case digest: lavarias vs people​

1. 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.

2. 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

3. Arnold vs willets and patterson ltd case digest

Answer:

hi wht is itd?

Explanation:

brainliest pls ty

4. 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

5. Allied banking vs. ca, 416 scra 65 case digest scribd

Answer:

Bank robbery?

Explanation:

Fix the question pls

6. Vda de macabuena vs davao stevedore case digest scribd

Answer:

Huh? Pakiayos nmn ho

Thankss

7. Case digest: GR. No 35066​

Answer:

[G.R. No. 35066. September 7, 1931.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PURIFICACION ALMONTE, Defendant-Appellant.

Teodosio R. Diño, for Appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla, for Appellee

1. CRIMINAL LAW; HOMICIDE; PHYSICAL CONDITION OR NERVOSITY OF VICTIM AS PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INTERNAL HEMORRHAGE RESULTING IN DEATH. — When a person dies in consequence of an internal hemorrhage brought on by moving about against the doctor’s orders, not because of carelessness or a desire to increase the criminal liability of his assailant, but because of his nervous condition due to the wound inflicted by said assailant, the crime is homicide and not merely slight physical injuries, simply because the doctor was of opinion that the wound might have healed in seven days.

2. ID.; ID.; CRIMINAL LIABILITY. — The accused is then liable for all acts contrary to law and their natural and logical consequences.

8. Acuna vs. court of appeals g.r. no. 159832, may 5, 2006 case digest

Answer:

MEMA lang po

Explanation:

Yan po sagot po

9. 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 po

10. Express investments vs bayan telecommunications case digest

Answer:

᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽᯽

11. William ong genato vs. benjamin bayhon digest

Answer:

GENATO v. BAYHON G.R. No. 171035 August 24, 2009 SUMMARY: This is a consolidated case stemming from two civil cases (first was filed by the respondents for the declaration of nullity of dacion en pago; second was filed by petitioner for specific performance. It was alleged by the respondent that the petitioner extended to him a loan and that the former executed a real estate mortgage only as evidence for the loan. However, the petitioner alleged that the respondent executed a dacion en pago in his favor. The trial court upheld the liability of the respondent but declared that there was a novation of the dacion and that the deed of mortgage was not enforceable. Upon appeal, the respondent died. The CA rendered the dacion and the mortgage void. It also held that the liability of the respondent was extinguished upon his death. The issue in this case is whether the respondent is still liable to the petitioner notwithstanding his death pending appeal. The Court ruled in the positive saying that under our law, therefore, the general rule is that a party's contractual rights and obligations are transmissible to the successors. The only exception to this is when the rights and obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law. Also, the heir is not liable beyond the value of the property he received from the decedent. In the case at bar, the loan was contracted by respondent. He died while the case was pending before the CA. While he may no longer be compelled to pay the loan, the debt subsists against his estate. No property or portion of the inheritance may be transmitted to his heirs unless the debt has first been satisfied. The petitioner’s remedy lies in filing a claim against the estate of the deceased respondent.

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. Activity 1 Human Digestion VS Digestive Factory

Answer:

Human Digestion is a win

14. case digest about kidnapping​

· judgment in convicting appellants of kidnapping for ransom. People v. Rodrigo G.R. No. 173022, January 23, 2007. Tinga, J.

15. Tayag vs tayag case digest proof of filiation

Answer:

ano ba yung tayag vs tayag

16. digest and discuss the rulling of people vs vera​

Answer:

Facts:

Private respondent (Cu-Unjieng) was convicted of a criminal charge by trial court of Manila. He filed several motions for reconsideration or new trial but was denied. On 1936, the SC remanded the case to the original court of origin for the execution of judgment. While waiting for the new trial, he appealed to Insular Probation Office (IPO) for probation but was denied. However, Judge Vera, upon another request by petitioner, allowed the petition to be set for hearing for probation. Petitioners then filed a case to Judge Vera for the latter has no power to place the petitioner under probation because it is in violation of Sec. 11 of the Act 4221 (i.e., the grant to the provincial boards the power to provide a system of probation to convicted person.)

Held:

YES, the assailed provision is unconstitutional for being violative of the equal protection clause. Class legislation discriminating against some and favoring others in prohibited. But classification on a reasonable basis, and nor made arbitrarily or capriciously, is permitted. The classification, however, to be reasonable must be based on substantial distinctions which make real differences; it must be germane to the purposes of the law; it must not be limited to existing conditions only, and must apply equally to each member of the class. In the case at bar, however, the resultant inequality may be said to flow from the unwarranted delegation of legislative power. Each provincial board has its own discretion to provide or not to provide a probation system, allocate funds for the probation officers based on the discretion of each provincial boards as regards their own locality, etc. What if the other province decides not to adopt probation system, or it decides not to have salary for the probation officer? It is clear that in section 11 of the Probation Act creates a situation in which discrimination and inequality are permitted or allowed. Section 11 of Act No. 4221 permits of the denial of the equal protection of the law and is on that account bad.

Explanation:

I HOPE IT HELPS

#CarryOnLearning

17. Movido vs. rehabilitation finance corp. digest

hope that can help you po

18. 1. Identify aspect of staffing performed by Mr. Gonzales. 2. Identify the different sources used by Mr. Gonzales in the above case study. 3. Explain the merits of above source.​

Answer:

Answer:1.Recruitment

2. Direct Recruitment, Casual callers or school/campus recruitment

2. Direct Recruitment, Casual callers or school/campus recruitment 3. Merits of external sourc

19. what are the theories of Navara vs Sanchez and Digitel vs Soriano cases?​

Answer:

The respondent was found guilty of grave misconduct for sexually harassing his co-workers and was dismissed from Government service. The appeals court modified the ruling, finding him guilty of simple misconduct for which dismissal was not warranted. The Supreme Court reinstated the finding of grave misconduct, finding that the respondent’s actions were intentional, and since this was the third time he had been penalized for sexual harassment, dismissal was warranted.

Explanation:

yan po

20. sample case digests philippines​

Answer:

sewers and drains in the city of manila philippine islands

Explanation:

correct me if im wrong

hope it helps

#CARRY ON LEARNING

21. Mapa jr. vs. sandiganbayan, g.r. no. 100295, april 26, 1994 case digest

Answer:

i dont know

Explanation:

i dont know too

22. what is case digest​

Answer:

A case digest or a case brief is a written summary of the case. A case sometimes involves several issues. Digesting the same would help the student in separating one issue from another and understanding how the Court resolved the issues in the case.

23. Abakada guro partylist vs ermita rule making scribd case digest

kebdkebekrbev pa points po thanks

Answer:

jakchf ml spzhxhjcoeisjzjc

24. Agan vs. piatco, g.r. no. 155001. may 5, 2003 case digest

Answer:

huh

Step-by-step explanation:

1+1= iniwan

carryonlearn

25. 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

26. Aliviado vs procter and gamble digest scribd

at aalagaan at iingatan ka kase ang sarap mag mahal pag alam mong tunay

27. 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

28. Asia international auctioneers vs parayno digest

Answer:

No its parino digest

Step-by-step explanation:

MAYBE TEE HEE

29. Lorenzo shipping vs chubb and sons case digest

Answer:

[tex]\colorbox{white}\ \boxed{ \red{<3}}[/tex]

[tex] \color {lime} \rule {35pt} {100000pt} [/tex]

30. 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: