This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-03-12 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| Records bear out the fact that at the time the petitioners filed the Amended Petition in 1998, ownership of the properties sought to be compensated for was already transferred to respondent PNB. As early as 1969, the petitioners already mortgaged the properties as security for the sugar crop loan they originally obtained from respondent PNB,[26] and as admitted by the petitioners, respondent PNB foreclosed the mortgage on the property in 1982.[27] As a result, title to the properties was consolidated in the name of PNB. Moreover, as disclosed by PNB,[28] the properties were already transferred to the government pursuant to the mandate of Executive Order No. 407,[29] which directed all government-owned and -controlled corporations to surrender to the DAR all landholdings suitable for agriculture.[30] Clearly, the petitioners have no personality to seek determination of just compensation given that ownership of and title to the properties have already passed on to PNB and eventually, the State. | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| A question that suggests to the witness the answer, which the examining party wants, is a leading question.[22] As a rule, leading questions are not allowed. However, the rules provide for exceptions when the witness is a child of tender years[23] as it is usually difficult for such child to state facts without prompting or suggestion.[24] Leading questions are necessary to coax the truth out of their reluctant lips.[25] The prosecutor asked leading questions to Jenelyn as she was young and unlettered, making the recall of events difficult, if not uncertain. Jenelyn was only 11 years old the second time appellant sexually assaulted her and 12 years old when she testified in court. Her educational attainment is only Grade 1.[26] As explained in People v. Daganio:[27] | |||||
|
2004-02-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant attaches great emphasis on his identification at the police line-up. Yet, there is no law requiring a police line-up as essential to a proper identification.[64] In this case, any doubt as to his identification at the police line-up was dispelled by Mylene who identified in open court the appellant as the malefactor. | |||||
|
2003-12-02 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As for the circumstances surrounding the identification process, they were clearly tainted by improper suggestion. While there is no law requiring a police line-up as essential to a proper identification, as even without it there could still be proper identification as long as the police did not suggest the identification to the witness,[26] the police in the case at bar did even more than suggest to Lydia. | |||||