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 don beore him! or that ould be tantamount to holding a neinvestigation! 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 las! 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 deect or irregularity attending an arrest or its conse(uence?A: )n any event! any ob"ection! deect! or irregularity attending an arrestor its conse(uences should be made beore an entry o plea in thearraignment* otherise! the ob"ection ould be deemed aived.
+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 conession or as an admission! it is admissible inevidence against him.)n general! admissions may be rebutted by conessingtheir untruth or by shoing 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 governmentunctionA: That the 7ill o 8ights embodied in the 9onstitution is not meant to beinvo'ed against acts o private individuals fnds ####
The constitutionalproscription against unlaul searches and sei5ures thereore applies as arestraint directed only against the government and its agencies tas'ed iththe enorcement o the la. Thus! it could only be invo'ed against the Stateto hom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable e#ercise o poer isimposed..Q: ;<ect o 4arafn Test.A: While it can establish the presence o nitrates or nitrites on the hand! itdoes not alays 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! freor's! pharmaceuticals! and leguminousplants such as peas! beans! and alala. 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
thereore! should be ta'en only as an indication o a possibility but not o inallibility 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 none#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 surace are useul or purposes o comparison ina crime laboratory because prints let on rough suraces 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 poer 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 poers and duties
(Francisco,
;vidence +8ules 1&C126-!1,,= ed.! p. &6! citing
Canal Zone vs. Mena,
& 9anal Eone 1BF.11.Q: 0as 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 ocial acts of
the legislative! e#ecutive and
judicialdepartments
o the 4hilippines! the las 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 'noledge o the contents
of the record of other cases
! in the ad"udication o casespending beore them! even though the trial "udge in act 'nos or remembersthe contents thereo! or even hen said other cases have been heard or arepending in the same court and notithstanding the act that both cases mayhave been heard or are really pending beore 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 las may not be ta'en "udicialnotice o and have to be proven li'e any other act in dispute beteen theparties in any proceeding! ith the rare e#ception in instances hen the saidlas are already ithin the actual 'noledge o the court! such as hen theyare ell and generally 'non or they have been actually ruled upon in othercases beore it and none o the parties concerned do not claim otherise1=. 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 lasA: 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! hoever! is not controlling or it isvery seldom that any belie is accepted by everyone. )t is enough that thematters are amiliarly 'non 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 'non to the "udge and yet tot be a matter o "udicial 'noledge and vice versa! a mattermay not be actually 'non 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 'noledge may be defned as the cogni5ance o certain acts hicha "udge under rules o legal procedure or otherise may properly ta'e or actupon ithout proo because they are already 'non to him! or is assumed tohave! by virtue o his o3ce.
iv
+1=- Dudicial cogni5ance is ta'en only o thosematters that are LcommonlyM 'non. The poer 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'noledge* H&F it must be ell and authoritatively settled and not doubtul oruncertain* and H2F it must be 'non 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.