a collections of case digests and laws that can help aspiring law students to become a lawyer
1. Spouses del Rosario (herein respondents), jointly and severally executed, signed and delivered in favor of Radiowealth Finance Company a Promissory Note for P138,948.
2. Thereafter, respondents defaulted on the monthly installments. Despite repeated demands, they failed to pay their obligations under their Promissory Note.
3. Petitioner claims that respondents are liable for the whole amount of their debt and the interest thereon, after they defaulted on the monthly installments.
4. Respondents, on the other hand, counter that the installments were not yet due and demandable. Petitioner had allegedly allowed them to apply their promotion services for its financing business as payment of the Promissory Note. This was supposedly evidenced by the blank space left for the date on which the installments should have commenced.
1. W/N leaving the date/period blank for the monthly installments cancels out the obligation to pay in obligations with a period
2. W/N the obligation has become due and demandable despite the period to pay the obligation left blank
1. NO, If this was the intention of the parties, they should have so indicated in the Promissory Note. However, it did not reflect any such intention.
2. YES, SC said, onvincingly, petitioner has established not only a cause of action against the respondents, but also a due and demandable obligation.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED.
Under the Revised Penal Code Article 12-
The following are exempt f r om criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an i n s a n e person, u n l e s s the l a t t er has a c t e d during a l u c id interval.
When the imbecile or an insane person has committed an act w h i c h the l aw defines as a felony (delito), the court shall order h i s confinement i n o n e o f t h e h o s p i t a l s or asylums e s t a b l i s h e d for
p e r s o n s thus afflicted, w h i c h he shall not be permitted t o l e a v e without first o b t a i n i n g t h e permission of the same court.
2. A p e r s o n under n i n e years of age.* (now 15 years of age and under)
3. A p e r s o n over n i n e y e a r s of a g e and under fifteen, unless he has a c t e d w i t h discernment, i n
w h i c h case, s u ch minor shall be p r o c e e d e d against i n accordance w i t h the provisions of Article 80 of t h i s Code. (now over 15 years of age and under 18)
4. Any p e r s o n who, w h i l e performing a lawful act with due care, c a u s e s a n injury by m e r e
a c c i d e n t w i t h o u t fault or i n t e n t i o n of c a u s i n g it.
5. Any p e r s o n who acts under the compulsion of an i r r e s i s t i b l e force.
6. Any p e r s o n w h o a c t s u n d e r t h e impulse o f a n uncontrollable fear of a n equal or g r e a t e r injury.
7. Any p e r s o n w h o fails t o perform an act required by law, w h e n p r e v e n t e d by some lawful or insuperable cause.
*A child fifteen years of age or under is exempt from criminal liability under Rep. Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006). When s u c h minor i s adjudged t o b e criminally irresponsible, t h e court, in conformity w i t h t h e provisions o f t h i s a n d the preceding paragraph, shall commit him t o t h e care and custody of h i s family w h o shall be charged w i t h h i s surveillance and education;
o t h e r w i s e , he shall be committed t o the care of some i n s t i t u t i o n or p e r s o n m e n t i o n e d
i n s a i d Article 80.**
Source: The Revised Penal Code of the Republic of the Philippines/Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.
Article 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone w h o a c t s i n d e f e n s e of h i s p e r s o n or rights,provided that t h e f o l l o w i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable n e c e s s i t y of t h e means employed to prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of t h e person or rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants, or legitimate, natural, or adopted brothers or sisters, or of h i s relatives by affinity in the
same degrees, and those by consanguinity w i t h in the fourth civil degree, provided that t h e f i r s t a n d second requisites prescribed in t h e next preceding circumstance are present, and the further requisite, in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the one making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of t h e person or rights of a stranger, provided that the first and second requisites mentioned in t h e first circumstance of t h i s article are present and that the person defending be not induced by revenge,
resentment or other evil motive.
4. Any p e r s o n who, in order t o a v o i d an evil or injury, does an act w h i c h c a u s e s damage t o another, provided that the following r e q u i s i t e s are present:
First. That t h e evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That t h e injury f e a r e d be greater t h a n that done to avoid it.
Third. That t h e r e be no o t h e r practical and l e s s harmful means of p r e v e n t i n g it.
5. Any p e r s o n w h o a c t s in t h e fulfillment of a duty orin t h e lawful e x e r c i s e of a right or office.
6. Any p e r s o n w h o a c t s i n o b e d i e n c e t o a n order i s s u edby a superior for some lawful purpose.
Source : The Revised Penal Code
Mala in se and mala prohibita, distinguished.
There is a distinction between crimes which are mala in se, or wrongful from their nature, such as theft, rape, homicide, etc., and those that are mala prohibita, or wrong merely because prohibited by statute, such as illegal possession of firearms.
Crimes mala in se are those so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of its members; while crimes mala prohibita are violations of mere rules of convenience
designed to secure a more orderly regulation of the affairs of society.
(Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rawle's 3rd Revision)