Tinker Tailor Baker Spy

From page 8, Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated,  Volume V, 2013 Edition, by E Paras: 

There is no mention of tailors in the jurisprudence cited; only bakers. Neither tinkers nor spies, you might add. :-)

Reading Between the Lines

Page 49, The 1987 Philippine Constitution, A Comprehensive Reviewer, 2011 Edition, by J Bernas:

I think I've re-read the case cited several times because it was my assignment in oral argument in Forensics under Prof. Christina G. Codilla-Frasco. But I surely did not read that the SC found mandatory drug testing to be unreasonable and oppressive to privacy as to candidates for local office. Is there something between the lines here?

Felony by Omission - Bernas

From The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, 2009 Edition, by Bernas:

Page 103 -

Page 161 -

Page 204 -

Page 844 - 

Page 979 -

Do the Math

From Comments and Cases on Partnership, Agency and Trusts, 2010 Edition, by De Leon and De Leon:

Page 140 -

Page 480 -

Felony by Omission - Reyes

From The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 2008 Edition, by Luis B. Reyes:

Page 13-

Page 22 -

Page 349 -

Reducing 7 to 15

From page 1097 of  the Civil Law Reviewer, 2009 Ed., by Jurado:

The jurisprudence cited, Sps. Pascual vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 144712, July 4, 2002, provides the explanation:

No Stopping on Go Signal

On page 134 of my copy of the book The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, 2009 Edition, by Fr. Bernas, I encircled the words "it abolished" and wrote down "what" on the side of the page.

In my previous "incarnation" as a law student the pace was just too hectic. I did not have the time to ponder the intricacies of the points made by the authors of whatever textbook we were using. It was case, case, and case. Ten cases per evening is par for the course. It seemed professors were outdoing each other in the number of cases assigned.  (One of these days I'll devote one post about my previous life.)

In my present alternate universe time has slowed down. I have time to "smell the roses" in the books I am studying. Paras and Reyes do not seem impregnable anymore. And a rereading of Fr. Bernas's constitutional tome has become enlightening and interesting as never before.

So what was in fact abolished as I noted above? Going back to the case of Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560 cited by Fr. Bernas, I now can see that the good father mis-inserted a full stop after "abolished".

Fr. Bernas stopped on  a go signal; I stopped to smell the roses in his book.

Repeat the second twice

Page 578, Comments and Cases on Obligations & Contracts, 2010 Edition, by de Leon.

Repetition may also be a form of emphasis. De Leon repeated himself before. See here.

Address Not Found

De Leon cites wrong Article of the Constitution on page 68 of  Comments and Cases on Partnership, Agency, and Trusts, 2010 Edition. 

Reyes misses one digit in the GR number of the SC decision cited on page 47 of The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 2008 Edition.

Then on page 108 he cites two wrong articles:

On page 576, Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Vol. II, 2008 Edition, Paras cites a non-existent (repealed) article.

Paras does it again on page 769, Civil Code of the Philippines, Annotated, Vol. V, 2008 Edition. 

From page 150 of Criminal Law Conspectus, 4th Edition, by Regalado. There is no Note 4.

The Supreme Court and Google Earth

Today's November 1, 2012 as I write. No work for 4 days; and it's sem break. Light reading is the order of the day, not proofreading.

But somehow while googling I remembered my Land Title class under Prof. Gemarino. He's a decent guy whose teaching style is that of, well, a teacher. Others teach like a prosecutor, and if you are a law student  you know what I mean.

In one of the cases he assigned, the Supreme Court may have been introduced to the internet way of determining land boundaries.

See here for the complete case.