8.

Causa Proxima Non Remota Spectatur - The law considers the proximate
cause and not the remote one.

9. Caveat Emptor - Let the buyer beware.

10. Corpus Delicti - The body of the crime.

11. Culpa - Fault.

Case: Luisito P. Basilio v The Courrt of Appeals, Hon. Jesus G. Bersamira, and
Fe Advincula G.R. No. 113433. March 17, 2000

Facts:

A crime of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property with

doublehomicide and double physical injuries was charged to Simplicio Pronebo.
The court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Reckless
Imrpudence resulting in the death of Danilo Advincula. Pertinently, the trial court
found that at the time of the vehicular accident accused Simplicio Pronebo was
employed as the driver of the dump truck owned by petitioner Luisito
Basilio.Petitioner Luisito Basilio filed with the trial court a Motion for
Reconsideration praying that the judgment be reconsideredand set aside insofar
as it affected him and subjected him to a subsidiary liability for the civil aspect of
the criminal case.The motion was denied for lack of merit . Aggrieved, petitioner
filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court with the
Court of Appeals,alleging that respondent judge acted without jurisdiction or with
grave abuse of discretion. Before the appellate court,petitioner claimed he was
not afforded due process when he was found subsidiarily liable for the civil liability
of theaccused Pronebo in the criminal case. The Court of Appeals dismissed the
petition.
Issue:

Whether or not petitioner was afforded with due process.

Held:

Yes. The petitioner was afforded with due process. There are two instances
when the existence of an employer-employee relationship of an accused driver
and the alleged vehicle owner may be determined. One during the criminal
proceeding, and the other, during the proceeding for the execution of the
judgment. In both instances, petitioner should be given the opportunity to be
heard, which is the essenceof due process.In the instant case, petitioner knew of
the criminal case that was filed against accused because it was his truck that was
involved in the incident. Further, it was the insurance company, with which his
truck was insured, that provided thecounsel for the accused, pursuant to the
stipulations in their contract. Petitioner did not intervene in the criminal
proceedings, despite knowledge, through counsel, that the prosecution adduced
evidence to show employer-employee relationship. With the convict’s application
for probation, the trial court’s judgment became final and executory. Thus the
lower court did not err when it found that petitioner was not denied due
process.Petitioner was also given the opportunity during the proceedings for the
enforcement of judgment.

12. Damnum Absque Injuria - Damage without legal injury. There can be
damage without legal injury in those instances in which the loss was not the result
of a violation of a legal injury.

13. Delagare Non Potest Delagare - What has been delagated cannot be further
delegated.

14. Delito - Felony.

Case: Heirs of Raymundo Castro v. Apolonio Bustos G.R. No. L-25913; February
29, 1969

Facts:

Trial court found Apolonio Bustos guilty only of homicide and, crediting him
with two mitigating circumstances, namely,passion or obfuscation and voluntary
surrender, and ordered him to indemnify the petitioners six thousand pesos. The
Courtof appeals modified the judgment and awarded to the heirs of the deceased
moral damages in the amount of P6,000 plusP13,380.00 to compensate for the
loss of earning of the decedent at the annual salary of P2,676.00, which they later
eliminated upon motion for reconsideration of the respondent. Petitioner
appealed that the previous decision of the Court of Appeals be reinstated.

Issue:

Whether or not the appellants are entitled to moral damages and

compensation for loss of earning capacity.

Held:

Yes. Art. 2206 provides that defendant shall be liable for the loss of the
earning capacity of the deceased, and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of
the latter; such indemnity shall in every case be assessed and awarded by the
court;as well as for moral damages for mental anguish caused to the heirs of the
deceased. Even if compensation for loss of earning capacity is not pleaded in the
complaint, such may be awarded as it is deemed included the prayer for "actual
damages" and for other "just and equitable reliefs", especially if taken in the light
of Art. 2206, in connection with Art.1764, of the Civil Code.
Case: People vs. Bonnie Rabanal - GR No. 146687

Facts:

On Aug. 11, 1996 at 2:00 am, a drunken and armed Roberto Pascua
approached Bonnie Rabanal, herein accused, a security guard. Thereafter,
Pascua kicked the podium near Rabanal causing it to fall on him. The accused
clarified Pascua’s actions which eventually led Pascua to threaten his life.
Pascua further demanded that Rabanal should surrender his firearm to him.
While Pascua reached for Rabanal’s firearm, the latter was able to push him and
grab his gun. In effect, Pascua lost his balance and fell. Thereafter, the accused
shot Pascua four times.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused can invoke the justifying circumstance of

self-defense.

Held:

No. Self-defense presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or

imminent danger on the life and limb of a person. Thus, danger must be present
that is actually in existence or imminent that the danger is on the point of
happening. Even if the initial aggression came from the deceased, unlawful
aggression as an element of self-defense, had already ceased when the
deceased fell down before he was shot by the accused. Hence, at that point, his
act can no longer be interpreted as an act of self-defense but rather a perverse
desire to kill.
15. Dolo - Deceit (Fraud).

Case: Rongavilla v. CA G.R. NO. 83974

Facts:

The Dela Cruz sisters were the aunts of Dolores Rongavilla. They borrowed
P2,000 from the Rongavillas to have their rooftop repaired. Later, petitioners went
back to their aunts to have them sign a contract. Taking advantage of their lack of
education, the sisters were made to believe that such document, typewritten in
English, was just for the acknowledgment of their debt. After four years,
petitioners asked their aunts to vacate the land subject to litigation claiming that
she and her husband were the new owners. After verifying with the Registry of
Deeds, the aunts were surprised that what they have signed was actually a deed
of sale. Their land title was cancelled and the ownership was transferred to their
nephews. The land was mortgaged with the Cavite Development Bank.

Issue:

Whether or not the deed of sale is void.

Held:

Yes. The deed of sale is void. While petitioners claimed they were regularly
paying taxes on the land in question, they had no second thoughts stating at the
trial and on appeal that they had resorted to doctoring the price stated in the
disputed Deed of Sale, allegedly to save on taxes. While it is true that public
documents are presumed genuine and regular under the Rules of Court, this
presumption is a rebuttable presumption which may be overcome by clear, strong
and convincing evidence.
Case: Cabaliw v. Sadorra G.R. No. 25650

Facts:

Cabaliw was the second wife of Benigno. During their marriage, they bought
2 parcels of land. They had a daughter Soledad. Benigno abandoned his wife
Cabaliw, thus the latter filed an action in court for support. The Court ordered
Benigno to pay her P75 a month. However, Benigno did not pay and instead sold
their property to his son-in-law Soterro. The transaction was done without
Isidora’s consent. Prior to the sale, Soterro already knew that there was a
judgment rendered against his father-in-law but proceeded to buy the property
anyway. When Cabaliw found out, she instituted an action along with her
daughter to recover the properties.

Issue:

Whether or not there is a presumption of fraud.

Held:

Yes. There is presumption of fraud. Alienations by onerous title are presumed

fraudulent when made by persons against whome some judgment has been
rendered or some writ of attachment has been issued. Benigno was ordered by
the Court to pay Cabaliw support and he failed to do so. Instead, he sold his
properties to his son-in-law. The close relationship between Benigno and Soterro
is a badge of fraud. Soterro knew about the judgment against Benigno but
proceeded to purchase the properties anyway. He cannot be said to be a
purchaser in good faith. The presumption of fraud is not overcome by the fact that
the transactions were all made in the nature of public instruments between
Soterro and Benigno. The properties sold were conjugal properties. These
cannot be sold without Cabaliw’s consent.

Submitted to: Atty. Carlo Vincent Gimena

Submitted by: Vanessa Kaye S. Caharian- M7

Legal Profession (Wednesday)

8:00- 9:00 P.M.