Cui vs Arrellano University Facts: Emeterio Cui before the school year 1948-1949 took up preparatory law course

in Arellano University. After finishing his preparatory law course he enrolled in College of Law from SY 1948-1949. During those times Francisco Capistrano, brother of the mother of Cui, was the dean of the College of Law and legal counsel for Arellano. On his last semester in the school Cui failed to pay his tuition fees because his uncle Dean Capistrano having severed his connection with Arellano, and having accepted the deanship and chancellorship in College of Law of Abad Santos University. Cui Transferred and finished his law school in Abad Santos. Cui in Arellano was a scholar, in which his semestral tuition fees were returned to him after the ends of semester. This amounted to P1,033.87. Cui will need to take the BAR and would need his transcript from Arellano University, in which the latter refused to release, unless he pay back the scholarship given. He paid under protest just to take the BAR exam. Contract provided in consideration of the scholarship granted by the University, I hereby waive my right to transfer to another school without having refunded to the Unversity the equivalent of my scholarship. Cui tried to give Arellano a memorandum issued by Bureau of Private Schools as a basis of his claim. It states that scholarship are given to deserving students, and to encourage the poor but with potential to study, and a provision stating the condition that it is only good if they continue in the said school depicts its purpose. This was submitted to Bureau of Private Schools and it upheld its decision that is why it was brought for Judicial decisions. Arellano said that the provision of their contracts are valid and binding and instituted a counterclaim of P10,000 as damages and P3,000 as atty. Fees.

Issue: W/N the contract between Cui and Arellano whereby Cui waived his right to transfer to another school without refunding the scholarship grant is valid or not? HELD: - Lower court - resolved in the affirmative, stating that the memorandum issued by the Bureau of private schools was not a law but just an advisory thus not mandatory. - That it said that even though its unethical, yet it is more unethical to quit studying in the defendant and transfer without a good reason simply because he wanted to follow the example of his uncle. - Supreme Court Found that the nature of the issue transcend personal equations and demand a determination from high impersonal plane. - That they found it not essential to pass the validity of the memorandum, however found the stipulation in question as contrary to public policy, hence null and void. - Its cited the Director or Private schools statements stating:

Public Policy - Government bureau or office to lay down or establish a public policy. In order to declare a contract void as against public policy, a court must find that the contract as to consideration or the things to be done, contravenes some established interest of society, or is inconsistent with sound policy and good morals or tends clearly to undermine the security of individual rights. University of the Philippines which gives free scholarships does not require scholarship reimburse their scholarship when they transfer to other schools more so with the leading colleges and Universities.

o o

People vs Quiachon Facts: - Roberto Quiachon was charged with qualified rape against Rowena Quiachon y Reyes, his daughter, 8 years old, a deaf-mute minor. - Witnesses presented include Rowel Quiachon, 11 year old and Rowena, Dr. Sta Romana Guialani and SPO2 Noel Venus. - Rowel testified that the family used to sleep in one room where Roberto and Rowena slept together in one bed. - Rowel saw his father on top of his sister Rowena covered with a blanket were his fathers buttocks were moving up and down, and could hear Rowena crying. - The day after Rowel told his mothers sister Carmelita Mateo what he has witnessed, and they went to the police on what has transpired. - Rowena testified through sign language what her father did to her, and said that she doesnt love her father and she wants him to be punished. - Dr. Guialani confirmed that Roberto slapped Rowena and there was a sexual intercourse that happened. - Roberto on his defense said that Carmelita and his son has grudges on him. - RTC: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of qualified rape and is sentenced to suffer maximum penalty of DEATH. - CA: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt and punishable of supreme penalty of death: 1. The minority of the victim who is eight years old 2. The accused is the father of the victim 3. The victim is a deaf mute. HELD: - In reviewing rape cases, SC considers the following principles: 1. An accusation for rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove 2. Considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution 3. The evidence for the prosecution must stand and fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. - Supreme Court didnt disturbed the lower courts finding specially Rowenas testimony characterizing it to be simple, straightforward, unshaken by a rigid cross-examination, and unflawed by inconsistency or contradiction. - However, due to the enactment of RA 9346 in 2006, prohibiting imposition of the death penalty, the penalty to meted on is reclusion perpetua.

Penal laws which are favorable to accused are given retroactive effect. Retroactive effect of penal laws Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of felony, who is not a habitual criminal. RA9346 provides that the accused shall not be eligible for parole.