Homicidal Maniac or Murderer?

Under the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, the killing of another person is qualified to murder when committed:

1.With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin.

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

It seems simple enough but the interpretation of facts as to whether they qualify the felony to murder is subject to debates which can determine whether a person would be granted bail or not, freed or sent to prison, and if sent to prison, for how long.  As the facts of a criminal case can be subject to different interpretations, case law becomes important as they provide insights as to how the Supreme Court interpreted certain facts with regard to particular cases.

An illustration of No. 2:

If A paid B to kill C, and B killed C, A is guilty of murder.
If B killed C because of the money paid by A, B is guilty of murder.
If B killed C because he had a grudge against C and it just so happened that A also wanted B killed and gave him money, B is guilty only of homicide.  However, B can still be guilty of murder if the other circumstances mentioned above are present.

Database of Laws

How come there is no official government website which serves as an organized repository of all the laws in the Philippines?  Of course there is lawphil.net and chanrobles.com but these are private entities and if they decide to shut down their websites, well, let's just say a lot of law students would probably miss them.  If ignorance of the law excuses no one from complying with it, then at least the laws should be made accessible to the people.

Hidden Defects, Shoddy Goods and Imperfect Service

The Consumer Act of the Philippines (R.A. 7394) may be a chore to read but I found the important points presented in a clear and concise manner at the website of DTI Cebu:

Q: What is the legal basis of the prohibition on "No Return, No Exchange" Policy of business establishments?

A: Pursuant to the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 7394, or the Consumer Act of the Philippines, specifically Title III, Chapter I, Rule 2, Section 7 of Department Administrative Order (DAO) No. 2, series 1993, the words "No Return, No Exchange", or words to such effect shall not be written into the contract of sale, receipt or sales transaction, in any document evidencing such sale or anywhere in the store or business establishment.

Q: What is the rationale for this provision?

A: The prohibition is aimed to correct the misconception of a lot of consumers that they do not have the right to return shoddy or defective goods or demand for remedies in case of defective or imperfect service because of the "No Return, No Exchange" notice in the receipts or anywhere in the business establishment.

Q: Why is the presence of a "No Return, No Exchange" notice considered deceptive?

A: Such statement is considered deceptive because consumers may return or exchange the goods or avail of other remedies in case of hidden faults or defects, or any charge not known to the buyer. By provision of law, sellers are obliged to honor their implied warranties and grant corresponding remedies to consumers.

Q: Can the store exercise only a policy of exchange but no refund?

A: Consumers are entitled to either an exchange or refund, as long as there is a defect in the quality of goods or imperfection in the service. 

Q: If the defect is due to mishandling on the part of the buyer, can he still return the item and demand an exchange or refund?
A: No, the prohibition covers only hidden defects, shoddy goods or imperfect service.
 

Q: If after buying a certain item, a customer changes his mind and wants to return said item, can he invoke the prohibition on "No Return, No Exchange"?

A: No, the prohibition is not an excuse for the consumers to return the goods because of a change of mind.

Q: Is there a time limit within which a buyer may return defective products?

A: There is no hard-and-fast rule on the period within which a customer may return the products he purchased. A rule of reason should, however, be observed, taking into consideration the nature of the item purchased and the express/implied warranties mandated by law, i.e. the Consumer Act and the New Civil Code of the Philippines.

So this means that if you are going to exchange an item because you changed your mind, you will have to comply with the conditions of the store before the item can be exchanged, such as presenting the original receipt and having the item exchanged within a set number of days.  There are probably other unwritten conditions, like you must not have used the item yet if it is a piece of clothing, because if you will notice, the employees of a big mall handling the exchanges make it a point to inhale every piece of clothing being exchanged.

However, if the reason for the exchange is a defect in the thing bought, it is a right which can be demanded for which there is no set time limit, provided it is exchanged within a reasonable time.  And take note that the defect must not be due to mishandling on the part of the buyer, which is a gray area I think and can be the source of litigation.

What if you bought a pair of shoes which did not appear to be defective when you tried it on but which broke apart after a few hours of using it?  How will you prove that there was no mishandling on your part?  And I guess this is where an organization for the protection of consumer rights would be useful.  If consumers share experiences and it turns out that one's experience is not an isolated case, then it could be established that there is indeed a hidden defect on the item.  It would just be your luck however if the thing you bought indeed had a hidden defect but is an isolated case.


Another gray area is the exchange of underwear as most stores would not accept exchanging such items for understandable reasons.  So if you are going to buy underwear, make sure to check it thoroughly.  Although if you would check the law, it does not specify what items can be exchanged as long as there is a hidden defect on the item, it can be exchanged.  Me, I'd rather buy from reputable brands as there are really certain underwear that are so shoddily made that the stitching breaks apart and the cloth deteriorates after using it a couple of times.  And these are the cheap ones so you might as well just reuse them as rags than go through the cumbersome process of asserting your rights as a consumer.

So there, if you changed your mind about something you bought and want to exchange it for another, just remember that it is a privilege so be nice about it.  But if there is a defect and the store is giving you a hard time, then by all means assert your right!

There are no criminals 15 and below

And that is because under the Juvenile and Justice Welfare Act, a child fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability.  This means that one who is fifteen years of age who kills somebody with cruelty and evident premeditation cannot be called a murderer for after all, he is just a child in conflict with the law.  Yeah, he did not do anything wrong, he's just conflicted and it's just unfortunate that somebody died because of it.  Don't worry, we'll make the parents pay, literally.

You should thank your Senator Kiko Pangilinan for this law.  Now syndicates can utilize kids within this age bracket in committing crimes so don't be surprised if members of the Akyat Bahay Gang or the Bukas Kotse Gang are now required to be 15 and below.

Apparently the ones responsible for this law believe that one from the ages of ten to fifteen cannot  possibly discern whether or not its wrong to kill another human being.  I wonder what became their basis for such a conclusion...  perhaps their own childhood.

Prudential Bank vs IAC

PRUDENTIAL BANK vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

G.R. No. 74886 December 8, 1992,  216 scra 257

--presentment for payment

FACTS:

Philippine Rayon Mills, Inc. entered into a contract with Nissho Co., Ltd. of Japan for the importation of textile machineries under a five-year deferred payment plan.  To effect payment for said machineries, Philippine Rayon Mills opened a commercial letter of credit with the Prudential Bank and Trust Company in favor of Nissho.  Against this letter of credit, drafts were drawn and issued by Nissho, which were all paid by the Prudential Bank through its correspondent in Japan.  Two of these drafts were accepted by Philippine Rayon Mills while the others were not.  Petitioner instituted an action for the recovery of the sum of money it paid to Nissho as Philippine Rayon Mills was not able to pay its obligations arising from the letter of credit.  Respondent court ruled that with regard to the ten drafts which were not presented and accepted, no valid demand for payment can be made.  Petitioner however claims that the drafts were sight drafts which did not require presentment for acceptance to Philippine Rayon.

ISSUE:

Whether presentment for acceptance of the drafts was indispensable to make Philippine Rayon liable thereon.

RULING:

In the case at bar, the drawee was necessarily the herein petitioner. It was to the latter that the drafts were presented for payment.  There was in fact no need for acceptance as the issued drafts are sight drafts.   Presentment for acceptance is necessary only in the cases expressly provided for in Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL).  The said section provides that presentment for acceptance must be made:

         (a) Where the bill is payable after sight, or in any other case, where presentment for acceptance is necessary in order to fix the maturity of the instrument; or

         (b) Where the bill expressly stipulates that it shall be presented for acceptance; or

         (c) Where the bill is drawn payable elsewhere than at the residence or place of business of the drawee.

In no other case is presentment for acceptance necessary in order to render any party to the bill liable.  Obviously then, sight drafts do not require presentment for acceptance.

Stelco vs CA

Stelco Marketing vs. CA

GR 96160, 17 June 1992, 210 scra 51

--accommodation party

FACTS:

Stelco Marketing Corporation sold structural steel bars to RYL Construction Inc.  RYL gave Stelco’s “sister corporation,” Armstrong Industries, a MetroBank check from Steelweld Corporation.  The check was issued by Steelweld’s President  to Romeo Lim, President of RYL, by way of accommodation, as a guaranty and not in payment of an obligation.  When Armstrong deposited the check at its bank, it was dishonored because it was drawn against insufficient funds. When so deposited, the check bore two indorsements, i.e. RYL and Armstrong.  Subsequently, Stelco filed a civil case against RYL and Steelweld to recover the value of the steel products.

ISSUE:

Whether Steelweld as an accommodating party can be held liable by Stelco for the dishonored check.

RULING:

Steelweld may be held liable but not by Stelco.  Under Section 29 of the NIL, Steelweld Corp. can be held liable for having issued the subject check for the accommodation of Romeo Lim.  An accommodation party is one who has singed the instrument as maker, drawer, acceptor, or indorser, without receiving valued therefor, and for the purpose of lending his name to some other person. Such a person is liable on the instrument to a holder for value, notwithstanding such holder, at the time of taking the instrument, knew him to be only an accommodation party.   Stelco however, cannot be deemed a holder of the check for value as it does not meet two essential requisites prescribed by statute, i.e. that it did not become “the holder of it before it was overdue, and without notice that it had been previously dishonored,” and that it did not take the check “in good faith and for value.”

Francisco vs CA

ADALIA FRANCISCO vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. 116320 November 29, 1999 

--agents

FACTS:

A. Francisco Realty & Development Corporation (AFRDC), of which petitioner Francisco is the president, entered into a Land Development and Construction Contract with private respondent Herby Commercial & Construction Corporation (HCCC), represented by its President and General Manager private respondent Ong.  Under the contract, HCCC was to be paid on the basis of the completed houses and developed lands delivered to and accepted by AFRDC and the GSIS.  Sometime in 1979, Ong discovered that Diaz and Francisco, the Vice-President of GSIS, had executed and signed seven checks of various dates and amounts payable to HCCC for completed and delivered work under the contract. Ong, however, claims that these checks were never delivered to HCCC.  It turned out that Francisco forged the indorsement of Ong on the checks and indorsed the checks for a second time by signing her name at the back of the checks, petitioner then deposited said checks in her savings account.  A case was brought by private respondents against petitioner to recover the value of said checks.  Petitioner however claims that she was authorized to sign Ong's name on the checks by virtue of the Certification executed by Ong in her favor giving her the authority to collect all the receivables of HCCC from the GSIS, including the questioned checks.

ISSUE:

Whether petitioner cannot be held liable on the questioned checks by virtue of the Certification executed by Ong giving her the authority to collect such checks from the GSIS.

RULING:

Petitioner is liable.  The Negotiable Instruments Law provides that where any person is under obligation to indorse in a representative capacity, he may indorse in such terms as to negative personal liability.  An agent, when so signing, should indicate that he is merely signing in behalf of the principal and must disclose the name of his principal; otherwise he shall be held personally liable.  Even assuming that Francisco was authorized by HCCC to sign Ong's name, still, Francisco did not indorse the instrument in accordance with law. Instead of signing Ong's name, Francisco should have signed her own name and expressly indicated that she was signing as an agent of HCCC. Thus, the Certification cannot be used by Francisco to validate her act of forgery.