Saturday, September 30, 2006
This day in history from:
Law School Days: Second Semester, Third Year
Sorry guys.
The main reason I could not continue this series was I forgot the subjects I took from Third Year hence, particularly my electives. But since I found my transcript of records (rotting somewhere in my personal files), I have a guide so I can finish this series. So here we go again:
First Semester, Third Year (SY 1993-1994):
Subjects/Units/Teachers:
1. Succession- 4 units; Atty. Avelino Sebastian, Jr. 2. Taxation II- 3 units; Atty. Renato Bañez 3. Banking I- 2 units; Atty. Avelino Sebastian, Jr. 4. International Business Law- 2 units; Atty. Roy Rafols 5. Corporate Finance- 3 units; Atty. Herminio S. Ozaeta, Jr. 6. Insurance- 2 units; Atty. Jose Quimson 7. Partneship- 1 unit; (I actually forgot who taught it...) 8. Torts-2 units; Atty. Palacios
General Highlights:
1. Yes, I actually had two subjects with Atty. Sebastian: one major subject (Succession) and one elective subject (General Banking). As usual, he called me everyday in succession, I'm used to that already. Our banking class was a mix of upper and lower batch students, with Atty. Sebastian's favorites from each batch (Anton Kho and myself) attending. That class was purely lecture. But guess who Atty. Sebastian called the only time he did ask a student to recite?
2. I remember pulling all-nighters to prepare for a presentation in Taxation II. I had my groupmates spend a night in my house to prepare and I was using Harvard Presentation Graphics (the ones used before Powerpoint came along and there was still no Windows, only DOS). Printing those slides to transparencies (again, no LCD projectors then, too) took a good portion of a day. Our professor took those slides since and I presume he used it as he was Commissioner of Internal Revenue at the time...
3. I remember Atty. Rafols "What are the dawkyumints?" question, as he talked in a particular "call-center" accent at the time.
4. And there was this "dead rat" incident with Atty. Palacios... During class, he thought he smelled a rat... and when he left, he was actually stepping on one...
5. Did not learn anything from Atty. Ozaeta, except what IPO means...
Personal Highlights:
1. Dean's List for the fifth (consecutive) time.
2. I actually had no class scheduled every Wednesday for that semester and I spent my Wednesdays unwinding by renting a lot of Laser Discs (my "LD day"). Then my classmates always wonder why I'm always tired the day after... I miss those days...
The house just suffered a minor tear in one of the plastic roof sheets. But the wind was pretty scary. And there was a lot debris after the winds died down. That's all taken cared of now since we cleaned up immediate after...
We just got back power. Obviously, we're online but there's no cable TV yet. But I have a way around that.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
This day in history from:
Driving Miss Daisy
Since they day was really uneventful (all I did was rest and took Bea to and from school), I decided that for my entry today, I would give my initial impressions on the new car.
As you know by now, we got a Honda City (it's available only locally) 1.3 S-CVT.
The first thing that impressed me is the mileage. According to Honda's sales people, I'm supposed to get 26 km/liter on city driving. I haven't verified this yet but if it's true, it will be truly mind-blowing.
It's a smaller car than my old one. But passenger space is more or less the same.
Of course, it handles well. It's a new car.
But I'm most impressed with the transmission options. It has normal 4-speed automatic, a 7-speed steptronic automatic and manual modes. It's the first time I handled one of these so I'm not yet used to it. In a pinch, it does give me extra power and acceleration, though.
That's it for now. I'll tell you more about it some other time.
Who knows? We could even get another car... preferably an SUV...
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
This day in history from:
Sleepy...
Just arrived from the north. Arrived there a little past midnight. Good thing our target hotel is open 24 hours and there was still an available room.
Trial went well because we put a squeeze play on the opponent. They do not know the complete consequences of what they agreed to. Heheheheheheheh! Their happy days our over...
We tried a route suggested by our client and we saved 2 hours of travel time. So I can rest now.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
This day in history from:
Off to the North again...
I'll be leaving shortly for my estate hearing up in the north again shortly.
Unlike my other trips, this will take the shortest. Leave this afternoon, arrive tonight, attend the hearing tomorrow morning then immediately set off for home.
I expect to get back tomorrow evening so there'll probably not be interruption in my blogging.
Wish us a safe trip tonight. And a good hearing tomorrow.
Monday, September 18, 2006
This day in history from:
I never though...
Just finished putting some small accessories I bought for the new car.
I never thought I'd get the chance to drive one of these things again. I thought I would get stuck with my old car forever... And I though I'd get stuck driving stick-shifts for the rest of my life...
I may have contented myself with my gadgets. But the best gadget is still a new car...
Thanks to all who made it possible... and may this be the start of things to come... I hope.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
This day in history from:
Could not help it
Sorry guys for not blogging anything substantial lately.
Been wrapped in a lot of things. A lot of things have been happening lately that I cannot really say until everything's alright. Just be content when I say, it will be life-changing and when it does happen, I'll be back to regular programming.
Monday, September 11, 2006
This day in history from:
Iris
Let's start the week with a video, shall we?
Iris by the Googoo Dolls
And I'd give up forever to touch you Cause I know that you feel me somehow You're the closest to heaven that I'll ever be And I don't want to go home right now
And all I can taste is this moment And all I can breathe is your life Cause sooner or later it's over I just don't want to miss you tonight
And I don't want the world to see me Cause I don't think that they'd understand When everything's made to be broken I just want you to know who I am
And you can't fight the tears that ain't coming Or the moment of truth in your lies When everything seems like the movies Yeah you bleed just to know your alive
And I don't want the world to see me Cause I don't think that they'd understand When everything's made to be broken I just want you to know who I am
I don't want the world to see me Cause I don't think that they'd understand When everything's made to be broken I just want you to know who I am
I just want you to know who I am I just want you to know who I am I just want you to know who I am I just want you to know who I am
Saturday, September 09, 2006
This day in history from:
Blog Lecture No. 67: Unjust Vexation
Now, let us tackle the other dimension the Samson Macariola affair...
What is unjust vexation?
Sadly, unjust vexation under our penal laws is undefined, intentionally or otherwise. Some criminal law minds (not criminal minds) think this is a catch-all provision where any crime that it not otherwise defined there will fall under unjust vexation.
So let's go to dictionary definition of the term.
As defined here, vexation is defined as the act of harassing or causing trouble. So unjust vexation must mean harassing our causing trouble without justifiable reasons.
Can you give examples?
There's a well-researched blog entry by a Bacolod-based lawyer here that already gave examples, such as:
1. Disturbing and interfering with a religious ceremony; 2. Stopping a jeep and causing a disturbance without just reasons; 3. Embracing and taking hold of the wrist of a complainant; 4. Unjustly cutting off the electricity, water and telephone lines of a tenant
What is the punishment for unjust vexation?
Unjust vexation is punished under the 2nd paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code that says:
“Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.”
Again, a slap in the wrist and very much probationable.
Can Samson Macariola be guilty of unjust vexation?
Of course, given the catch-all nature of this penal provision, he can be liable under it.
IMHO, however, the vexation is justified. I believe that exposing the security risk and blunders of those tasked to protect us is more than enough justification.
As a matter of fact, these blundering security people should be the ones charged for unjust vexation for their huge security blunders.
And there are some people questioning the presence of that catch-all crime in our penal laws in the first place. Some people think this law is unconstitutional.
For more information, read that entry of that Bacolod-based lawyer. He tackled unjust vexation in more detail.
Briefly put, these are crimes of disturbance, disturbance of the public peace, by means of cause a scandal or an alarming situation, as described by the law above.
Give examples of act of the acts.
Sure.
1. A person firing a shot in the air, calculated to cause a panic in the crowd. 2. A person that starts or takes part in a charivari or some other disorderly meeting 3. A person wandering about the city's nightlife in a rude manner, disturbing the peace 4. A drunk or other wise sober person just disturbing the peace in public nature that is not of a serious nature (or not as described above). If it's serious, it's called a tumult or a public disturbance under Article 153 of the Revised Penal Code.
What are scandalous acts?
These are acts offensive to morals, good customs and public policy such as streaking, etc.
If the one discharges the firearm at another, is that considered under this law?
That may be attempted or frustrated homicide (if it hit a vital part) and since that's more serious he will be charged for this more serious offense rather than this "slap on the wrist" crime.
How what is aresto menor?
It's imprisonment from one to thirty days.
Is this crime probationable?
Yes. And even if not, the prison term will be shorter than the time it would take to prosecute it, so pleading guilty to this may even be a better option...
What is a charivari?
It is a medley of discordant voices, a mock serenade of discordant noises made on kettles, tins, horns, etc. designed to annoy or insult. In other words, the cr@p you see in Master Showman (or That's Entertainment before).
It will probably not apply/prosper in his case. I submit that the disturbance to the public should be instantaneous to the alarming or scandalous act itself. If there is a delayed reaction (such as in his case, a few days), there was no disturbance of the peace to speak of.
I'm more inclined to charge those handling airport security for this crime because their ineptness is now causing a such an alarm or a scandal.
But what about that other charge called unjust vexation?
Maybe, he wants his enemies to file all these cases against him...
Why? So he can actually present and put on record (and for posterity) all the evidence he has... So maybe, just maybe he can spark so much indignation... and who know? It may land him a senate seat (but I think he's not old enough)...
Personally, given the public mentality, the best strategy was not to respond to the allegations of secret bank accounts. The public has a short memory and would easily forget this if it were left alone. Now, they may be playing into his hands...
That strategy could have been suggested by someone who just wanted a free trip to Germany for all I know...
Getting freedom this way does not only require rehabilitation of the convict himself. It also demands making amends with the ones he had offended. This includes reparation, restitution and indemnification for consequential damages. The information that he has not even paid his civil liabilities with the Maguans clearly belies he has been "reformed."
The only way Mr. Go could get out through executive clemency was to run by that process in a blur-- as quickly and as quietly as possible. But with this development, the executive department would be out of its mind to grant freedom to Rolito Go now...
Or I like to think it still is in its right mind....
Been following the Steve Irwin story intently last night, as the Animal Planet has been running tribute to him and his achievements.
Of course, he had (or has) detractors, as a certain Professor Germaine Greer, took a stab at the Crocodile Hunter within hours from that stingray stab that killed him.
His exploits have been well documented and some of them are controversial. But his dedication to wildlife conservation is unquestioned.
Hope someone fills his "wildlife warrior" shoes soon because they are already few of them in the first place.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
This day in history from:
Blog Lecture No. 65: Death or Physical Injuries Under Exceptional Circumstances
What is the general rule when one kills or maims another?
Under ordinary circumstances, people who kill or inflict physical injuries upon another person get a prison term (and depending on other factors, even a life sentence).
But there is an exemption to this where a person merely gets destierro.
What the hell is destierro?
According to Article 114 of the Revised Penal Code:
Those sentence to destierro shall be precluded from entering the place or places designated in the sentence, or within the radius therein designated, which shall include a distance of 25 kilometers at least, and 250 kilometers at most, from the place designated.
It's more a restraining order than anything else. The banishment is intended more for the protection of the offender rather than a penalty.
So what is this exceptional circumstance?
Under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code:
"Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article."
So to whom does this apply?
This applies to:
1. A spouse who kills or injuries the other spouse and the paramour
2. A parent with respect to their daughters under eighteen years and her seducer.
So what are the requisites for this to apply?
1. The offender is any legally married person (or the parent while the daughter still lives with the parents);
2. The offender surprises his spouse (or the daughter under 18) in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person (or the seducer in the case of the daughter);
3. The offender kills or seriously injures any or both of them;
4. The offender kills or seriously injures during the act of sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter.
What does "immediately thereafter" mean?
The term "immediately thereafter" means that from discovery to the escape and the killing, there must be no interruption or interval of time. The pursuit and the killing must form part of one continuous act.
However, it is not necessary that the victim is to be killed instantly by the accused after surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse with another person. This law only requires that the death caused must be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the act of infidelity, because the purpose of the law is to afford protection to a spouse (or the parent) who is considered to act in a justified outburst of passion or a state of mental instability.
What does "caught in the act" mean?
Of course you know what "caught in the act" means... the carnal act is being committed by the victims at the time they are killed or injured by the offender.
"The vindication of a Man's honor is justified because of the scandal an unfaithful wife creates; the law is strict on this, authorizing as it does, a man to chastise her, even with death. But killing the errant spouse as a purification is so severe as that it can only be justified when the unfaithful spouse is caught in flagrante delicto; and it must be resorted to only with great caution so much so that the law requires that it be inflicted only during the sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter." (People vs. Wagas, 171 SCRA 69)
Thus, it does not apply when a man kills his wife just because he saw another man jump out the window of his house upon his arrival or when his spouse and another man are merely sleeping on the same bed. It also does not include acts preparatory to sexual intercourse (such as... you know what means...).
PRAYER FOR GENEROSITY
Lord Jesus,
Teach me to be generous,
Teach me to serve You as You deserve
To give and not to count the cost,
To fight and not to heed the wounds,
To toil and not to seek for rest,
To labor and not to ask for reward,
except that of knowing
That I do Your Holy Will. Amen
THE LAWYER'S PRAYER
May every word I speak be from Your Truth...
I ask come from Your Wisdom...
May every case I handle receive Your Guidance...
May every heart, every life I touch, feel Your Love.
THE JABEZ PRAYER
And Jabez called on the God of Israel saying,
"Oh, that You would bless me indeed,
and enlarge my territory,
that Your Hand be with me,
that You would keep me from evil,
that I may not cause pain."
So God granted him what he requested.
Side Oath
The Lawyer's Oath
I do solemnly swear that
I will maintain allegiance to
the Republic of the Philippines,
I will support its Constitution
and obey the laws as well as
the legal orders of the
duly constituted authorities therein;
I will do no falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in court;
I will not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless,
false or unlawful suit,
nor give aid nor consent to the same;
I will delay no man for money or malice,
and will conduct myself as a lawyer
according to the best of my knowledge
and discretion with all good fidelity
as well to the courts as to my clients;
and I impose upon myself this voluntary obligation
without any mental reservation
or purpose of evasion. So help me God.
