Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 62 views

    Executive Sum

    Uploaded by

    Mikhael Ong
    The document summarizes two cases from the Philippines Supreme Court: 1) The first case discusses whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying a conviction from attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness. The Supreme Court found no error, as the CA's acquittal of the accused of attempted rape meant a review of the downgrading would violate double jeopardy protections. 2) The second case discusses whether the Supreme Court can review facts in an appeal. While fact-finding is generally the domain of lower courts, there are exceptions where factual findings can be reviewed, such as if conclusions are based on speculation rather than evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Executive Sum

    Uploaded by

    Mikhael Ong
    62 views2 pages
    The document summarizes two cases from the Philippines Supreme Court: 1) The first case discusses whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying a conviction from attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness. The Supreme Court found no error, as the CA's acquittal of the accused of attempted rape meant a review of the downgrading would violate double jeopardy protections. 2) The second case discusses whether the Supreme Court can review facts in an appeal. While fact-finding is generally the domain of lower courts, there are exceptions where factual findings can be reviewed, such as if conclusions are based on speculation rather than evidence.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes two cases from the Philippines Supreme Court: 1) The first case discusses whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying a conviction from attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness. The Supreme Court found no error, as the CA's acquittal of the accused of attempted rape meant a review of the downgrading would violate double jeopardy protections. 2) The second case discusses whether the Supreme Court can review facts in an appeal. While fact-finding is generally the domain of lower courts, there are exceptions where factual findings can be reviewed, such as if conclusions are based on speculation rather than evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    62 views2 pages

    Executive Sum

    Uploaded by

    Mikhael Ong
    The document summarizes two cases from the Philippines Supreme Court: 1) The first case discusses whether the Court of Appeals erred in modifying a conviction from attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness. The Supreme Court found no error, as the CA's acquittal of the accused of attempted rape meant a review of the downgrading would violate double jeopardy protections. 2) The second case discusses whether the Supreme Court can review facts in an appeal. While fact-finding is generally the domain of lower courts, there are exceptions where factual findings can be reviewed, such as if conclusions are based on speculation rather than evidence.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    8. People of the Philippines Vs. Domingo Arcega y Siguenza

    Q: Information was filed against appellant for attempted rape. The RTC found him
    guilty. The appellant appealed to the CA. The CA modified the decision from guilty of
    rape to guilty of acts of lasciviousness. Did CA err when it modified the conviction of
    attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness?
    A: No. The CA did not err. In People v. Balunsat, where the CA modified the accused-
    appellant's conviction from attempted rape to acts of lasciviousness, we held that since
    the CA had already acquitted the accused of attempted rape, a review of the
    downgrading of the crime will violate the respondent's right against double jeopardy.
    A judgment of acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is
    final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon its promulgation. A review of the
    downgrading of the crime will violate the respondent's right against double jeopardy.

    35. Reynaldo Valencia Vibar Vs. People of the Philippines

    Q: Appellant was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The RTC
    found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant appealed the judgment against
    him which was denied. In his Petition for Review on Certiorari, petitioner maintains
    that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because the prosecution failed to
    prove all the elements of the crime charged. He insists that none of the prosecution
    witnesses testified to seeing the jeepney he was driving actually run over the victim and
    that their testimonies are circumstantial at best. Can the court review the facts of a case?

    A: Yes. Review of appeals filed before the Court is “not a matter of right, but of sound
    judicial discretion[.]’” Only questions of law may be raised in a Rule 45 petition as this
    Court is not a trier of facts, and factual findings are “final, binding, or conclusive on the
    parties and upon this court when supported by substantial evidence.”
    However, exceptions to the general rule exist and the Court may pass upon the
    findings of fact of the lower courts in the following instances:
    (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or
    conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
    impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the
    judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact
    are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went
    beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both
    appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to
    those of the trial; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation
    of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the
    petition as well as in the petitioners’ main and reply briefs are not disputed by
    the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised
    on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on
    record.

    36. Central Realty and Development Corporation Vs. Solar Resources, Inc.

    Q: Central filed with the RTC of Manila a case for cancellation of adverse claim,
    disputing the claim of Solar. The RTC rendered summary judgment dismissing the
    complaint. The court ruled that Central’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was
    improper. The trial court also rendered summary judgment in the case. It held that a
    full-blown trial was no longer necessary where the only issue was the validity of the
    adverse claim, hence, there was no need for the court to pass upon the parties’
    respective claims of ownership over the property, the same being the subject of another
    case. Based on the recitals in the Affidavit of Adverse Claim, it found sufficient basis to
    sustain the annotation of Solar’s adverse claim, flowing as it did from the deed of sale it
    had with Molina. Can the trial court render summary judgment motu proprio?

    A: No. Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Rule 35 mentions the need of a motion to move for
    Summary Judgment. The filing of a motion and the conduct of a hearing on the motion
    are therefore important because these enable the court to determine if the parties’
    pleadings, affidavits and exhibits in support of or against, the motion are sufficient to
    overcome the opposing papers and adequately justify the finding that, as a matter of
    law, the claim is clearly meritorious or there is no defense to the action. The non-
    observance of the procedural requirements of filing a motion and conducting a
    hearing on the said motion warrants the setting aside of the summary judgment.

    You might also like