Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Spouses Hing vs. Choachuy, et al. (G.R. No. 179736, June 26, 2013), where the
Supreme Court stated:
“The right to privacy is the right to be let alone. The right to privacy is
enshrined in our Constitution and in our laws. It is defined as “the right to be
free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion into one’s
private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary
sensibilities. It is the right of an individual “to be free from unwarranted
publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters
in which the public is not necessarily concerned. Simply put, the right to
privacy is “the right to be let alone”.
In the case of National Transmission Corporation vs. COA, G.R. No. 227796,
February 20, 2018, the Honorable Supreme Court held that “Public officials
should not be held liable for signing contracts that have been approved by bids
and awards committees (BACs), the Supreme Court has ruled for a third time.
In Arias vs. Sandiganbayan (1989) and Ramon Albert vs. Celso Gangan (2001) –
a government official who signed public documents that passed through the
required competitive public bidding “does not automatically become a
conspirator in a crime which transpired at a stage where he had no
participation.”
Mere signature does not result in a liability of the official involved without any
showing of irregularity on the document’s face such that a detailed
examination would be warranted.”
The court also noted that the COA released two separate resolutions on Jan.
29, 2015, and Jan. 19, 2016, that both dismissed petitioner’s appeal to be
excluded from the public officials covered by its notice of disallowance,
although the hotel was already fully operational.
In the case of Ombudsman vs. CA and Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr., G.R. No.
217126-27, November 10, 2015, the Honorable Supreme Court ABANDONED
the foregoing jurisprudential creation because it “simply finds no legal
authority to sustain the condonation doctrine in this jurisdiction”.
It ruled that, “the concept of public office is a public trust and the corollary
requirement of accountability to the people at all times, as mandated under the
1987 Constitution, is plainly inconsistent with the idea that an elective local
official’s administrative liability for a misconduct committed during a prior
term can be wiped off by the fact that he was elected to a second term of office,
or even another elective post.
Election is not a mode of condoning an administrative offense, and there is
simply no constitutional or statutory basis in our jurisdiction to support the
notion that an official elected for a different term is fully absolved of any
administrative liability arising from an offense done during a prior term.” As
such, the Collegiate Body ruled that, “it cannot be said that the electorate’s will
had been abdicated.”
Finally, the Supreme Court held that no presumption exists in any statute or
procedural rule that the electorates, when reelecting a local official, are
assumed to have done so with knowledge of his life and character, and that
they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had any.
GR: SW issued by RTC is valid and enforceable only within its territorial
jurisdiction and in meritorious cases within judicial region (Petron vs. Lao).
Exception: SW issued by RTC Manila and QC is valid anywhere in the
Philippines in special criminal cases (RA No. 9165), provided, that the
application was filed by:
1. NBI
2. PNP
3. ACTF, and
4. Personally endorsed by their respective Heads.
-A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC
The Constitution provides that all revenues and assets of non-stock and non-
profit educational institutions used actually, directly, and exclusively (ADE) for
educational purposes shall be exempt from taxes and duties [Section 4(3),
Article XIV of the Constitution].
The Honorable Supreme Court has clarified that the phrase "all revenues" is
unqualified by any reference as to source. This means that the Constitution
does not require that the revenue and income must have also been sourced
from educational activities or activities related to the purposes of an
educational institution.
Thus, when a non-stock and non-profit institution proves that it uses its
revenues ADE for educational purposes, it shall be exempted from income tax,
VAT and local business tax, including real property tax (CIR vs. De La Salle
University, November 9, 2016).
To summarize:
1. Income from TF – exempted
2. Income from rental
General rule – taxable
exception - used ADE – exempt
3. Real property
General rule – exempt
Exception - leased to other entity - leased portion is taxable
Ang rape ay isang krimen kung saan ang akusadong lalaki ay nakipagtalik
(carnal knowledge) sa isang babae sa pamamagitan ng: pagpupwersa,
pananakot, pagbabanta, panloloko (fraudulent machination), pag abuso sa
kapangyarihan (grave abuse of authority), o pakikipagtalik ng akusado kung
saan ang biktima ay wala sa katinuan, walang malay, may edad na mababa sa
12 taon o baliw. Ang rape ay may parusang kulong mula 20 taon may 1 araw
hanggang 40 taon.
3. That the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following
circumstances:
Ayon sa Revised Penal Code, ang paghahamon ng dwelo ay isang krimen. Ang
dwelo ay isang pormal na labanan ng dalawang magkatunggali sa harap ng
kanilang mga kasamahan, kung saan ang mga armas na gagamitin sa dwelo at
iba pang kondisyon ng laban ay nauna ng napagkasunduan. Maituturing din
na krimen ang mga sumusunod:
Ang homicide ay isang krimen kung saan ang akusado ay nakapatay ng tao.
Upang maging homicide ang pagpatay, kailangan na di ito pumasok sa mga
sumusunod na krimen: parricide, murder at infanticide. Ang homicide ay may
parusang kulong mula 12 taon may 1 araw hanggang 20 taon.
Ang parricide ay isang krimen kung saan ang isang akusado ay nakapatay ng
ama, ina, o anak legitimate man o illegitimate. Maari ding napatay ng akusado
ang kanyang legitimate na lolo/lola o mga magulang ng mga ito, o kaya naman
napatay ng akusado ang kanyang legitimate na apo o alin man sa mga anak
nito. Ang parricide ay may parusang kulong mula 20 at 1 araw hanggang 40
taon o reclusion perpetua.