Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Eurika Jessa Castillon

Legal Writing (1-D)



CASE 1: SOCORRO RAMIREZ VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and ESTER S. GARCIA
G.R. No. 93833, September 25, 1995
FACTS:
Petitioner Socorro Ramirez filed a civil case at the Quezon city RTC for damages
amounting to P610,000 against private respondent Ester Garcia alleging that the latter
humiliated her in a manner contrary to morals and public policy. Ramirez produced a verbatim
transcript of the alleged event from a tape recording she secretly made.
As a result, Garcia filed a criminal case against Ramirez before the RTC of Pasay city for
violation of RA 4200, An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wiretapping and Other Related Violations
of Communication.
Ramirez filed a Motion to Quash the Information. The trial court granted the motion,
reasoning that (1) the facts charged do not constitute an offense and that (2) the violation
punished by R.A. 4200 refers to the taping of a communication by a person who is not a
participant in the communication.
Garcia filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE: 1. WON RA 4200 applies to taping a conversation made by one of the parties to a
conversation.
HELD:
1. RA 4200 penalizes any person who secretly records a conversation without the
other partys knowledge and consent. The unambiguity of the express words of the provision
therefore plainly supports the view held by the respondent court that the provision seeks to
penalize even those privy to the private communications. Where the law makes no distinctions,
one does not distinguish.

CASE 2: IMELDA ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS vs COMELEC and CIRILO ROY MONTEJO
FACTS: Imelda Marcos established her domicile in Tacloban City, Leyte, which was her fathers
hometown. After marrying Pres. Ferdinand Marcos, she had changed residences and had been
a registered voter in Ilocos Norte, San Juan, Rizal and in San Miguel, Manila.
Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of the First
District of Leyte. Montejo, incumbent of and candidate for the same position, filed a petition
for cancellation and disqualification with the COMELEC, alleging that Marcos did not meet the
residency requirement.
Marcos filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied by the COMELEC. Marcos
found out that she was won by a landslide in the said elections and prayed for her
proclamation. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
WON the petitioner was a resident, for election purposes, of the First District of Leyte
for a period of one year.
HELD:
The Courts ruled in favor of Marcos. It was ascertained from the intent of the legislators
that residence for election purposes is synonymous with domicile. Though the petitioner held
various residences in her lifetime, it cannot be contested Leyte was still considered her domicile
since the intention of abandoning her domicile of origin was not proven.
CASE 3: UNITED STATES vs AH CHONG
G.R. No. L-5272, March 19, 1910

FACTS:
Defendant Ah Chong was employed as a cook at Officers quarters. Only Ah Chong and
his roommate Pascual Gualberto, a muchaho, slept in that place. On August 14, 1908, around
10oclock in the evening, Ah Chong was awakened by someone trying to force open the door of
his room. He called out twice, Who is there? but no one replied. Instead, the other person
kept on forcing his entry. The defendant, fearing that the intruder was a robber or a thief,
called out: If you enter the room, I will kill you. Again, none replied. He was struck just above
the knee by the edge of the chair and he thought that the blow had been inflicted by the
person whom he thought was a thief. Seizing a common kitchen knife which he kept under his
pillow, the defendant struck out wildly at the intruder who turned out to be his roommate,
Pascual Gualberto. The roommate eventually died.
ISSUE:
WON Ah Chong is liable for the death of his roommate.
HELD:
NO. Ah Chong was acquitted. The case was a mistake of fact resulting to self-defense
justified under Article 11(1) of the Revised Penal Code where there is (1) unlawful aggression,
(2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it, and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Had the deceased be a robber as he
thought, his actions would not be criminally liable.