Whether Hurtado Was Denied Due Process By Being Tried And Found Guilty Without Being Presented Or Indicted By A Grand Jury..

62 Hurtado vs. People of State of California [110 U.S. 516, 3 March 1884] Matthews (J) Facts: The constitution of the state of California adopted in 1879, in article 1, 8, provides as follows: “Offenses heretofore required to be prosecuted by indictment, shall be prosecuted by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or by indictment, with or without such examination and commitment, as may be prescribed by law. A grand jury shall be drawn and summoned at least once a year in each county.” In pursuance of the foregoing provision of the constitution, and of the several sections of the penal Code of California, the district attorney of Sacramento county, on 20 February 1882, filed an information against Joseph Hurtado, charging him with the crime of murder in the killing of one Jose Antonio Stuardo. Upon this information, and without any previous investigation of the cause by any grand jury, Hurtado was arraigned on 22 March 1882, and pleaded not guilty. A trial of the issue was thereafter had, and on 7 May 1882, the jury rendered its verdict, in which it found Hurtado guilty of murder in the first degree. On 5 June 1882, the superior court of Sacramento county rendered its judgment upon said verdict, that Hurtado be punished by the infliction of death, and the day of his execution was fixed for 20 July 1882. From this judgment an appeal was taken, and the supreme court of the State of California affirmed the judgment. On 6 July 1883, the superior court of said county of Sacramento ordered that Hurtado be in court on 11 July 1883, in order that a day for the execution of the judgment in said cause should be fixed. In pursuance of said order, Hurtado, with his counsel, appeared in court,...

Please ENROL FOR FREE or LOGIN to The Website to View The Entire Essay or Term Paper.
LOGIN ENROL FOR FREE
Read More

The Rule Of Law Is A Principle Of Democratic Law Making Implemented In Many Jurisdictions.

Public Law 1 – Writing Task Drawing upon the constitutional and democratic models you have studied, explain what is meant by the liberal conception of the rule of law. The rule of law is a principle of democratic law making implemented in many jurisdictions; it can manifest itself in both written and unwritten constitutions and its origins can be traced to ancient Greece. Its liberal conception fundamentally seeks to ensure all are treated equally by the law and no one is above the law. It may be noted that this is in stark contrast to earlier (Roman for example) and some modern forms of government which may concern divine right or immunity to the law for a ruling class. In a democratic society where the resolve of a majority may supress a significant minority, a problem with the rule of law manifests itself. This, it is suggested may be overcome by “…the recognition of the inalienable right of the individual, inviolable rights of the man”.1 Many nations have sought to enshrine these rights into their constitutions in aid of the principle of the rule of law and to limit the legislative power of the sovereign body. These right can be found both at international level, for example the European Convention on Human Rights and ensuing declarations of incompatibility which seek to resolve violations of human rights and at national level, for example the model of the rule of law found in the US constitution which gives rise to judges interpreting legislation as unconstitutional. Equality under the law can take many different forms, Pericles suggests that Athens was concerned with ensuring there was no discrimination due to “membership of a particular class”.2 This is certainly an ideal the modern conception of the rule of law aspires to today but the scope...

Please ENROL FOR FREE or LOGIN to The Website to View The Entire Essay or Term Paper.
LOGIN ENROL FOR FREE
Read More

The Regional Director Of The Dswd Is Hereby Ordered To Conduct And Submit A Case Study Of The Accused Minor To This Court.

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 101124 May 17, 1993 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CARMELINA TABAR y CARMILOTES and ROMMEL ARRIESGADO y TABAR, accused.CARMELINA TABAR y CARMILOTES, accused-appellant. The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee. Public Attorney’s Office for accused-appellant.   DAVIDE JR., J.: Carmelina Tabar y Carmilotes and her nephew, Rommel Arriesgado y Tabar, of Tres de Abril, Punta Princesa, Cebu City, were charged with the violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A.No. 6425, as amended, in an Information filed by the Office of the City Fiscal of Cebu City with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City on 9 February 1989, the accusatory portion of which reads a follows: That on or about the 8th day of February 1989, at about 3:00 PM. in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping each other, with deliberate intent, did then and there sell and deliver, without authority of law, Three (3) sticks of marijuana cigarettes, a (sic) prohibited drugs, to a person who posted himself as a buyer, in Viol. of Sec. 4, Art. 11, of RA 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Act of 1972. 1 The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. CBU-14863 and after it was raffled off to Branch 15 of the said court, the accused were forthwith arraigned. Carmelina entered a plea of not guilty while Rommel, then seventeen (17) years of age, with the conformity of the prosecution, entered a plea of guilty to the lesser offense of possession of marijuana under Section 8, Article II of R.A. No. 6425, as amended. 2 As a consequence of his plea, the trial court handed down on 24 April 1989 an Order which reads in part as follows:...

Please ENROL FOR FREE or LOGIN to The Website to View The Entire Essay or Term Paper.
LOGIN ENROL FOR FREE
Read More

The Publication Involved In This Case Does Not Belong To This Category

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-15905             August 3, 1966 NICANOR T. JIMENEZ, ET AL., plaintiffs and appellants, vs. BARTOLOME CABANGBANG, defendant and appellee. Liwag and Vivo and S. Artiaga, Jr. for plaintiffs and appellants. Jose S. Zafra and Associates and V. M. Fortich Zerda for defendant and appellee. CONCEPCION, C.J.: This is an ordinary civil action, originally instituted in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, for the recovery, by plaintiffs Nicanor T. Jimenez, Carlos J. Albert and Jose L. Lukban, of several sums of money, by way of damages for the publication of an allegedly libelous letter of defendant Bartolome Cabangbang. Upon being summoned, the latter moved to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the letter in question is not libelous, and that, even if were, said letter is a privileged communication. This motion having been granted by the lower court, plaintiffs interposed the present appeal from the corresponding order of dismissal. The issues before us are: (1) whether the publication in question is a privileged communication; and, if not, (2) whether it is libelous or not. The first issue stems from the fact that, at the time of said publication, defendant was a member of the House of Representatives and Chairman of its Committee on National Defense, and that pursuant to the Constitution: The Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the sessions of the Congress, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate therein, they shall not be questioned in any other place. (Article VI, Section 15.) The determination of the first issue depends on whether or not the...

Please ENROL FOR FREE or LOGIN to The Website to View The Entire Essay or Term Paper.
LOGIN ENROL FOR FREE
Read More

The Law Favors The Probate Of A Will. Upon Those Who Oppose It Rests The Burden Of Showing Why It Should Not Be Allowed

G.R. No. 157451 December 16, 2005 LETICIA VALMONTE ORTEGA, Petitioner, vs. JOSEFINA C. VALMONTE, Respondent. D E C I S I O N PANGANIBAN, J.: The law favors the probate of a will. Upon those who oppose it rests the burden of showing why it should not be allowed. In the present case, petitioner has failed to discharge this burden satisfactorily. For this reason, the Court cannot attribute any reversible error on the part of the appellate tribunal that allowed the probate of the will. The Case Before the Court is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the December 12, 2002 Decision2 and the March 7, 2003 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CV No. 44296. The assailed Decision disposed as follows: “WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED, and the Decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In its place judgment is rendered approving and allowing probate to the said last will and testament of Placido Valmonte and ordering the issuance of letters testamentary to the petitioner Josefina Valmonte. Let this case be remanded to the court a quo for further and concomitant proceedings.”4 The assailed Resolution denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. The Facts The facts were summarized in the assailed Decision of the CA, as follows: “x x x: Like so many others before him, Placido toiled and lived for a long time in the United States until he finally reached retirement. In 1980, Placido finally came home to stay in the Philippines, and he lived in the house and lot located at #9200 Catmon St., San Antonio Village, Makati, which he owned in common with his sister Ciriaca Valmonte and titled in their names in TCT 123468. Two years after his arrival from the United States and at the age of 80 he wed Josefina...

Please ENROL FOR FREE or LOGIN to The Website to View The Entire Essay or Term Paper.
LOGIN ENROL FOR FREE
Read More