CLJ 5.docx

Angala, James Augustine A. CLJ 5 Bs Criminology 3 March 4, 2023 ROLANDO SASAN, SR., LEONILO DAYDAY, MODESTO AGUIRRE, ALEJANDRO ARDIMER, ELEUTERIO SACIL, WILFREDO JUEGOS, PETRONILO CARCEDO and CESAR PACIENCIA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION 4TH DIVISION, EQUITABLE-PCI BANK a...

Angala, James Augustine A. CLJ 5 Bs Criminology 3 March 4, 2023 ROLANDO SASAN, SR., LEONILO DAYDAY, MODESTO AGUIRRE, ALEJANDRO ARDIMER, ELEUTERIO SACIL, WILFREDO JUEGOS, PETRONILO CARCEDO and CESAR PACIENCIA, petitioners, vs. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION 4TH DIVISION, EQUITABLE-PCI BANK and HELPMATE, INC., respondents. FACTS: petitioner filed an illegal dismissal complaint with claims for separation pay, sil pay allowance damages, attorneys fees and cost an 13^th^ month of pay. respondent equitable pci bank, entered into a contract for service with helpmate inc. for hi to provide JANITORIAL AND messengerial services. hi would as hire and assign workers. pettitioner sasan were assign to e-pci in lahug, cebu city and other branches is visayas. issue: whether or not the DOCUMENT SUBMITTED by hi should be considered, yes. ruling: The NLRC is allowed to admit evidence, not presented before the Labor Arbiter, and submitted to the NLRC for the first time on appeal. Technical rules of evidence are not binding in labor cases. Labor officials should use every reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively, without regard to technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process. You sent Even if what Hi submitted were mere photocopies, such is acceptable since proceedings before the NLRC are not covered by technical rules of evidence and procedure as observed in regular courts. Angala, James Augustine A. CLJ 5 Bs Criminology 3 March 4, 2023 GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) and WINSTON F. GARCIA, in his capacity as PRESIDENT and GENERAL MANAGER of the GSIS, Petitioners, vs. DINNAH VILLAVIZA, ELIZABETH DUQUE, ADRONICO A. ECHAVEZ, RODEL RUBIO, ROWENA THERESE B. GRACIA, PILAR LAYCO, and ANTONIO JOSE LEGARDA, Respondents. fact: PETITIONER WINSTON GARCIA (PGM GARCIA), AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF THE GSIS, FILED SEPARATE FORMAL CHARGES AGAINST RESPONDENTS DINNAH VILLAVIZA, ELIZABETH DUQUE, ADRONICO A. ECHAVEZ, RODEL RUBIO, ROWENA THERESE B. GRACIA, PILAR LAYCO, AND ANTONIO JOSE LEGARDA FOR GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND/OR CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE PURSUANT TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE IN ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION. issue: WHETHER AN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MAY APPLY SUPPLETORILY THE PROVISIONS OF THE RULES OF COURT ON THE EFFECT OF FAILURE TO DENY THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT AND FAILURE TO FILE ANSWER, WHERE THE RESPONDENTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS DID NOT FILE ANY RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO THE FORMAL CHARGES AGAINST THEM. ruling: Whether or not the respondents\' acts on May 27, 2005 met the criteria for a \"prohibited concerted activity or mass action\" under Section 5 of CSC Resolution No. 02-1316 is at issue in the current case. According to this clause, any collective action done by government employees, either directly or through their employee groups, with the aim of causing a service interruption or work stoppage in order to achieve their demands for a force concession, whether financial or not, is forbidden. The CSC determined that the respondents\' actions of going to the GSIS-IU office while wearing red shirts to observe a public hearing do not constitute a concerted activity and can be seen as an exercise of their right to freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution. The CA did not discover any compelling justification for a deviation. Angala, James Augustine A. CLJ 5 Bs Criminology 3 March 4, 2023 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CARLITO CLARO y MAHINAY, Accused-Appellant. facts: The accused was charged with rape on or about March 14, 2006, in the City of Manila, Philippines. AAA, a housemaid, received a text from the accused asking if they could meet. They met on Augusto San Francisco Street, Sta. Ana, Manila, and boarded a passenger jeepney bound for Rizal A venue in Sta. Cruz, Manila. The accused locked the door and pulled her towards the bed, then inserted his penis into her vagina against her will and consent. AAA called her cousin, Alberto German, a police officer, but he was unable to give him her exact location after her phone ran out of battery. After two months, they became lovers and had gone out on a date on March 6, 2006. On March 14th 2006, they met at Augustojascha Cruz, and the accused forcibly undressed her and used his penis inside her vagina. German seized him and brought him to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for investigation. Ana Manila and AAA met at the Jollibee restaurant on Rizal Avenue and decided to go to a motel. Ana Manila went to the restroom and dressed in a towel, while AAA undressed and inserted his penis in her vagina. After parting ways, AAA called AAA and asked if they could see each other again. However, a police officer later identified as German arrested and handcuffed him. The mother of the accused testified that AAA was already her son\'s girlfriend prior to the incident and that German asked her to talk to German instead. issue: Was the accused properly found guilty of rape beyond a reasonable doubt by the R TC and the CA? ruling: The Court acquitted the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt, as the accused and the victim had contradictory evidence on whether rape or consensual sex had occurred between them. The sweetheart defense is not usually regarded with favor in the absence of strong corroboration, as love is not a license for carnal intercourse through force or intimidation. The trial judge should have observed the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses to determine if they were telling the truth or fabricating it. The accused and AAA were adults capable of consenting to the sexual intercourse, and the established circumstances showed that they had consented to culminate their lovers\' date in bed inside the motel. The medico-legal findings of bruises and abrasions on AAA showed that she had been subjected to some \"bodily harm\" by the accused to force himself on her, and that the accused had applied force in the context of forcing her to have sex with him. The conclusion of the CA was too sweeping, ignoring the probability of consensuality between the parties and the mere presence of abrasions and contusions on her. The Accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to establish the truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty, a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it.