Republic Act No. 10627 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

see - Republic Act No. 10627 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10627]

AN ACT REQUIRING ALL ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS TO ADOPT POLICIES TO PREVENT AND ADDRESS THE ACTS OF BULLYING IN THEIR INSTITUTIONS

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the “Anti-Bullying Act of 2013”.

SEC. 2. Acts of Bullying. – For purposes of this Act, “bullying” shall refer to any severe or repeated use by one or more students of a written, verbal or electronic expression, or a physical act or gesture, or any combination thereof, directed at another student that has the effect of actually causing or placing the latter in reasonable fear of physical or emotional harm or damage to his property; creating a hostile environment at school for the other student; infringing on the rights of the other student at school; or materially and substantially disrupting the education process or the orderly operation of a school; such as, but not limited to, the following:

a. Any unwanted physical contact between the bully and the victim like punching, pushing, shoving, kicking, slapping, tickling, headlocks, inflicting school pranks, teasing, fighting and the use of available objects as weapons;

b. Any act that causes damage to a victim’s psyche and/or emotional well-being;

c. Any slanderous statement or accusation that causes the victim undue emotional distress like directing foul language or profanity at the target, name-calling, tormenting and commenting negatively on victim’s looks, clothes and body; and

d. Cyber-bullying or any bullying done through the use of technology or any electronic means.

SEC. 3. Adoption of Anti-Bullying Policies. – All elementary and secondary schools are hereby directed to adopt policies to address the existence of bullying in their respective institutions. Such policies shall be regularly updated and, at a minimum, shall include provisions which:

(a) Prohibit the following acts:

(1) Bullying on school grounds; property immediately adjacent to school grounds; at school-sponsored or school-related activities, functions or programs whether on or off school grounds; at school bus stops; on school buses or other vehicles owned, leased or used by a school; or through the use of technology or an electronic device owned, leased or used by a school;

(2) Bullying at a location, activity, function or program that is not school-related and through the use of technology or an electronic device that is not owned, leased or used by a school if the act or acts in question create a hostile environment at school for the victim, infringe on the rights of the victim at school, or materially and substantially disrupt the education process or the orderly operation of a school; and

(3) Retaliation against a person who reports bullying, who provides information during an investigation of bullying, or who is a witness to or has reliable information about bullying;

(b) Identify the range of disciplinary administrative actions that may be taken against a perpetrator for bullying or retaliation which shall be commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offense: Provided, That, in addition to the disciplinary sanctions imposed upon a perpetrator of bullying or retaliation, he/she shall also be required to undergo a rehabilitation program which shall be administered by the institution concerned. The parents of the said perpetrator shall be encouraged by the said institution to join the rehabilitation program;

(c) Establish clear procedures and strategies for:

(1) Reporting acts of bullying or retaliation;

(2) Responding promptly to and investigating reports of bullying or retaliation;

(3) Restoring a sense of safety for a victim and assessing the student’s need for protection;

(4) Protecting from bullying or retaliation of a person who reports acts of bullying, provides information during an investigation of bullying, or is witness to or has reliable information about an act of bullying; and

(5) Providing counseling or referral to appropriate services for perpetrators, victims and appropriate family members of said students;

(d) Enable students to anonymously report bullying or retaliation: Provided, however, That no disciplinary administrative action shall be taken against a perpetrator solely on the basis of an anonymous report;

(e) Subject a student who knowingly makes a false accusation of bullying to disciplinary administrative action;

(f) Educate students on the dynamics of bullying, the anti-bullying policies of the school as well as the mechanisms of such school for the anonymous reporting of acts of bullying or retaliation;

(g) Educate parents and guardians about the dynamics of bullying, the anti-bullying policies of the school and how parents and guardians can provide support and reinforce such policies at home; and

(h) Maintain a public record of relevant information and statistics on acts of bullying or retaliation in school: Provided, That the names of students who committed acts of bullying or retaliation shall be strictly confidential and only made available to the school administration, teachers directly responsible for the said students and parents or guardians of students who are or have been victims of acts of bullying or retaliation.

All elementary and secondary schools shall provide students and their parents or guardians a copy of the anti-bullying policies being adopted by the school. Such policies shall likewise be included in the school’s student and/or employee handbook and shall be conspicuously posted on the school walls and website, if there is any.

The Department of Education (DepED) shall include in its training programs, courses or activities which shall provide opportunities for school administrators, teachers and other employees to develop their knowledge and skills in preventing or responding to any bullying act.

SEC. 4. Mechanisms to Address Bullying. – The school principal or any person who holds a comparable role shall be responsible for the implementation and oversight of policies intended to address bullying.

Any member of the school administration, student, parent or volunteer shall immediately report any instance of bullying or act of retaliation witnessed, or that has come to one’s attention, to the school principal or school officer or person so designated by the principal to handle such issues, or both. Upon receipt of such a report, the school principal or the designated school officer or person shall promptly investigate. If it is determined that bullying or retaliation has occurred, the school principal or the designated school officer or person shall:

(a) Notify the law enforcement agency if the school principal or designee believes that criminal charges under the Revised Penal Code may be pursued against the perpetrator;

(b) Take appropriate disciplinary administrative action;

(c) Notify the parents or guardians of the perpetrator; and

(d) Notify the parents or guardians of the victim regarding the action taken to prevent any further acts of bullying or retaliation.

If an incident of bullying or retaliation involves students from more than one school, the school first informed of the bullying or retaliation shall promptly notify the appropriate administrator of the other school so that both may take appropriate action.

SEC. 5. Reporting Requirement. – All schools shall inform their respective schools division superintendents in writing about the anti-bullying policies formulated within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act. Such notification shall likewise be an administrative requirement prior to the operation of new schools.

Beginning with the school year after the effectivity of this Act, and every first week of the start of the school year thereafter, schools shall submit a report to their respective schools division superintendents all relevant information and statistics on acts of bullying or retaliation. The schools division superintendents shall compile these data and report the same to the Secretary of the DepED who shall likewise formally transmit a comprehensive report to the Committee on Basic Education of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

SEC. 6. Sanction for Noncompliance. – In the rules and regulations to be implemented pursuant to this Act, the Secretary of the DepED shall prescribe the appropriate administrative sanctions on school administrators who shall fail to comply with the requirements under this Act. In addition thereto, erring private schools shall likewise suffer the penalty of suspension of their permits to operate.

SEC. 7. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – Within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this Act, the DepED shall promulgate the necessary rules and regulations to implement the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 8. Separability Clause. – If, for any reason, any provision of this Act is declared to be unconstitutional or invalid, the other sections or provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall continue to be in full force or effect.

SEC. 9. Repealing Clause. – All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof which are inconsistent with or contrary to the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly.

SEC. 10. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.

Time for law schools to rethink teaching law | Canadian Lawyer Magazine

see - Time for law schools to rethink teaching law | Canadian Lawyer Magazine


"x x x.

As professor Richard Susskind put it: “It’s not just what we teach, it’s how we teach.”

This was one of the central messages at the University of AlbertaFaculty of Law’s recent conference on the future of law school.

As a direct result of the changing legal profession, academics and legal practitioners at the conference expressed the need for legal education reform.

Susskind, a United Kingdom-based independent adviser to law firms and governments, listed three major forces of change in the legal profession:

1.    The concept of more for less: clients are demanding more value, legal services are becoming shared services due to costly fees
2.    Liberalization: new service models are emerging, the billable hour is disappearing
3.    Technology: computers are changing the way legal services are done, routine legal work doesn’t need to be done by lawyers anymore

Much of Susskind’s talk focused on technology and how it will change the way the next generation of lawyers is going to work, and more importantly how legal education can address this.

“There is no way 10 years from now that human beings will be pouring through documents the way we do now, it just won’t happen,” he said. “And yet, that’s what so many junior lawyers do at the beginning of their careers.”

Susskind predicted new jobs for lawyers will emerge — such as legal knowledge engineer, a legal process analyst, legal project manager, and an online dispute resolution practitioner — which will require different skills.

The big question, he said, is this: “What are we training — in very large numbers — young lawyers to become?”

Depending on who you talk to, you will get a different answer to this question.

Gillian Hadfield, a professor at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law, said it’s not so much about determining what law graduates will become but rather providing them with the skills they need to succeed in the legal realm.

“We need to be thinking about orienting our students to problem solve,” she said.

“We need to think about teaching them about our client’s context . . . in some cases that’s going to be understanding something about business, understanding something about environmental policy, understanding the dynamics of family breakdown, understanding the world in which those problems arise and the people who are coming to us for help.”

Problem solving is exactly what University of Alberta law professor Peter Sankoff teaches his students. He switched to a problem-solving approach when he noticed students were losing interest in his lectures.

Since technology has had an impact on the way students learn, Sankoff created what he calls law capsules, which are 10- to 20-minute computer-generated lectures accessible to students before and after class so they come to class with a basic understanding of the concepts.

Through the use of these capsules, Sankoff said he has noticed a vast improvement in student engagement. However, he admits capsules are not the only way to reach students.

“The future of law school has to focus, whatever way you do it, on better teaching. I think it has to recognize that we have to give students opportunities to learn in a way that suits their needs and their learning styles,” he said.

“In my experience, that means a lot more active modes of learning and less lecturing in front of the class. . . . Studies show that students want more engagement and I think they want to test their skills in the classroom each day, and to do that well I believe students still need professors to provide them with critical information one way or another, and this is certainly one way of doing that.”

Sankoff said professors should take a hard look at how they are teaching students.

“There needs to be a great deal of critical self-reflection on what [professors] are doing and whether or not it’s actually working,” he said. “Are we doing enough to meet the needs of this generation and how they process?”

“Reconsidering the way we teach on the ground in each class has to be a critical part of the future of law school,” he added.

University of Calgary Faculty of Law dean Ian Holloway pointed out the way most professors currently teach is not the way people learn.

“We equate volume with rigour — law school is hard because we keep shovelling stuff at our students,” he said. “Most of us don’t focus on depth.”

Law faculties need to stop talking about the courses they teach and instead talk about what students learn, said Holloway.

Susskind said the problem is that law schools are not adequately preparing students for legal practice as it is today.

“We’re training [students] to be traditional, one-to-one, bespoke, face-to-face consultative advisers who specialize in individual jurisdictions and charge by the hour. What we really need is flexible, team-based, hybrid professionals who can transcend legal boundaries and are really motivated to draw on all sorts of techniques of technology and modern business management, but that’s not the generation of lawyers we’re seeing emerging,” he said.

“Our legal world is changing,” he added. “We have to see where [it] is going to end up, where are lawyers likely to be, and therefore how can we organize our training, our education around that.”

As a strong proponent of experiential learning, Osgoode Hall Law School dean Lorne Sossin argued it’s a better way to teach and learn.

Experiential learning “creates better law students,” he said.

“Law students who are problem solvers are simply better than law students who have specialized knowledge,” he said. “Even those who have specialized knowledge and analytic abilities, if they haven’t actually put them to the test, the humility that comes from trying to solve a problem that is unsolvable is like nothing else we can possibly teach.”

x x x."

Roll of attorneys; mandatory signing.

see - Failure to sign roll of attorneys merits lawyer fine, suspension | Inquirer News


"x  x x.

MANILA, Philippines—For failing to sign the roll of attorneys after passing the bar in 1979, a corporate lawyer has been barred by the Supreme Court from practice of law for one year and fined P32,000.

The high court—voting 10-0, with five justices on leave—granted the petition of lawyer Michael Medado to be allowed to sign the roll of attorneys, the official registry of lawyers in the Philippines, but penalized him by allowing him to sign one year hence, in effect suspending him from the practice of law.

“As Medado is not yet a full-fledged lawyer, we cannot suspend him from the practice of law. However, we see it fit to impose upon him a penalty akin to suspension by allowing him to sign in the roll of attorneys one year after receiving this resolution,” said the court in a six-page ruling dated Oct. 1 and penned by Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno.

The court also fined Medado P32,000.

Court records showed Medado graduated from the University of the Philippines in 1979 and passed the bar the same year. On May 7, 1980, he took the attorney’s oath at the Philippine International Convention Center together with the other new lawyers.

He was scheduled to sign the roll of attorneys on May 13 but failed to do so because, according to him, he had misplaced his notice to sign given to him by the bar office.

Years later, while rummaging through his old college files, Medado said he found the notice and realized he had not signed the roll, and that what he had signed at the PICC entrance was the attendance record.

Mistaken belief

By then Medado was working, doing mainly corporate and taxation work and not litigation. He said he was “under the mistaken belief [that] since he ha[d] taken the oath, the signing of the roll was not as urgent, nor as crucial to his status as a lawyer” and that “the matter of signing the roll lost its urgency and compulsion, and was subsequently forgotten.”

In 2005, Medado could not be credited for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education seminars he attended because he had no roll number. But it took seven years, on Feb. 6, 2012, before he would file a petition in the Supreme Court asking to be allowed to sign the roll belatedly.

The Supreme Court’s Office of the Bar Confidant, which investigated the matter, recommended denial of Medado’s petition for lack of merit as he could not offer a valid justification for his negligence in not signing the roll.

Lenient stand

The justices, however, took a lenient stand, saying that not allowing Medado to sign the roll would be akin to imposing upon him the penalty of disbarment, which is reserved for the most serious ethical breaches by lawyers.

The court noted that Medado “demonstrated good faith and good moral character” in finally filing a petition to sign the roll; that it was not a third party that called the court’s attention to his omission; and that he had not been subjected to any action for disqualification from the practice of law.

The justices said Medado was also able to demonstrate that he “strove to adhere to the strict requirements of the ethics of the profession, and that he has prima facie shown that he possesses the character required to be a member of the Philippine Bar. ”

They noted that Medado “appears to have been a competent and able legal practitioner,” having held positions in the Laurel Law Office, Petron, Petrophil Corp., Philippine National Oil Co. and Energy Development Corp.

The justices, however, said they could not fully exculpate Medado from all liability for his years of inaction. They rejected his excuse that his failure to sign was “neither willful nor intentional but based on a mistaken belief and an honest error of judgment.”

“While an honest mistake of fact could be used to excuse a person from the legal consequences of his acts, as it negates malice or evil motive, a mistake of law cannot be utilized as a lawful justification, because everyone is presumed to know the law and its consequences. Ignorantia facti excusat; ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Ignorance of facts excuses; ignorance of law excuses no one),” the justice said. With a report from Christine O. Avendaño.

x x x."

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/502417/failure-to-sign-roll-of-attorneys-merits-lawyer-fine-suspension#ixzz2h4b9AueX
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

How Does the U.S. Supreme Court Work? - Law and Daily Life

SEE - How Does the U.S. Supreme Court Work? - Law and Daily Life


"x x x.

How SCOTUS Decides to Take Cases

Every year, the U.S. Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions from lower courts to review appeals of certain cases. These applications are called petitions for writs of certiorari, and when SCOTUS decides to take a case it is commonly known as granting certiorari or even granting "cert."

The High Court can be very picky about which cases it chooses to take because for the vast majority of cases, there is no right to be heard in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. Although there is no hard and fast rule about how the Court chooses cases, they are typically cases that:

• Will resolve conflicts of law,
• Are politically or socially important,
• Reinforce Supreme Court precedent, and/or
• Fall within a Justice's favorite area of law.

The cases they take on appeal are entirely optional, and only in very few cases has the Supreme Court been required to hear a case -- like lawsuits between state governments.

Who Writes SCOTUS Opinions?

After the U.S. Supreme Court hears a case, the nine Justices take an initial vote on what to do with the case. After the votes are tallied, the senior Justice in the majority assigns the task of writing the majority opinion. That task can fall on another Justice in the majority, or on the assigning Justice himself (or herself).

However, according to Slate, 30 percent of the actual opinion-writing is performed by Supreme Court clerks, who are mostly mid-to-late 20-somethings from Ivy League law schools. Unless it's Justice Antonin Scalia -- he likes to write his own opinions.

How Are Supreme Court Cases Decided?

Most cases are decided in one of three ways by the U.S. Supreme Court:

1. By procedure. The High Court is often squeamish about making a decision on the real substance of a case if it can be decided based on a legal procedural point. Many times, this procedural decision involves standing.
2. On the merits. Sometimes the Justices can't ignore the real "meat" of a case, and it decides a case based on interpretation of the Constitution along with state andfederal laws.
3. Stare decisis. Even if a case is decided on the merits, the U.S. Supreme Court does not overturn old cases unless absolutely necessary. This is part of the reason why controversial cases like Roe v. Wade are not often overturned.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear dozens of cases in October, and may end up changing the face of U.S. law and life. Keep checking back with FindLaw's blogs, as we'll be covering the most significant arguments and outcomes of the Supreme Court's 2013 Term.

Related Resources:

• How the Court Works (Supreme Court Historical Society)
• FindLaw Survey: Can You Name the Supreme Court? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
• Supreme Court Rules on Gay Marriage Cases (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
• Preview: Next Week is Supreme Court Week at FindLaw! (FindLaw's U.S. Supreme Court Blog) x x x."

Don’t Refer Bad Cases or Clients

see-Don’t Refer Bad Cases or Clients


"x x x.

Non-referral 1: a bad case or a case with major issues

This usually happens in one of two ways. One, a case within your expertise that you don’t want to take because of ________. Or two, a case that is not in your practice area, but you still know enough to realize it’s a not a great case. Under either scenario, those are probably not the type of cases you should be referring to people you know.

There have been a few times in the last year where other attorneys have tried to refer me a case that is clearly not a good case. Heck, they usually pitch it as “rock-solid” or “can’t miss” case. Attorneys don’t refer rock-solid or can’t miss cases to other attorneys unless there is a very legitimate reason. If it’s a close colleague of mine, I believe them. If they say there’s a conflict, I believe them. If they tell me “I’ve got too much going on” or “I just can’t deal with this particular case right now” that’s a bigred flag. It’s probably just a bad case.

If you are a solo attorney, you know what I’m talking about. The only way I’m referring a great case to someone else is because of a conflict. That’s it. If I’m already swamped, I will put in more hours and take the case.

Non-referral 2: the problem client

If you don’t know how to spot a problem client, here is a good place to start.

Here are my two (non) favorite referrals from other attorneys. One, a client looking for a free attorney to handle a case that I don’t handle (and the other attorney knows this). For example, I’ve had attorneys call me and say “I know you practice consumer law, but I’ve got a business client I’m trying to help with a lease, and I don’t handle that. They can’t afford to pay anything, but I figured I’d give you a call.”

In other words: the other attorney doesn’t do free work for their own client, but they expect me to (for a practice matter I don’t handle). Frankly, the more I write about this, the more I wonder about this other attorney.

My other (non) favorite referral is the client with an actual case, but the attorney couldn’t work with them. Those calls usually go something like “Look, they’ve got a solid case, but the client is really high maintenance and has totally unrealistic expectations. I figured maybe you would be a better fit for them.”

In other words: the other attorney wants out of the case, but they don’t want to look bad and want to send the client somewhere else. This other attorney also has such little respect for me that they think I will take any/every case that walks in my door.

It’s a pretty simple rule: if the client is not an individual you want to represent, then simply decline representation. Sending them to someone else is a bad idea in the long run. I have a very good memory about attorneys who have referred me cases. I even have an excellent memory about attorneys who tried to dump their problem clients on me.

x x x."

Getting in the Right Mindset Before Court: 5 Tips - Strategist

see - Getting in the Right Mindset Before Court: 5 Tips - Strategist


"x x x.

5. Find the Right Tune

For me, the ultimate tune for getting pumped up before anything, from college finals that I crammed for, to bar exams that I crammed for, to court hearings that I didn't cram for (procrastination: it's not a problem until it affects others), was the Notorious B.I.G.'s Victory. It has a boxer's entrance music feel to it, plus slowly crescendoing aggressive lyrics.

Or, if I feel the need to relieve some tension, I'll pump up a Taylor Swift song and sing at full volume.

Whatever works, right?

4. Eat Something

We'd recommend something light and unlikely to upset your stomach. You don't want a rumble in the jungle, or a food coma, right as you step into the courtroom, but you do need calories for your brain to work properly.

As for caffeine, this really depends on you. I have a coffee dependency issue, so I can't function without a cup or two. If coffee makes you jittery or nervous, skip it.

3. Take a Long, Hot Shower

I'm at my best when I'm physically calm, and mentally wired, hence the loud music and caffeine. Calm on the outside, hyped on the inside. The best way to achieve this is to have a long, hot shower or a soak in the bathtub.

2. Embrace Superstition

Have a pair of lucky socks? How about a lucky coin? Perhaps you have a group of German nuns praying for you before every major life event. Whatever it is, there's no reason to change things up now.

Besides, a little superstition can be a healthy, calming influence, and often acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ever hear of the placebo effect? It applies to that hideous tie you've been wearing to every trial since 1983 as well.

1. Be Prepared

The surest way to flop in court is to go in completely unprepared. Review your briefs, the opposition's briefs, and if the matter warrants the extra preparation, consider holding a mock argument with coworkers. During prep, prepare a shortcrib sheet of the important points and citations. Review that on the morning of the hearing, and bring it with you, just in case.

Do you have a superstition or routine of your own that you'd suggest to the nervous new lawyers amongst use? Give us hand on Facebook or Twitter.

Related Resources:

• Embrace the Supernatural: How Superstitions, Placebos and Rituals Help You to Achieve Your Goals (LifeHacker)
• Clean Desk or Messy Desk? Depends on What Your Goals Are (FindLaw's Strategist Blog)
• 5 Tips to Get You Through an All-Nighter at Your Firm (FindLaw's Strategist Blog)x x x."

Recantation by witness.

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 70168-69.  July 24, 1996]

RAFAEL T. MOLINA and REYNALDO SONEJA, petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

"X x x.

Affidavits of recantation made by a witness after the conviction of the accused is unreliable and deserves scant consideration.[1]

“x x x Merely because a witness says that what he had declared is false and that what he now says is true, is not sufficient ground for concluding that the previous testimony is false.  No such reasoning has ever crystallized into a rule of credibility.  The rule is that a witness may be impeached by a previous contradictory statement x x x not that a previous statement is presumed to be false merely because a witness now says that the same is not true.  The jurisprudence of this Court has always been otherwise, i.e., that contradictory testimony given subsequently does not necessarily discredit the previous testimony if the contradictions are satisfactorily explained.  (U.S. vs. Magtibay, 17 Phil. 417; U.S. vs. Briones, 28 Phil. 362; U.S. vs. Dasiip, 26 Phil. 503; U.S. vs. Lazaro, 34 Phil. 871)."[2]

Indeed, it is a dangerous rule to set aside a testimony which has been solemnly taken before a court of justice in an open and free trial and under conditions precisely sought to discourage and forestall falsehood simply because one of the witnesses who had given the testimony later on changed his mind.[3] Such a rule will make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of the truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.[4] Unless there be special circumstances which, coupled with the retraction of the witness, really raise doubt as to the truth of the testimony given by him at the trial and accepted by the trial judge, and only if such testimony is essential to the judgment of conviction, or its elimination would lead the trial judge to a different conclusion, an acquittal of the accused based on such a retraction would not be justified.[5]

This Court has always looked with disfavor upon retraction of testimonies previously given in court.[6] The asserted motives for the repudiation are commonly held suspect, and the veracity of the statements made in the affidavit of repudiation are frequently and deservedly subject to serious doubt.[7]

Such being the experience of this court, we should proceed with extreme caution and judicial prudence in according any probative value to affidavits of recantation in the light of the sad reality that the same can be easily secured from poor and ignorant witnesses for some financial consideration[8] or through intimidation.[9] Especially when the affidavit of retraction is executed by a prosecution witness after the judgment of conviction has already been rendered, "it is too late in the day for his recantation without portraying himself as a liar."[10] At most, the retraction is an afterthought which should not be given probative value.[11]

Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony if credible.[12] The rule is settled that in cases where previous testimony is retracted and a subsequent different, if not contrary, testimony is made by the same witness, the test to decide which testimony to believe is one of comparison coupled with the application of the general rules of evidence.[13] A testimony solemnly given in court should not be set aside and disregarded lightly, and before this can be done, both the previous testimony and the subsequent one should be carefully compared and juxtaposed, the circumstances under which each was made, carefully and keenly scrutinized, and the reasons or motives for the change, discriminatingly analyzed.[14] The unreliable character of the affidavit of recantation executed by a complaining witness is also shown by the incredulity of the fact that after going through the burdensome process of reporting to and/or having the accused arrested by the law enforcers, executing a criminal complaint-affidavit against the accused, attending trial and testifying against the accused, the said complaining witness would later on declare that all the foregoing is actually a farce and the truth is now what he says it to be in his affidavit of recantation.[15] And in situations, like the instant case, where testimony is recanted by an affidavit subsequently executed by the recanting witness, we are properly guided by the well-settled rules that an affidavit is hearsay unless the affiant is presented on the witness stand[16] and that affidavits taken ex-parte are generally considered inferior to the testimony given in open court.[17]

Applying the aforegoing principles, we are hardly perturbed in our affirmance of petitioners' conviction.  Furthermore, the following antecedent facts and circumstances render the recantation out of context:  (1) complaining witness Homer Tabuzo went through all the trouble of instructing his wife, (while he was in Manila in November, 1977, when told that the treasury warrants were encashed at the PNB), to file the proper complaint and to get xerox copies of the treasury warrants from the PNB; (2) he proceeded to the authorities the day after he arrived from Manila, around five (5) days after the treasury warrants were encashed, to file a formal complaint regarding the falsification of his signature; and (3) he participated in the various stages of the investigation and the trial whenever he was summoned by the Fiscal or the Judge.  That he executed the affidavit of recantation in July, 1985 or eight (8) years after the cases were filed, borders on incredulity.  More importantly, the affidavit of recantation did not cover all points raised and facts established during the trial.  Neither did it refute testimonial and documentary evidence of other witnesses, especially, for instance, the other pharmacy owners who were made to appear to have filed bids and submitted price quotations, when the truth was that they did not.  In short, the said affidavit did not at all explain the other evidence considered by the court a quo in rendering the judgment of conviction, which evidence unequivocally shows petitioners to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged against them.

X x x."

---

[1] People vs. Torino, 11 SCRA 287, p. 293; People vs. Loste, 210 SCRA 614, p. 621.

[2] People vs. Ubina, 97 Phil. 515, pp. 525-526.

[3] People vs. Manigbas; 109 Phil. 469, p. 477.

[4] People vs. Ubina, supra; People vs. Manigbas, 109 Phil. 469; Reano vs. CA, 165 SCRA 525; de Guzman vs. IAC, 184 SCRA 128; People vs. Cruz, 208 SCRA 326; People vs. Mindac, 216 SCRA 558; People vs. Davatos, 229 SCRA 647; People vs. Juinio, 237 SCRA 826; Lopez vs. CA, 239 SCRA 562.

[5] People vs. Manigbas, supra, p. 478.

[6] People vs. Mindac, supra; Lopez vs. CA, supra; People vs. Juinio, supra; People vs. Logronio, 214 SCRA 519; People vs. del Pilar, 188 SCRA 37; People vs. Aldeguer, 184 SCRA 1; People vs. Navasca, 76 SCRA 70.

[7] People vs. Logronio, supra; People vs. Dorado, 30 SCRA 53.

[8] People vs. Liwag, 225 SCRA 46; People vs. Mangulabnan, 200 SCRA 611; People vs. Bernardo, 220 SCRA 31; People vs. Mindac, supra; de Guzman vs. IAC, supra; People vs. Clamor, 198 SCRA 642; People vs. Juinio, supra; People vs. Galicia, 123 SCRA 550; Flores vs. People, 211 SCRA 622.

[9] Lopez vs. CA, supra, 565.

[10] People vs. Loste, 210 SCRA 614, p. 621.

[11] Flores vs. People, supra, p. 630; People vs. Junio, supra, p. 834.

[12] People vs. Dulay, 217 SCRA 103, p. 118; People vs. de la Cerna, 21 SCRA 569.

[13] People vs. Mindac, 216 SCRA 558; Lopez vs. CA, 239 SCRA 562; Reano vs. CA, 165 SCRA 525; People vs. Cruz, 208 SCRA 326.

[14] People vs. Cruz, supra; Lopez vs. CA, supra.

[15] Flores vs. People, 211 SCRA 622; People vs. Juinio, 237 SCRA 826.

[16] People vs. Villeza, 127 SCRA 349; People vs. Mindac, 216 SCRA 558.

[17] People vs. Loveria, 187 SCRA 47; People vs. Riego, 189 SCRA 445; People vs. Mindac, supra.

July 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Tax Law | LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG

see - July 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Tax Law | LEXOTERICA: A PHILIPPINE BLAWG


"x x x.

National Internal Revenue Code; value-added tax; claims for tax refund or credit. Before an administrative claim for refund or tax credit can be granted, there must be a showing that all documentary and evidentiary requirements are satisfied. The taxpayer claiming the refund must comply with the invoicing and accounting requirements mandated by the National Internal Revenue Tax Code, as well as the revenue regulations implementing them.

Thus, the change of taxpayer’s name to “Bonifacio GDE Water Corporation,” being unauthorized and without approval of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the issuance of official receipts under that name which were presented to support taxpayer’s claim for tax refund, cannot be used to allow the grant of tax refund or issuance of a tax credit certificate in taxpayer’s favor. The absence of official receipts issued in its name is tantamount to noncompliance with the substantiation requirements provided by law. Bonifacio Water Corporation (formerly Bonifacio Vivendi Water Corporation) v. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 175142, July 22, 2013.

National Internal Revenue Code; value-added tax; capital goods; definition. “Capital goods or properties” refer to goods or properties with estimated useful life greater than one year and which are treated as depreciable assets under Section 29(f) of the National Internal Revenue Code, used directly or indirectly in the production or sale of taxable goods or services. Thus, payment for services relating to the construction of the capital assets were not considered capital assets considering, especially, that the same were not recorded in the taxpayer’s property, plant and equipment account. Bonifacio Water Corporation (formerly Bonifacio Vivendi Water Corporation) v. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 175142, July 22, 2013.

Factual findings of the Court of Tax Appeals; grave abuse of discretion. It is doctrinal that the Supreme Court will not lightly set aside the conclusions reached by the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) which, by the very nature of its function of being dedicated exclusively to the resolution of tax problems, has accordingly developed an expertise on the subject unless there has been an abuse or improvident exercise of authority. In Barcelon, Roxas Securities, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Court held that it accords the findings of fact by the CTA with the highest respect. It ruled that factual findings made by the CTA can only be disturbed on appeal if they are supported by substantial evidence or there is a showing of gross error or abuse on the part of the Tax Court. In the absence of any clear and convincing proof to the contrary, this Court must presume that the CTA rendered a decision which is valid in every respect. Bonifacio Water Corporation (formerly Bonifacio Vivendi Water Corporation) v. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 175142, July 22, 2013.

x x x."

A Handful of Reasons Not to Go to Law School - Greedy Associates

see - A Handful of Reasons Not to Go to Law School - Greedy Associates


"x x x.

If you are in the process of applying to law school, it may be wise to reconsider. Here are a few reasons that may make you not want to go to law school:

Job Market

Think there's a large demand for FM radio repairmen? How about chimney sweeps? The demand for recent law grads isn't quite that desolate, but it's close.

No Life for 3 Years

Absent the biding ties of marriage, your relationship will probably end (especially if it is long-distance). Your family will forget you exist. And you may have no friends after three years, especially if you go to one of those "cutthroat" schoolswhere kids sabotage each other.

Your first year will be spent studying. Your second year will be spent studying and, if you're lucky, working on journals. Third year? You'll be too busy scouring job ads to have any real fun.

Reading Will No Longer Be Fun

You may enjoy reading now, but after law school, try reading anything, even long sports articles on ESPN.com, and your patience is tapped. If reading is something you particularly enjoy, sorry, you won't anymore. And if you hate reading -- why are you going to law school again?

Gunners

Congrats. You get to sit by the guy who asks you to join his study groups, brings 15 study supplements to class, attaches a second monitor to his laptop in class, answers every question (incorrectly), and follows the professor back to his office with question after question. He'll probably ask to borrow your notes at some point as well, just to make sure he didn't miss anything.

(And gunners are just one of the types of freaks and geeks you'll meet in law school.)

Tuition and Other Costs

Approximately $50,000 in tuition. $150 per book. Add living expenses, interest on your loans, transportation, booze, caffeine, booze, and food, and you'll top $150,000 in debt in no time!

Analytical, Argumentative Mind

Ever talk to someone who argues everything? "Nah brah, you don't like 'Breaking Bad'. You just think you do because its so popular." You'll become him. In three years, you'll find yourself arguing passionately over whether you should really eat wheat toast instead of whole grain. Seriously.

There Are More Lucrative Options Out There

Here's a list of a few: nurse, computer coder, Wall Street yuppie, panhandler in New York City, accountant, any type of engineer, meth manufacturer, and doctor.

And if all those reasons don't convince you, just watch this:

Related Resources:

• Quarter-Life Crisis: Tips for the 'New Lost Generation' (FindLaw's Greedy Associates)
• Young and Healthy? Should You Opt-In or Opt-Out of Obamacare? (FindLaw's Greedy Associates)
• How Many Law Schools Should You Apply To? (FindLaw's Greedy Associates). x x x."