Thursday, November 11, 2010

CASE DIGEST ON REYES V. SEMPIO-DY

For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com

case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests

CASE DIGEST ON REYES V. SEMPIO-DY [141 S 208 (1986)] - Where the private complainant in an information for intrigu-ing against honor was represented by a private prosecutor but defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a fine, a civil case damages is will prosper despite the lack of reservation and the intervention of a private prosecutor, because there was no opportunity to present evidence by reason of the unexpected plea of guilty.
Roa v. De La Cruz is not applicable because in that case, there was a full-blown hearing where a private prosecutor participatedly actively but failed to present evidence to support the claim for damages. Hence, a civil action could not prosper. Furthermore, under Art. 33, there is no require¬ment for reseervation to file an independent civil action arising from defamation.

For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com

case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests

No comments:

Post a Comment