Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Rodrigo A.

Mapoy III
Legal Technique and Logic: Assignment #2
Medoza, et. al. v. Delos Santos, et. al. G.R. No. 176422. March 20, 2013.



Premise 1:

To become a reservable property, its lineal All reservable property comes from the
character is reckoned from the ascendant ascendant from whom the prepositus
from whom the prepositus received the received such by gratuitous title.
property by gratuitous title.

Premise 2:

For the petitioners to become the reservees, All reservees should be from the ascendant
the ascendant from which the said properties from whom the prepositus received such by
were received should be from Placido and gratuitous title.

Premise 3:

The prepositus, Gregoria, received the Placido and Dominga are not the ascendants
property by gratuitous title only from Exequiel from whom the prepositus (Gregoria) received
and not from Placido and Dominga
such by gratuitous title


The disputed properties are not reservable Therefore, the petitoners are not the
properties in relation to them.
reservees. Thus, the disputed properties are
not reservable properties.

People of the Philippines vs. Lualhati. G.R. No. 201363. March 18, 2013.

Premise 1

Premise 2

Premise 3

Premise 4


CA sustained appellants conviction, finding
"a clear case of in flagrante delicto
warrantless arrest as provided under
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure. The CA held that
appellant "exhibited an overt act or strange
conduct that would reasonably arouse
suspicion, aggravated by the existence of
his past criminal citations and his attempt to
flee when PO3 de Leon approached him.
The confiscated shabu is the very corpus
delicti of the crime charged, appellant must
be acquitted and exonerated from all
criminal liability.
A punctilious assessment of the factual
backdrop of this case shows that there
could have been no lawful warrantless
arrest. The factual circumstances of the
case failed to show that PO3 de Leon had
personal knowledge that a crime had been
indisputably committed by the appellant.
Consequently, there being no lawful
warrantless arrest, the shabu purportedly
seized from appellant is rendered
inadmissible in evidence for being the
proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31320
is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant
ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt of the
offense charged and ordered immediately
released from detention, unless his
continued confinement is warranted by
some other cause or ground.


A lawful arrest is an element for the

evidence to be admissible in court.

Evidence from a lawful arrest is should be

admissible to convict the accused.

There is no lawful arrest in this case

As a result, the evidence is inadmissible to

convict the accused.

Thus, the accused is acquitted and released

from detention.