Objectivity v. Relativity Flashcards
Relativism v. Objectavism
What is truth?
based on the evidence/facts/ circumstance they were given
What is objectivity
reliability and truth
What sections define the types of Evidence?
Rule 133 of the Rules of court
Sections 1,2, and 5
Whatis Preliminary Investigation?
Rule 112
Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding to determine whether there is sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.
People vs Elizabeth Ganguso Y Decena
Elizabeth Ganguso y Decena was accused of selling Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug, without legal authorization. The sale allegedly occurred during a buy-bust operation. PO3 Dennis Vermug, acting as a poseur-buyer, purchased P500 worth of shabu from Ganguso. She was arrested on the spot after handing over the drugs, with the pre-arranged signal confirming the transaction. Ganguso was taken to the police station and charged with drug pushing.
WON there was proof beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction of Elizabeth Decena must stand.
YES. There being proof beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was caught in flagrante delicto in the act of selling shabu, her conviction must stand.
The penalty imposed on her should, however, be modified in view of R.A. No. 7659 (Indeterminate Sentence Law). Being patently favorable to the appellant, that amendatory law should be applied retroactively to the instant case. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances, the proper penalty should be that within the range of arresto mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to prision correccional in its medium period, as maximum.
Rommel Genio Y Santos vs People of the Philippines
Rommel Genio y Santos filed a Petition for Review seeking to overturn the Court of Appeals (CA) decision, which upheld his conviction for bigamy by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 4355-G. Rommel was charged with bigamy for marrying Maricar Santos Galapon while still legally married to his first wife, Magdalena Esler Genio. The prosecution presented evidence that Rommel and Magdalena were married in 2006 and had not legally dissolved their marriage. Despite this, Rommel married Maricar in 2013, as proven by a marriage certificate and testimonies. Magdalena discovered Rommel’s second marriage through social media.
whether the prosecution was able to discharge its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the second marriage, i.e., that between Rommel and Maricar, has all the essential and formal requisites for its validity, thus warranting Rommel’s conviction for the crime of Bigamy.
No. Undeniably, the accused is constitutionally presumed to be innocent and therefore cannot bear the burden of proving his or her innocence. Hence, under Section 6, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the presumed facts must follow from the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt. The rule must be related to Section 2,130 Rule 133 of the Rules of Court, where proof beyond reasonable doubt that is necessary for conviction is defined as “moral certainty,” to the effect that when there is even an iota of doubt if the presumed fact follows from the basic fact, then the inference should not be made, and the presumption must be deemed rebutted.
