Grounds For Annulment.

Choose the letter of the correct answer. Type your letter of choice and your phone number at the comment portion of this blog. Be the 8th person with the correct answer and win gift certificates from Thirsty.

Which of the following is not a valid ground for annulment? 

(A) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

(B) Psychological incapacity;

(C) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

(D) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;

(E) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

(F) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable.

(G) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or

People v. Marti

G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991
J. Bidin.

Statement of Facts:

Andre Marti and his common law wife Shirley Reyes left a package at Manila Packing and Export Forwarders in Ermita Manila for shipment to their friend in Zurich Switzerland. The package was processed by Anita Reyes the proprietress but she did not individually opened them. She was informed by Marti that the packages contained books, cigars and gloves. The proprietor Job Reyes before sending the packages to the Bureau of Customs inspected them and found out that the pacakages contained dried marijuana leaves. He coordinated with the authorities which resulted to the filing of a case against Andre Marti.

Issue:

Whether or not the marijuana leaves are product of an illegal search and thus should not be admitted as evidence.
  
Held:  

The Court ruled that the marijuana leaves are admissible since it was not the agent of the state who searched the parcels but a private individual who then coordinated with the NBI. 

Ratio Decidendi:

 

"As this Court held in Villanueva v. Querubin (48 SCRA 345 [1972]:

1. This constitutional right (against unreasonable search and seizure) refers to the immunity of one's person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by government, included in which is his residence, his papers, and other possessions. . . .

. . . There the state, however powerful, does not as such have the access except under the circumstances above noted, for in the traditional formulation, his house, however humble, is his castle. Thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government, which is called upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and to respect the privacies of his life. . . . (Cf. Schermerber v. California, 384 US 757 [1966] and Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616 [1886]; Emphasis supplied).

In Burdeau v. McDowell (256 US 465 (1921), 41 S Ct. 547; 65 L.Ed. 1048), the Court there in construing the right against unreasonable searches and seizures declared that:

(t)he Fourth Amendment gives protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and as shown in previous cases, its protection applies to governmental action. Its origin and history clearly show that it was intended as a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authority, and was not intended to be a limitation upon other than governmental agencies; as against such authority it was the purpose of the Fourth Amendment to secure the citizen in the right of unmolested occupation of his dwelling and the possession of his property, subject to the right of seizure by process duly served.

The above ruling was reiterated in State v. Bryan (457 P.2d 661 [1968]) where a parking attendant who searched the automobile to ascertain the owner thereof found marijuana instead, without the knowledge and participation of police authorities, was declared admissible in prosecution for illegal possession of narcotics.

And again in the 1969 case of Walker v. State (429 S.W.2d 121), it was held that the search and seizure clauses are restraints upon the government and its agents, not upon private individuals (citing People v. Potter, 240 Cal. App.2d 621, 49 Cap. Rptr, 892 (1966); State v. Brown, Mo., 391 S.W.2d 903 (1965); State v. Olsen, Or., 317 P.2d 938 (1957).

Likewise appropos is the case of Bernas v. US (373 F.2d 517 (1967). The Court there said:

The search of which appellant complains, however, was made by a private citizen — the owner of a motel in which appellant stayed overnight and in which he left behind a travel case containing the evidence*** complained of. The search was made on the motel owner's own initiative. Because of it, he became suspicious, called the local police, informed them of the bag's contents, and made it available to the authorities.

The fourth amendment and the case law applying it do not require exclusion of evidence obtained through a search by a private citizen. Rather, the amendment only proscribes governmental action."

The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the Government without the latter transgressing appellant's rights against unreasonable search and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason why the same should not be admitted against him in the prosecution of the offense charged."

Zumba Baby!

Zumba is five minute segments of hell and everyone around you is smiling.

I woke up at five thirty today. My first text was from Rose my blogger friend asking me if I am already awake. I texted that I was going while donning my hijab and lacing my shoes.

At exactly 5:55 I was at the RoadHaus Hotel.

At about six I was on my feet dancing like crazy, smiling, having fun and giving it my all to the zany fitness phenomenon that is ZUMBA!

The pure fitness bliss only lasted for twenty minutes. After that all hell broke lose for me. I felt a searing pain in the soles of my feet. I could barely breathe. I could not keep up. I noticed I was taking frequent water breaks. I was modifying the dance steps. 

The two things that were keeping me from stopping was Rose's encouraging words and my shame of being outdanced by women who were clearly in their sixties.

I was in PAIN! That was when I started counting and realized that most of the music last for five minutes. I told my self you can do it. Five minutes at a time.

I also had to remind myself that I am doing this for myself. Better to know the cause of my body pain than to continue enduring the pain in my lower back with a mysterious cause.

At about seven fifteen the two instructors were finally done administering their  musically induced torture and the staff from the hotel told us that they have 120 pesos breakfast buffet or a 49er breakfast meal.

Sayang wala akong dalang pera at may hearing ako hehehe

So will I be coming back for more?

Definitely! For the breakfast buffet! 

Hahaha joke lang.

Yes I will definitely go back and dance my heart out for fitness and to better equip myself with the strength to push the baby out once I am pregnant hehehe :)

Sample Direct: Petition to Reduce Bail Usual Questions

Any petition for reduction of bail always requires a hearing.

The witnesses that are often presented are the accused himself  and/or a relative. They will testify that the accused is not a flight risk and that he could not afford the amount set for bail but could only produce a certain specific amount.

Every direct examination starts with the offer of the testimony.The lawyer usually starts his direct after the witness is sworn.The lawyer usually seeks the permission of the court by saying these: "with the kind permission of the Honorable Court" or "May I proceed you Honor.

Sample Direct Accused

Lawyer: The testimony of the witness is being offered to prove that the he could not afford the bail set. It is also being offered to prove that the accused can only post a bail of forty thousand pesos (usually half of the amount set for bail or an amount that the accused, his family and/or friends can raise) and that he is not a flight risk.

Mr./Ms. Witness, Where are you residing?

How long have you been a resident of Glan, Sarangani Province? (say he/she is a resident of Glan)

Where there instances that you left the municipality of Glan?

What was the purpose why you left Glan?

How often do you leave the Municipality?

Who are the persons who stay with you in your residence?

Who provides for their sustenance?

What is your source of livelihood?

What is your monthly/weekly/daily income? (depending on the mode of payment if employed or mode of return if engaged in a business)

What kind of materials is the house that you are you living in made of?

What are the appliances that you have in your household?

Who owns these appliances?

How much is your electrical consumption?

Who pays for your electricity?

What crime are you accused of?

Were you arrested?

How much is the bail set for your temporary liberty?

Were you able to post bail?

Why were you not able to post bail?

What is the amount that you can afford in order to post bail?

Who raised this amount?

Add these questions if the witness/accused is already old:

How old are you?

How do you find the conditions of your detention?

End your direct by saying thanks to the witness.

"thank you Mr. Witness and That would be all Your Honor"

Sushi @ the Kee's Cafe and a Peek @ the Roadhouse Hotel

I miss the SOCSARGEN bloggers.

So last Friday when I saw the post for two activities open to bloggers I immediately texted my blogger friend that we should join the activity. 

I was not disappointed. First stop was the RoadHouse Hotel of Cong. Pacquiao and wife Jinkee.

I took pictures of the Lobby and and the superior room (me as the model) with my much missed bloggers sheng and rose.

superior room

Of course I had to ask for the room rates. The promo rates range from 2,240 -3,200 (Php). You can ask for more details by calling them at  083 553-1771 or  by visiting their website at www.roadhousehotel.com.

Next stop is at Kee's cafe where we were treated to lots and lots of yummy sushi. The menu was officially launched last October 6, 2012 with us bloggers as the first tasters.

Yummy and super sarap was all that I could mutter while gobbling the california maki and assorted sushi. The ahi tuna poke or spicy tuna stung my tastebuds but I kept scooping from the bowl. Maanghang pero sarap na binabalik-balikan! Thank you Sir Avel :)

Ahi Poke

Of course for a price conscious person like me I had to ask for the price of the items that we tasted for free. The manager told us that the price is still not set so I had to content myself with looking at the price of coffee for the cafe.

Their coffee sells at a 55-120 price range. Quite acceptable considering the location of the cafe which is accessible to those who are located downtown and residents of Purok Malakas. The cafe is part of the RoadHouse Hotel Complex which is located at Aparente Street Corner Block 0 Brgy. Dadiangas City Heights.

Assorted Sushi

The cafe is a good place to bring visitors and friends who would want to taste fresh tuna sushi! Yummy! 

Hope I can have a taste of their coffee and other beverages soon and lounge on these comfortable chairs. :)

“Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012″ Primer

What is the origin and structure of the law?

The law RA 10175 is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 2796 and House Bill No. 5808. It was approved into law by the President on September 12, 2012. It is composed of thirty one sections and became effective today October 3, 2012 fifteen days after its publication in the Official Gazette and newspapers of general circulation.

What are the key components of the law?

It defines a number of terms such as interception, cybersecurity, subscriber’s information and traffic data or non-content data.

It identifies cybercrime offenses.

It provides for the penalties for the violation of the defined offenses.

It identifies the Philippine National Police and the National Bureau of Investigation as  the key enforcement agencies.

It allows for the real-time collection of traffic data for mere due cause based on the assessment of law enforcement agents. [Traffic data or non-content data refers to any computer data other than the content of the communication including, but not limited to, the communication’s origin, destination, route, time, date, size, duration, or type of underlying service Sec. 2 (p)] 

It compels service providers to cooperate with the authorities in the gathering and recording of traffic data or even content data.

It allows the authorities to intercept, copy and block data by virtue of a search and seizure warrant.

It allows the Department of Justice to block a data  when it sees at first glance that  the data is violative of the law.

It gives the Regional Trial Court jurisdiction over cases involving the law and ambitiously aims to create "designated special cybercrime courts manned by specially trained judges."

 It creates an Office of Cybercrime within the Department Of Justice.

It creates a  Cybercrime Investigation and Coordinating Center (CICC) and defines its powers and functions.

It appropriated 50M for the implementation of the law.

What offenses are punished by the law?

1. Hacking.

2. Using computer devices to commit cyber crimes

3.  Cybersquatting - stealing a domain in bad faith


4. Computer forgery and fraud.

5. Computer identity theft.

6. Cybersex

7. Child pornography

8. Spamming of commercial advertisement

9. Libel as defined in the Revised Penal Code

10. All crimes under Special Laws and the Revised Penal Code, "if committed by, through and with the use of information and communications technologies."

Source: An Act defining cybercrime, providing for the prevention, investigation, suppression and imposition of penalties therefor and for other purposes.