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. 

For more videos, please go to my channel in Youtube at Genesis M. Auza.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.