st, con)
cmd.ExecuteNonQuery()
End If
'Update the balance in the loan_business table.
If con.State = ConnectionState.Closed Then con.Open()
Dim tempbalance As Double = currentrow.Cells(10).Value - currentrow.Cells(11).Value
Dim st3 As String = "UPDATE [Loan_business]SET ebalance = " & tempbalance & ", epay = " & currentrow.Cells(11).Value & " WHERE(([acct_no] = '" & currentrow.Cells(0).Value.ToString & "' and [fno] = '" & currentrow.Cells(4).Value.ToString & "'))"
Dim cmd3 As New OleDbCommand(st3, con)
cmd3.ExecuteNonQuery()
'=======================
Next
ToolStripProgressBar1.Visible = False
ToolStripProgressBar1.Value = 0
fill2()
checkupdatesbalance()
con.Close()
MsgBox("Update successful. Transaction of the days has been saved.", MsgBoxStyle.Information)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Globe Tattoo in Linux Mint 12 Many of us think that Globe Tattoo or even Smart Bro only runs in computers with Windows XP SP2/SP... -
There are really a lot of ways on how to answer bar examinations. But exploring these different versions in the actual bar exams may not be ... -
Adding a network printer in Linux Mint is easy. Just follow the following instructions to be able to connect to your network printer: 1. ...