Xmas truce

I am observing a ceasefire of hostilities for the remaining days of 2016 with the law book authors. They will not bother me with their opinions; I will not split hairs with their typos and syntax.

I may yet finish another Grisham or Baldacci.

Merry xmas everyone! Happy new year!!

Saturday typos, 17 December 2016

From Tax Made Less Taxing: A Reviewer with Codals and Cases, 2015 Edition by Ignatius Michael D. Ingles:

Page 29,

Page 58,

Page 77,

Petition for relief from an interlocutory order?

I have always associated a petition for relief  for something that has become final. Almost always the phrase "petition for relief" is accompanied by "judgment."

Which is why I was confused when I read this paragraph on page 198 of Regalado's Remedial Law Compendium, Volume I, 10th Edition:

So, may a petition for relief be made to set aside an order of default?

Checking the decision provides a relief from this conundrum. The SC actually said that:

It has been Our consistent ruling that a default order, being interlocutory, is not appealable but an order denying a motion or petition to set aside an order of default is not merely interlocutory but final and therefore immediately appealable. 

Saturday typos, 10 December 2016

From the Remedial Law Compendium, Volume I, 10th Edition  by Florenz D. Regalado:

Page 781,

Page 834,

Page 862,

Mid-week typo, 7 December 2016

From the Inquirer issue of December 7, 2016:

More than 3, or at least 4?

Band is purportedly defined in the Revised Penal Code in Art. 296 thus:

That does not look as straightforward as definitions should go. How about:

A band is composed of more than three armed malefactors taking part in the commission of a robbery.

And doesn't the sentence look familiar? Yes, because of Article 14.6:

But back to Art. 296, here's a note on Art. 296 by Luis B. Reyes on page 687 of his book The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 2008 Edition:

Reyes used "at least four" instead of "more than three". Was it just to spin a variation on the sentence?

He is concurred, in the use of "at least four", by Florenz D. Regalado on page 671 of his book Criminal Law Conspectus, Fourth Edition:

But Regalado seems to give a hint on why it is "at least four" not "more than three". He wrote down that "a band" comes from the Spanish en cuadrilla. (There is no need for the word en actually as we shall see later.)

Here's how the online Meriam Webster Dictionary says of the etymology of cuadrilla:

Origin and Etymology of cuadrillaSpanish, diminutive of cuadra square, from Latin quadra

When I think of a square, the number 4 promptly pops up in mind, not 3 plus 1. Right?

So why "more than three"? Because the original Spanish version of the RPC says so. Here's Articulo 296 of the Codigo Penal Revisado:

Interestingly, the original does not say at all that cuadrilla (band) is being defined therein.

Just the same, I submit (favorite word of authors who would like to appear in respectful disagreement with a Supreme Court decision) that "at least four" is better than "more than three" in relation to band. Consider this revision, for instance:

Hay cuadrilla cuando concurren a un robo al menos cuatro malhechores armados.

It's more intuitive, isn't it?

Saturday typos, 3 December 2016

From the Political Law Reviewer, 2014 Edition by Ed Vincent S. Albano et al:

Page 803,

Pages 813 and 814,