Allied banking vs. ca, 416 scra 65 case digest scribd
1. Allied banking vs. ca, 416 scra 65 case digest scribd
Answer:
Bank robbery?
Explanation:
Fix the question pls
2. case digest: lavarias vs people
Answer:
Case Title: Lavarias v. People (G.R. No. 206666, October 7, 2015)
Nature of the Case: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
Facts:
On June 28, 2007, the appellant, Joseph Lavarias, was arrested for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. The arresting officers found a .45 caliber pistol loaded with seven live bullets in his possession. A subsequent search of his house yielded a hand grenade and a shotgun.
Lavarias was charged with illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under Republic Act No. 8294 and illegal possession of explosives under Presidential Decree No. 1866. During the trial, Lavarias claimed that the evidence was planted by the arresting officers and that he was a victim of extortion.
The trial court found Lavarias guilty of both offenses and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and a fine of P10,000.00 for illegal possession of explosives.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Issue:
Whether or not the appellant is guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and illegal possession of explosives.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that the appellant is guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and illegal possession of explosives.
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of the offenses beyond reasonable doubt. The arresting officers testified that they caught Lavarias with a loaded .45 caliber pistol and that they found the hand grenade and shotgun during the search of his house. On the other hand, Lavarias failed to present evidence to support his defense of frame-up and extortion.
The Supreme Court also found that the appellant's defense of frame-up and extortion lacked credibility. The prosecution presented evidence showing that the arresting officers were not motivated by ill-will or bad faith, and that there was no evidence of extortion.
Thus, the Supreme Court held that the appellant is guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under Republic Act No. 8294 and illegal possession of explosives under Presidential Decree No. 1866. The penalty of reclusion perpetua for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition and a fine of P10,000.00 for illegal possession of explosives were affirmed.
3. Case digest of US vs Ah Chong
Answer:
I don't know
Explanation:
I'm sorry i need only the points
Answer:
US?
Explanation:
I dont know what is that
4. Agan vs. piatco, g.r. no. 155001. may 5, 2003 case digest
Answer:
huhStep-by-step explanation:
1+1= iniwancarryonlearn
5. What is the article about "CA affirms disciplinary proceedings vs students linked to UP hazing case"
Answer:
It is about the rules governing fraternities realting to the filling of changes is similar to existing rules on preliminary investigation in criminal cases.
6. Atok- big wedge mining co. v. ca, gr 88883 case digest
Answer:
Facts:
Fredia Mineral claim of about nine (9) hectares... in a so-called Declaration of Location
The said Declaration of Location of mineral claim was duly recorded in the Office of the Mining Recorder
Fredia mineral claim, together with other... mineral claims, was sold by A. I. Reynolds to Big Wedge Mining Company, the earlier corporate name of Atok Big Wedge Mining Company, Inc.
Since then petitioner Atok has been in continuous... and exclusive ownership and possession of said claim up to the present
On the other hand, private respondent Liwan Consi has a lot below the land of a certain Mr. Acay
He constructed a house thereon
It was only in January 1984 when private... respondent Consi repaired the said house that people came to take pictures and told him that the lot belongs to Atok.
the security guards of Atok informed Feliciano Reyes, Security Officer of Atok, that a construction was being undertaken at the area of the Fredia mineral claim by private respondent Liwan Consi.
Atok filed a complaint for forcible entry and detainer against Liwan Consi... the RTC rendered its decision... ordering the defendant Liwan Consi and all those claiming under him... to vacate the premises of the Fredia Mineral claim at Tuding, Itogon, Benguet immediately, and to restore possession thereof to the plaintiff Atok Big Wedge Mining Company.
the Court of Appeals rendered its decision... dismissing the subject forcible entry action.
that both Consi and ATOK are of equal legal footing with regards the subject lot. Both hold possessory titles to the land in question -- the petitioner through his long term occupancy of the same; the respondent mining firm by virtue of its being... the claim locator and applicant for a lease on the mineral claim within which the subject lot is found.
Issues:
whether or not an individual's long term occupation of land of the public domain vests him with such rights over the same as to defeat the rights of the owner of that claim.
Ruling:
for all physical purposes of ownership, the owner is not required to secure a patent as long as he complies with the provisions of the mining laws; his... possessory right, for all practical purposes of ownership, is as good as though secured by patent (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 228 [1988]).
In the case at bar, the evidence on record pointed that the petitioner Atok has faithfully complied with all the requirements of the law regarding the maintenance of the said Fredia Mineral Claim.
The perfection of the mining claim converted the property to mineral land and under the laws then in force removed it from the public domain.
It is, therefore, evident that Benguet and Atok have exclusive rights to the property in question by virtue of their respective mining claims which they validly acquired before the Constitution of 1935 prohibited the alienation of all lands of the public domain except... agricultural lands, subject to vested rights existing at the time of its adoption.
Since the subject lot is mineral land, private respondent's possession of the subject lot no matter how long did not confer upon him possessory rights over the same.
Since 1931 up to the present, petitioner ATOK has been in continuous and exclusive possession of the Fredia mineral claim while private respondent's possession started only sometime in 1964 when he constructed a house thereon. Clearly, ATOK has superior possessory... rights than private respondent, Liwan Consi, the former being "the one longer in possession."
Having been deprived of this possession by the private respondent, petitioner has every right to sue for ejectment.
Principles:
Art. 538. Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different personalities except in the cases of co-possession. Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession, the present possessor shall be preferred; if there are two... possessors, the one longer in possession; if the dates of the possession are the same, the one who presents a title; and if all these conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending determination of its possession or ownership through proper... proceedings.
7. Criminal law intod vs. ca prosecutor garcia
Answer:
Yoy can do it
Kaya mo yan ask yur mom su
Answer:
GARCIA NOTES - CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [2018] CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW
1 Limitations to the Power of Congress to enact Penal Laws:
23 Penal law must be General in application otherwise it would be violative of the Equal Protection Clause; 24 Must not partake the nature of an ex post facto law – ex post facto law makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act; 25 Not a Bill of Attainder – A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial; 26 Cannot impose cruel or excessive penalties or punishments - e.g. congress cannot amend article 308-309 death, by saying that henceforth that any who commit theft will be given death. This is unusual punishment so it is prohibited.
8. CASE DIGEST ABOUT (INTOD V. CA, GR. NO. 103119 (1992)(ART. 4, CRIMINAL LIABILITY/IMPOSSIBLE CRIME) SUBJECT - CRIMINAL LAW BOOK 1 (POLITICAL SCIENCE)
Answer:
CASE DIGEST ABOUT (INTOD V. CA, GR. NO. 103119 (1992)(ART. 4, CRIMINAL LIABILITY/IMPOSSIBLE CRIME)
CASE DIGEST ABOUT (INTOD V. CA, GR. NO. 103119 (1992)(ART. 4, CRIMINAL LIABILITY/IMPOSSIBLE CRIME)SUBJECT - CRIMINAL LAW BOOK 1 (POLITICAL SCIENCE)
In the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador Mandaya’s house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental and asked him to go with them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan. Thereafter, Mandaya and Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting with Aniceto Dumalagan. He told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between them and that Mandaya should accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would also be killed.
At about 10:00 o’clock in the evening of the game day, Petitioner, Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig, all armed with firearms, arrived at Palangpangan’s house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental. At the instance of his companions, Mandaya pointed the location of Palangpangan’s bedroom. Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in another City and her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun fire.
The crime of murder was not consummated, not because of the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment (Art. 4(2), Revised Penal Code), but due to a cause or accident other than petitioner’s and his co-accused’s own spontaneous desistance (Art. 3., ibid.) Palangpangan did not sleep at her house at that time. Had it not been for this fact, the crime is possible, not impossible. 39. Movido vs. rehabilitation finance corp. digest
hope that can help you po
10. Manila international airport authority vs. ca
Answer:
i dont know the answer brainlies me
11. Vda de macabuena vs davao stevedore case digest scribd
Answer:
Huh? Pakiayos nmn ho
Thankss
12. Alfonso vs. land bank of the philippines, g.r. no. 181912, november 29, 2016. case digest
Answer:
tanong po ba iyan??
Kung tanong po comment lang po sa ibaba
⤵⤵⤵
13. Acuna vs. court of appeals g.r. no. 159832, may 5, 2006 case digest
Answer:
MEMA lang po
Explanation:
Yan po sagot po
14. Asia international auctioneers vs parayno digest
Answer:
No its parino digest
Step-by-step explanation:
MAYBE TEE HEE
15. Mapa jr. vs. sandiganbayan, g.r. no. 100295, april 26, 1994 case digest
Answer:
i dont know
Explanation:
i dont know too
16. Express investments vs bayan telecommunications case digest
Answer:
᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽
17. Heirs of roldan v. ca case digest proof filiation
Answer:
Agricultural land; Contract of sale; Proof of Filiation; Prescriptio
18. Gabrito v. ca digest administrative remedies
Answer:
Where is the picture
Explanation:
I need pictures
19. Jison v. ca case digest proof of filiation
Answer:
What is the purpose of this question?
Next time, if you are going to ask a question please finish the entire question. It makes it easier for us to amswer if the question is completed.
Sorry for answering and wasting your time.
Just reminding you is all
Explanation:
yeah just complete the question ok
20. Tayag vs tayag case digest proof of filiation
Answer:
ano ba yung tayag vs tayag
21. Kabataan party-list vs. comelec case digest
Answer:
RA 10367 mandates the COMELEC to implement mandatory biometrics registration system for new voters in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent, and updated the number of voters through the biometric technology that was adopted.
Explanation:
22. Office of the ombudsman vs masing case digest in statutory construction
Ikaw na magpi li dkssddjdj
Answer:
The Ombudsman found Masing guilty of violating RA 6713. On appeal, the CA reversed the decision. The Ombudsman filed a petition for review before the SC. Masing insists that the findings of the Ombudsman are mere recommendations and that he may not directly impose administrative functions, citing Tabiador v Office of the Ombudsman. The Court ruled that the Court’s statement in Tabiador was mere obiter and only concerned the procedural aspect of the Ombudsman’s functions and not jurisdiction. The Ombudsman has the authority to determine the administrative liability of a public official or employee at fault, AND direct and compel the head of the office or agency concerned to implement the penalty imposed.
Explanation:
hope it helps po23. What is the article about CA affirms disciplinary proceedings vs students linked to UP hazing case
The Court of Appeals (CA) has affirmed its decision allowing the University of the Philippines (UP) to continue the administrative proceedings against students suspected to have been involved in the fatal hazing of Cris Anthony Mendez in 2007.
Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida Galapate-Laguilles, the CA 10th Division stood pat on its October 6, 2015 decision reversing the ruling of the Quezon City Regional Trial Court that nullified the proceedings of the UP Student Disciplinary Tribunal (UP SDT).
The petitioners include Ariel Paolo Ante, Marcelino Veloso III, Keefee de la Cruz, and Armand Lorenze Sapital, who are part of the 13 members of the Sigma Rho Fraternity accused of participating in the violent initiation rites that took the life of Mendez, a senior public administration student.
In their appeal, the petitioners reiterated that Section 1, Rule II, of the Rules Governing Fraternities relating to the filing of charges is similar to existing rules on preliminary investigation in criminal cases.
They said deviating from the provision is a violation of due process.
The petitioners also criticized the preliminary inquiries since it was allegedly conducted by the University Prosecutor instead of a member of the UP-SDT as stated in the Rules Governing Fraternities.
The CA said the case was administrative in nature, thus "it is not subject to the rigorous requirements of criminal due process."
“The preliminary inquiry and the formal charges herein are but components of the investigative and disciplinary action an academic university is mandated to take against its students suspected of being engaged in hazing activities,” the appellate court said.
"What is at stake here is not the petitioners-appellees' liberty from criminal incarceration, but their continued admission to an institution of higher learning, which is discretionary upon a school, the same being a privilege on the part of the student rather than a right," it added.
Investigators said Mendez was seen in a compound at Bonifacio Village, Quezon City along with other young men before he was brought to the Veteran's Memorial Medical Center on August 27, 2007.
Mendez, 20, was pronounced dead on arrival by doctors noting several hematoma on his wrists, thighs and feet.
His death sparked calls for justice and condemnation from various groups including the UP Diliman administration on the use of violence as a prerequisite for admission into any organization. — BAP, GMA News
Tags: courtofappeals, up, fraternityhazing, crisanthonymendez
24. Provincial bus operators vs dole case digest
Answer:
AND LAND TRANSPORTATION FRANCHISING AND REGULATORY BOARD (LTFRB), Respondents.THE PROVINCIAL BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES (PBOAP), THE SOUTHERN LUZON BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION, INC. (SO-LUBOA), THE INTER CITY BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION (INTERBOA), AND THE CITY OF SAN JOSE DEL MONTE BUS OPERATORS ASSOCIATION (CSJDMBOA), Petitioners, -versus – DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT (DOLE
25. Provincial bus operators vs dole case digest
Provincial bus operators will win, because it has +10% critical chance
While the DOLE has only +5 physical damage
The bus operators also have -50 armor reduction
Therefore they will win
26. Abakada guro partylist vs ermita rule making scribd case digest
kebdkebekrbev pa points po thanks
Answer:
jakchf ml spzhxhjcoeisjzjc
27. Arnold vs willets and patterson ltd case digest
Answer:
hi wht is itd?
Explanation:
brainliest pls ty
28. Activity 1 Human Digestion VS Digestive Factory
Answer:
Human Digestion is a win
29. Mendoza vs. arrieta, gr no. l-32599, june 29, 1979, 91 scra 113 case digest
Answer:
Mendoza vs. arrieta, gr no. l-32599, june 29, 1979, 91 scra 113 case digest
30. Lorenzo shipping vs chubb and sons case digest
Answer:
[tex]\colorbox{white}\ \boxed{ \red{<3}}[/tex]
[tex] \color {lime} \rule {35pt} {100000pt} [/tex]
