Void for vagueness doctrine

Atty. Alvin Claridades

Void for vagueness doctrine

The doctrine has been formulated in various ways, but is most commonly stated to the effect that a statute establishing a criminal offense must define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand that conduct is prohibited by the statute. It can only be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction.

A statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ in its application. In such instance, the statute is repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects – it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves…

View original post 808 more words

Advertisements

Phil. Legal Doctrines compiled by Atty. Alvin Claridades

Atty. Alvin Claridades

PHILIPPINE LEGAL DOCTRINES as compiled by Atty. Alvin T. Claridades

PHILIPPINE LEGAL DOCTRINES

  1. Doctrine of absolute privilege. Doctrine that protects persons from claims alleging defamation where the alleged defamatory statements were made by members of legislative assemblies while on the floor of the assembly or communications made in the context of judicial proceedings, as part of a trial.
  2. Doctrine of absorption of common crimes. Also called Hernandez doctrine. The rule enunciated in People v. Hernandez [99 Phil. Rep 515 (1956)] that the ingredients of a crime form part and parcel thereof, and hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately therefrom or by the application of Art. 48 of the Rev. Penal Code. [Enrile v. Amin, GR 93335, Sept. 13, 1990]. It held that the crime of rebellion under the Rev. Penal Code of the Phils. is charged as a single offense, and…

View original post 11,198 more words

Amadeo Matute vs. Cheong Boo

Obligations and Contracts

Case Digest

G.R.No. L-11109 January 7, 1918

Amadeo Matute

vs.

Cheong Boo

Street,J.:

Facts:

On January 14, 1915, a contract was made between Amadeo Matute and Cheong Boo that the former should deliver and the latter should receive within the month of February of the same year a quantity of more than 300 and less than 500 piculs of mastic (almaciga) at the price of P8.50/picul. Matute performed his part and delivered on February 22, 1915 the almaciga to the defendant but he refused to accept delivery. The plaintiff thereupon stored the almaciga in a warehouse and he go to the court to file a case claiming for damages plus interest for not accepting the almaciga and the expenses of storing the almaciga in a warehouse.

Issue: Whether or not should the plaintiff can claimed for the damages?

Ruling: Yes, the defendant should comply with their contract and all…

View original post 31 more words

Magdalena State  v  Antonio& Herminia Rodriguez  (JNR)18 Scra 967 Dec 17, 1966

Obligations and Contracts

PETITIONER: Magdalena State

RESPONDENT:   Antonio & Herminia Rodriguez

FACTS

Antonio & Herminia  bought 2,191 SQM lot in Quezon City  from Magdalena State. In view of the unpaid balance of 5,000  on account of purchase price, they executed promissory note for 5,000 which promised to pay with out any demand and with interest of 9 %  that payment be made within 60 days from Jan 1957.

On the same day, Antonio & Herminia executed also a bond on favor of Magdalena State which embodied bonding company Luzon Surety Company to pay the 5,000 balance to Magdalena, but the bonding company be notified in writing within 10 days from the moment there was default otherwise the undertaking become null and viod.

June 1957 the obligation becomes due and demandable the surety company paid Madalena State the 5,000, shortly thereafter, Magdalena demanded payment of 6.55.89 for accumulated interest on principal which was refused…

View original post 225 more words

Lucia Gomez, Et. Al. vs. Ng Fat, Et. Al.

Obligations and Contracts

Case Digest

G.R. No. L-93 and L-94 April 25, 1946

Lucia Gomez, ET Al.,

Vs.

Ng Fat, ET AL.,

Paras,J.:

Facts:

In these two cases, Dee Choy Pio Lee and Ng Fat failed to settle their payment in rental to the plaintiff from February 1945 up to the date of the complaint. The two answered the complaint that the plaintiff had stopped sending their collector. The court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgement in favor of the plaintiffs from which the defendants have appealed. The appellants defense is meritorious. That during that time there was acute house shortage in Manila and it is hard to believe that they would either desire or afford to lose their leaseholds at that time. It may also be remarked that appellants’ alleged default cannot give way to their ejectment, since it is attributable in part to plaintiffs’ omission or neglect to collect. The…

View original post 111 more words

Effects of Trial In Absentia on the Rights of the Accused

Pipo Calusa

Trial In Absentia

Trial in absentia is a stage in a criminal proceeding where the trial is being held even without the physical presence of the accused. Trial in absentia is allowed in our jurisdiction and is indeed authorized by the Constitution. Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear…

View original post 1,423 more words

Lim Tay vs. Court of Appeals

Obligations and Contracts

FACTS

Sy Guiok and Sy Lim secured a loan from Lim Tay in the amount of P40,000.  This was secured by a contract of pledge whereby the former pledged their 300 shares of stock each in Go Fay & Company to the latter.  However, they failed to pay their respective loans.  Hence, Lim Tay filed a petition for mandamus against Go Fay & Company with the SEC praying that an order be issued directing the corporate secretary of the said corporation to register the stock transfers and issue new certificates in favor of Lim Tay.

Go Fay & Company filed its answer contending that SEC had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint on the ground that since Lim Tay was not a stockholder of the company, no intra corporate controversy took place; and furthermore, that the default of payment of Sy Guiok and Sy Lim did not automatically vest in…

View original post 209 more words