Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9
 
1.Q: Whether evidence not presented during administrative investigation isadmissible in the certiorari proceedings?A: The fndings o the Secretary can not be enervated by ne evidencenot laid don beore him! or that ould be tantamount to holding a neinvestigation! and to substitute or the discretion and "udgment o theSecretary the discretion and "udgment o the court! to hom the statute hadentrusted the case.
It is immaterial that the present action should beone for prohibition or injunction and not one for
certiorari 
! in eitherevent the case must be resolved upon the evidence submitted to theSecretary! since a "udicial revie o e#ecutive decisions does not import atrial
de novo
! but only an ascertainment o hether the e#ecutive fndings arenot in violation o the constitution or o the las! and are ree rom raud orimposition! and hether they fnd reasonable support in the evidence.
1
 
$ere!the proo preponderates in avor o the Secretary%s decision.&.Q: When should the accused ma'e an ob"ection to the deect or irregularity attending an arrest or its conse(uence?A: )n any event! any ob"ection! deect! or irregularity attending an arrestor its conse(uences should be made beore an entry o plea in thearraignment* otherise! the ob"ection ould be deemed aived.
1
+1,- Therecords ould sho that on 1 /ctober 1,,1! appellant and the otheraccused! 0obaton and uentes! entered a plea o not guilty
&
+&- ithoutassailing the validity o his arrest.2.Q:Whether admissions made by the accused in a counter a3davit during 4.). are admissible in evidence even i such accused as not assisted by counsel.A: Whether categori5ed as a conession or as an admission! it is admissible inevidence against him.)n general! admissions may be rebutted by conessingtheir untruth or by shoing they ere made by mista'e. The party may alsoestablish that the response that ormed the admission as made in a "ocular!not a serious! manner* or that the admission as made in ignorance o thetrue state o acts.6.Q:Whether 7ill o 8ights may be invo'ed even i there is no governmentunctionA: That the 7ill o 8ights embodied in the 9onstitution is not meant to beinvo'ed against acts o private individuals fnds ####
 
 The constitutionalproscription against unlaul searches and sei5ures thereore applies as arestraint directed only against the government and its agencies tas'ed iththe enorcement o the la. Thus! it could only be invo'ed against the Stateto hom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable e#ercise o poer isimposed..Q: ;<ect o 4arafn Test.A: While it can establish the presence o nitrates or nitrites on the hand! itdoes not alays indubitably sho that said nitrates or nitrites ere caused bythe discharge o frearm. The person tested may have handled one or moreo a number o substances hich give the same positive reaction or nitratesor nitrites! such as e#plosives! freor's! pharmaceuticals! and leguminousplants such as peas! beans! and alala. A person ho uses tobacco may alsohave nitrate or nitrite deposits on his hands since these substances arepresent in the products o combustion o tobacco. The presence o nitrates!1&
 
4age
2
 o
9
thereore! should be ta'en only as an indication o a possibility but not o inallibility that the person tested has fred a gun.=.Q: $o about >A test?A: @nder 4hilippine la! evidence is relevant hen it relates directly to a actin issue as to induce belie in its e#istence or none#istence.
26
 Applying the
Daubert 
 test to the case at bar! the >A evidence obtained through 498testing and utili5ing ST8 analysis! and hich as appreciated by the court
aquo
 is relevant and reliable since it is reasonably based on scientifcally validprinciples o human genetics and molecular biology.B. Q: 7lood Test in 8ape A:
 
 The blood test as adduced as evidence only
to show that the allegedfather or any one of many others of the same blood type may havebeen the father of the child
C.Q: ingerprints A: egative fndings do not at all times lead to a valid conclusion or theremay be logical e#planations or the absence o identifable latent prints otherthan their not being present at the scene o the crime. /nly latentfngerprints ound on smooth surace are useul or purposes o comparison ina crime laboratory because prints let on rough suraces result in dotted linesor bro'en lines instead o complete and continuous lines.,. Q: 4olygraph TestA: /. D@>)9)A0 /T)9;1. Q: /3cial Acts o the ;#ec. >epartment A: . The act is not purely administrative but (uasi"udicial or ad"udicatorysince it is dependent upon the ascertainment o acts by the administrativeagency! upon hich a decision is to be made and rights and liabilitiesdetermined As such! the Duly 21! 1,C, decision o the /3ce o the 4residentis e#plicitly an o3cial act o and an e#ercise o (uasi"udicial poer by the;#ecutive >epartment headed by the highest o3cer o the land. )t thuss(uarely alls under matters relative to the e#ecutive department hichcourts are mandatorily tas'ed to ta'e "udicial notice o under Section 1! 8ule1&, o the 8ules o 9ourt. Dudicial notice must be ta'en o the organi5ation o the ;#ecutive >epartment! its principal o3cers! elected or appointed! such asthe 4resident! his poers and duties
(Francisco,
;vidence +8ules 1&C126-!1,,= ed.! p. &6! citing
Canal Zone vs. Mena,
& 9anal Eone 1BF.11.Q: 0as on nature 1&.A: T
he court can take judicial notice of the “laws of nature,”
i
[12] such as in the instant case, that at around three in the morning during the Christmas season, it is still quite dark and that daylight comes rather late in this time of year.
ii
[1] !owhere in the descri"tion of the crime scene #y witness $%& 'endo(a in his testimony was it esta#lished that there was light or illumination of any sort #y which Christo"her could see the attacker 
12.Q: 9ourt )ssuance A: S;9T)/1.
 Judicial notice, when mandatory
. G A court shall ta'e "udicial notice!
without the introduction of evidence
! o the e#istence andterritorial e#tent o states! their political history! orms o government andsymbols o nationality! the la o nations! the admiralty and maritime courtso the orld and their seals! the political constitution and history o the4hilippines!
the ocial acts of 
 the legislative! e#ecutive and
 judicialdepartments
o the 4hilippines! the las o nature! the measure o time! andthe geographical divisions. H;mphasis and underscoring suppliedF16. Q: >ecision in another 9ase
 
4age
3
 o
9
A: As a general rule! courts are
N!
 authori5ed to ta'e "udicial 'noledge o the contents
of the record of other cases
! in the ad"udication o casespending beore them! even though the trial "udge in act 'nos or remembersthe contents thereo! or even hen said other cases have been heard or arepending in the same court and notithstanding the act that both cases mayhave been heard or are really pending beore the same "udge.1. Q: When parties to a case agree on hat the oreign la provides! is it anadmission o la or an admission o act?A: ;lementary is the rule that oreign las may not be ta'en "udicialnotice o and have to be proven li'e any other act in dispute beteen theparties in any proceeding! ith the rare e#ception in instances hen the saidlas are already ithin the actual 'noledge o the court! such as hen theyare ell and generally 'non or they have been actually ruled upon in othercases beore it and none o the parties concerned do not claim otherise1=. Q: >istanceAI:
Judicial notice could be taken of the travel time by car from San Pedro, Laguna to Pasig City, Metro Manila, because it is capable of unquestionable demonstration, and nowadays is already of public knowledge, especially to commuters
iii
!""#
 $e find no error in the trial court%s finding that it was not impossible for petitioner to be at the scene of thecrime, despite his alibi that he was engaged in intelligence work in San Pablo Laguna thatsame afternoon of &ctober "', "''(
 1B.Q:Dudicial otice o oreign lasA: o.1C.Q:Whether courts can ta'e "udicial notice o an administrative regulation that is not yet e<ective.A: o.1,.Q: Whether it is necessary that a certain belie is universal or the court to ta'e "udicial notice o such belie.&.A: The act that a belie is not universal! hoever! is not controlling or it isvery seldom that any belie is accepted by everyone. )t is enough that thematters are amiliarly 'non to the ma"ority o man'ind or those persons  ith the particular matter in (uestion H& Am Dur 6,* Jartin! 8ules o 9ourt2B! Second ;ditionF. urthermore! a matter may be personally 'non to the "udge and yet tot be a matter o "udicial 'noledge and vice versa! a mattermay not be actually 'non to an individual "udge! and nevertheless be aproper sub"ect o "udicial cogni5ance.&1.Q: Whether courts can ta'e "udicial notice o occurrence o typhoon in aparticular place.&&.A: Kes.&2.Q: Whether courts can ta'e D o public events.&6.A: Dudicial 'noledge may be defned as the cogni5ance o certain acts hicha "udge under rules o legal procedure or otherise may properly ta'e or actupon ithout proo because they are already 'non to him! or is assumed tohave! by virtue o his o3ce.
iv
+1=- Dudicial cogni5ance is ta'en only o thosematters that are LcommonlyM 'non. The poer o ta'ing "udicial notice is tobe e#ercised by courts ith caution* care must be ta'en that the re(uisitenotoriety e#ists* and every reasonable doubt on the sub"ect should bepromptly resolved in the negative.
v
+1B- Jatters o "udicial notice have threematerial re(uisites: H1F the matter must be one o common and general'noledge* H&F it must be ell and authoritatively settled and not doubtul oruncertain* and H2F it must be 'non to be ithin the limits o "urisdiction o the court.

Вознаградите свое любопытство

Все, что вы хотели прочитать.
Когда угодно. Где угодно. На любом устройстве.
Без обязательств. Отменить можно в любой момент.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505