EN BANC

G.R. No. 180643

ROMULO L. NERI vs. SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS AND INVESTIGATIONS, SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND COMMERCE, AND SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY.

HELD: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The subject Order dated January 30, 2008, citing petitioner Romulo L. Neri in contempt of the Senate Committees and directing his arrest and detention, is hereby nullified...read more 

Plus:

See how the justices voted on the Neri case, as well as the separate concurring and dissenting opinions.

Recent Jurisprudence:
 

DECISION ON ERAP PLUNDER CASE

DECISION ON PP 1017

DECISION ON CALIBRATED PREEMPTIVE RESPONSE (CPR)

DECISION ON EXECUTIVE ORDER 464

Read other notable Supreme Court decisions

Read Supreme Court News Flash

Visit the Official Website of the Supreme Court of the Philippines

Read more cases 

 
"Hello, Garci!"...Read the Law Professor as he discusses the Anti-Wiretapping Law!

• Recent Articles by the Law Professor 
• More Legal Information 

 
R.A. No. 9492

AN ACT RATIONALIZING THE CELEBRATION OF NATIONAL HOLIDAYS AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 26, CHAPTER 7, BOOK I OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 292, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1987

(from ops.gov.ph)

• More Laws 
• Law Updates 

The defense of insanity is in the nature of confession and avoidance.  Like the justifying circumstance of self-defense, the burden is on the defense to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant was insane immediately before the commission of the crime or at the very moment of its execution. In other words, a defendant in a criminal case who interposes the defense of mental incapacity has the burden of establishing the fact that he was insane at the very moment when the crime committed. There must be complete deprivation of reason in the commission of the act, or that the accused acted without discernment, which must be proven by clear and positive evidence. The mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not preclude imputability. Indeed, a man may act crazy but it does not necessarily and conclusively prove that he is legally so. The non-medical opinion of defense counsel that accused-appellant was bordering on insanity hardly measures up to the foregoing yardsticks.  In the light of the positive testimony of the victim proving accused-appellant’s criminal accountability, this bare and unsubstantiated defense must perforce fail.

• More Legal Doctrines 

• VIEW/SIGN OUR GUESTBOOK

• VISIT OR POST A COMMENT ON OUR BLOG

Meralco should pay P2.7-B refund to consumers now – Palace - from mb.com.ph

Consumer complaints vs.telcos jump year on year - from manilatimes.net

1st Lapid bill passed, gives tax breaks for free legal aid - from manilastandardtoday.com

CA nixes petition of bishop - from philstar.com