Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
being
government
RULING:
NO. The 1987 Constitution, in the Article on Social Justice and
Human Rights, provides that the State "shall guarantee the
rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining
and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including
the right to strike in accordance with law". On the other hand,
Section 14 of E.O No. 180 provides that the Civil Service law
and rules governing concerted activities and strikes in the
government service shall be observed, subject to any
legislation that may be enacted by Congress, referring to
Memorandum Circular No. 6, s. 1987 of the Civil Service
Commission which states that prior to the enactment by
Congress of applicable laws concerning strike by government
employees enjoins under pain of administrative sanctions, all
government officers and employees from staging strikes,
PEOPLE VS LEACHON
G.R. No. 108725-26. September 25, 1998
DOCTRINE: Under the Constitution, what makes the eviction
and demolition of urban or rural poor dwellers illegal or
unlawful is when the same are not done in accordance with
law and in a just and humane manner.
However, what is meant by in accordance with law and just
and humane manner is that the person to be evicted be
accorded due process or an opportunity to controvert the
allegation that his or her occupation or possession of the
property involved is unlawful or against the will of the
landowner; that should the illegal or unlawful occupation be
proven, the occupant be sufficiently notified before actual
eviction or demolition is done; and that there be no loss of
lives, physical injuries or unnecessary loss of or damage to
properties.
FACTS:
Pursuant to the Resolution of the Municipal Trial Court of San
Jose, Occidental Mindoro, the Provincial Prosecutor of
Occidental Mindoro filed two separate informations for
violation of P. D. 772, otherwise known as the Anti-Squatting
Law, against Noli Hablo, Edmundo Mapindan and Diego
Escala, before the Regional Trial Court of Occidental Mindoro
presided over by respondent judge Hon. Emilio Leachon Jr.
The cases proceeded to trial. After presenting its evidence,
the prosecution rested the cases, sending in a written offer of
evidence on November 14, 1991. On August 18, 1992, almost
a year after the prosecution had rested, the respondent
Judgeissued an Order dismissing the said cases motu proprio
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
his
of
of
by
FACTS:
PT&T (Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Company) initially
hired Grace de Guzman as Supernumerary Project Worker,
for a fixed period from November 21, 1990 until April 20, 1991
as reliever for C.F. Tenorio who went on maternity leave. She
was again invited for employment as replacement of Erlina F.
Dizon who went on leave on 2 periods, from June 10, 1991 to
July 1, 1991 and July 19, 1991 to August 8, 1991.
On September 2, 1991, de Guzman was again asked to join
PT&T as a probationary employee where probationary period
will cover 150 days. She indicated in the portion of the job
PEOPLE VS DULAY
G.R. NO. 193854. SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
DOCTRINE: The purpose of the R.A. 7610 is to provide special
protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions
prejudicial to their development.
FACTS:
Prosecutions facts (from the testimony of AAA and Dr. Tan) Dulay convinced complainant AAA, 12 years of age, to
accompany her at a wake at GI San Dionisio, Paraaque City.
Before going to the said wake, they looked for Dulays
boyfriend in several places. When they went to Bulungan Fish
Port to ask for some fish, they saw Dulay's boyfriend. AAA,
appellant and the latter's boyfriend proceeded to the Kubuhan
located at the back of the Bulungan Fish Port. When they
reached the Kubuhan, Dulay suddenly pulled AAA inside a
room where a man known by the name "Speed" was waiting.
AAA saw "Speed" give money to appellant and heard "Speed"
tell appellant to look for a younger girl. Thereafter, "Speed"
wielded a knife and tied AAA's hands to the papag and raped
her. AAA asked for appellant's help when she saw the latter
peeping into the room while she was being raped, but
appellant did not do so. After the rape, "Speed" and appellant
told AAA not to tell anyone what had happened or else they
would get back at her. AAA went to San Pedro, Laguna after
the incident and told her sister what happened and the latter
informed their mother about it. AAA, her sister and mother,
filed a complaint at Barangay San Dionisio. Thereafter, the
barangay officials of San Dionisio referred the complaint to the
police station. The Paraaque City Police Office asked the
assistance of the Child Protection Unit of the PGH, upon which
the latter assigned the case to Dr. Merle Tan. Consequently,
with the consent of AAA and her mother, and in the presence
of a social worker of the DSWD, Dr. Tan conducted the
requisite interview and physical examination on AAA. An
information was filed, charging Dulay with the crime of Rape
under Article 266-A, No. 1 (a) of the RPC, as amended by R.A.
8353 in relation to Section 5 (b) of R.A. 7610.
Defenses Facts (from the testimony of Dulay) -Appellant met
AAA a few days before June 2005 when the latter was
introduced to her by her cousin Eglay Akmad during the wake
of a relative of AAA at Palanyag. The cousin of appellant was
AAA's neighbor at Palanyag. Around 1 o'clock in the morning
of July 3, 2005, appellant averred that she was at La Huerta,
at the Bulungan Fish Port in Paraaque City with her cousin
Eglay and stayed there for about thirty (30) minutes. They
then proceeded to the house of appellant's cousin in
Palanyag. In the said house, appellant saw "Speed" and two
(2) other male persons. She also saw AAA who was engaged
in a conversation with "Speed" and his two (2) companions.
She asked AAA what she was doing there and the latter said
that it was none of her business ("wala kang pakialam sa
akin"). Because of the response of AAA, appellant left the
house and went home to General Trias, Cavite.
The trial court found Dulay guilty of the crime of rape by
indispensable cooperation. The Court of Appeals affirmed such
decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the court erred in finding Dulay guilty of rape
as co- principal by indispensable cooperation.
HELD:
Yes, but she is held guilty for the violation of Section 5 (a) of
R.A. 7610. Under the RPC, to be a principal by indispensable