Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
It has also been said that this is a myth, [10] as well as a former "common conceit of English lawyers" who asserted this was the case in France. [11] [12] A presumption of guilt is incompatible with the presumption of innocence and moves an accusational system of justice toward the inquisitional. [13]
People of the Philippines v. Santos, Ressa and Rappler (R-MNL-19-01141-CR), also known as the Maria Ressa cyberlibel case, is a high-profile criminal case in the Philippines, lodged against Maria Ressa, co-owner and CEO of Rappler Inc.. [2] Accused of cyberlibel, Ressa was found guilty by a Manila Regional Trial Court on June 15, 2020. [3] [4]: 36
[6] According to Oposa, the case should be called Oposa with Factoran because his friend Kuya Jun Factoran, a human rights lawyer, actually encouraged to sue the government using his name as the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and to include the dozens of children as real-parties-in-interest, while it was the ...
The Court was divided upon the decision, having a vote of 6-4 (one justice died a month before its promulgation). But it was later on accepted as valuable jurisprudence, starting with the subsequent case of People of the Philippines v. Geronimo (100 Phil. Reports 90). The case is now a standard case study in Philippine law schools.
A consciousness of guilt may, for example, be evinced by a false alibi or explanation for one's actions, intimidation of a witness, destruction or concealment of evidence or flight. Haim Cohn explains the concept: [6] First and foremost, there is "guilt" within the meaning of criminal law.
The opposite system is a presumption of guilt. In many countries and under many legal systems, including common law and civil law systems (not to be confused with the other kind of civil law , which deals with non-criminal legal issues), the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial .
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel , [ note 1 ] 553 U.S. 851 (2008), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which clarified the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as regards money damages sought by a foreign government, the Republic of the Philippines , via its Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).
In the Philippines, amparo and habeas data are prerogative writs to supplement the inefficacy of the writ of habeas corpus (Rule 102, Revised Rules of Court). Amparo means 'protection,' while habeas data is 'access to information.' [1] Both writs were conceived to solve the extensive Philippine extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances since 1999.