DLupload is one of the most leading file-sharing websites around the world. 

 

Amazing Features: 

1.) QUICK PAYOUT

Request withdraw from PayPal, Bitcoin, Payoneer, Paytm, WebMoney, UPI, eSewa etc. 

 

2.) User Friendly

We have a very simple UI that makes you easy to use and navigate our platform. 

 

3. Notification Alerts

Whenever you receive a payment from our system you will get mail alert 

 

4. Support 24/7

We have our dedicated team working days and night with any of your problems or questions. 

 

5.) Accessibility

We are accessibile from any country. Anyone can start earning money with dlupload 

 

6.) Full Control

Once you login to your account, you will have full access control on your account 

 

7.) Highest payout! 

We are proud to have highest rates among any linkshortner platform in the world. Their rates depends upon the visitor's country who is visiting your link.

 

Four (4) easy ways to earn Using DLUPLOAD; PROOF OF EARNINGS.

Read here:

 https://lodpost.com/dlupload-file-sharing-platform-scam-or-legit-review-9331

 

In the case of MICHAEL C. GUY vs. RAFFY TULFO, et al penned by Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, [April 10, 2019 G.R. No. 213023] held that the private offended party's interest in a [criminal case] is limited to the [civil liability] arising from it. 

 

In its February 24, 2010 Judgment, the Regional Trial Court convicted Tulfo and Macasaet, et al. of the crime of libel. It ruled that the prosecution was able to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the crime. 

 

Aggrieved, Tulfo and Macasaet, et al. filed before the Court of Appeals separate Appeals assailing the Regional Trial Court February 24, 2010 Judgment.

 

In its [August 30, 2013] Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's Judgment convicting Tulfo and Macasaet, et al. of libel. Nonetheless, it reduced the award of moral damages to P500,000.00 and ordered them to pay Guy exemplary damages in the amount of P500,000.00. 

 

[Insisting on their innocence], Tulfo sought the [reconsideration] of the Court of Appeals August 30, 2013 Decision. Similarly, Guy moved for partial reconsideration and clarification of the Decision. 

 

In its [June 13, 2014] Amended Decision, the Court of Appeals modified its August 30, 2013 Decision and deleted the award of exemplary damages. It likewise deleted the Regional Trial Court's award of actual damages for lack of factual and legal basis. The dispositive portion of its Amended Decision read: 

 

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The February 24, 2010 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 132, Makati City in Criminal Case No. 04-3614 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS that all accused-appellants are ORDERED to pay Michael Guy, jointly and severally, ₱500,000.00 moral damages and ₱211,200.00 attorney's fees. The award of ₱5,000,000.00 actual damages is DELETED for lack of factual and legal basis. 

 

HENCE, this instant Petition. 

𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐤 (ads) 𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 our Pages 👉

 

 

✍️ Admin @PhilJuris

 

Court's Ruling 

 

"Generally, a criminal case has two aspects, the civil and the criminal." This notion is rooted in the fundamental theory that when a criminal act is committed, two (2) different entities are offended: (1) the State, whose law has been violated; and (2) the person directly injured by the offender's act or omission.(Citing Banal v. Tadeo, Jr). 

 

Generally, the basis of civil liability arising from crime is the fundamental postulate of our law that "Every man criminally liable is also civilly liable" (Art. 100, The Revised Penal Code). Underlying this legal principle is the traditional theory that when a person commits a crime he offends two entities namely (1) the society in which he lives in or the political entity called the State whose law he had violated; and (2) the individual member of that society whose person, right, honor, chastity or property was actually or directly injured or damaged by the same punishable act or omission. . . . While an act or omission is felonious because it is punishable by law, it gives rise to civil liability not so much because it is a crime but because it caused damage to another. 

 

In other words, criminal liability will give rise to civil liability only if the same felonious act or omission results in damage or injury to another and is the direct and proximate cause thereof. Damage or injury to another is evidently the foundation of the civil action. Such is not the case in criminal actions for, to be criminally liable, it is enough that the act or omission complained of is punishable, regardless of whether or not it also causes material damage to another. 

 

Nevertheless, the private offended party's interest in a criminal case is limited to the civil liability arising from it. It is a fundamental principle in remedial law that if the trial court dismisses the case or renders a judgment of acquittal, the private offended party cannot appeal the criminal aspect of the case. Only the Office of the Solicitor General can represent the State in actions brought before the Court of Appeals or this Court. (Citing People v. Santiago). 

 

Similarly, in Malayan Insurance Company, Inc. v. Piccio: 

 

Accordingly, jurisprudence holds that if there is a dismissal of a criminal case by the trial court or if there is an acquittal of the accused, it is only the OSG that may bring an appeal on the criminal aspect representing the People. The rationale therefor is rooted in the principle that the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action is the People and not the petitioners who are mere complaining witnesses. For this reason, the People are therefore deemed as the real parties in interest in the criminal case and, therefore, only the OSG can represent them in criminal proceedings pending in the CA or in this Court. In view of the corollary principle that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party-in-interest who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or by the party entitled to the avails of the suit, an appeal of the criminal case not filed by the People as represented by the OSG is perforce dismissible. The private complainant or the offended party may, however, file an appeal without the intervention of the OSG but only insofar as the civil liability of the accused is concerned. He may also file a special civil action for certiorari even without the intervention of the OSG, but only to the end of preserving his interest in the civil aspect of the case. 

 

[Here], petitioner's sole purpose is to question the amount of damages awarded by the Court of Appeals. He neither disputes nor challenges the Court of Appeals Amended Decision on respondents' criminal liability. He only intends to protect his interest in the civil aspect of the case. Accordingly, petitioner has the legal standing to file this Petition even without the intervention of the Office of the Solicitor General. 

 

Significantly, "[t]he issue on the amount of damages is a factual question that this [C]ourt may not resolve in a Rule 45 petition." Settled is the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for review on certiorari.55 "[This] Court is not a trier of facts and it is not its duty to review, evaluate, and weigh the probative value of the evidence adduced before the lower courts."56 Absent "any clear showing that the trial court overlooked or misconstrued cogent facts and circumstances that would justify altering or revising such findings and evaluation[,]" this Court will not disturb, let alone overturn the lower courts' findings of fact and appreciation of the witnesses' testimonies. 

 

Nonetheless, jurisprudence has carved out certain exceptions to this rule: 

 

(1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures . . .; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible . . .; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion . . .; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts . . .; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting . . .; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee . . .; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court . . .; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based . . .; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioners' main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents . . .; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. 

 

Here, respondents published the libelous article without verifying the truth of the allegations against petitioner. As the Court of Appeals found, the Revenue Integrity Protection Service only investigates officials of the Department of Finance and its attached agencies who are accused of corruption. Petitioner, on the other hand, is no government official and, therefore, beyond the Revenue Integrity Protection Service's jurisdiction. It only goes to show that respondents did not verify the information on which the article was based. 

 

Thus, to ensure that such conduct will no longer be repeated, and considering their profession, respondents are directed to pay petitioner exemplary damages in the amount of ₱1,000,000.00. 

 

Crafting inaccurate and misleading news is a blatant violation of the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. The Society of Professional Journalists is a journalism organization dedicated toward stimulating high standards of ethical behavior, promoting the free flow of information vital to a well-informed citizenry, and inspiring and educating current and future journalists through professional development. 

 

Its Code of Ethics espouses the practice that journalism should be accurate and fair, and mandates accountability and transparency in the profession. 

 

As such, journalists should observe high standards expected from their profession. They must take responsibility for the accuracy of their work, careful never to deliberately distort facts or context by verifying information before releasing it for public consumption. 

 

This case comes at a time when the credibility of journalists is needed more than ever; when their tried-and-tested practice of adhering to their own code of ethics becomes more necessary, so that their truth may provide a stronger bulwark against the recklessness in social media. Respondents, then, should have been more circumspect in what they published. They are not media practitioners with a lack of social following; their words reverberate. Thus, exemplary damages in the amount of ₱1,000,000.00 is justifiable. 

 

WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The June 13, 2014 Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33256 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Respondents Raffy Tulfo, Allen Macasaet, Nicolas V. Quijano, Jr., Janet Bay, Jesus P. Galang, Randy Hagos, Jean y Lacorte, and Venus Tandoc are ORDERED to solidarity pay petitioner Michael C. Guy: (1) Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00) as moral damages; (2) One Million Pesos (₱1,000.000.00) as exemplary damages; and (3) Two Hundred Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Pesos (₱211,200.00) as attorney's fees. 

 

All damages awarded shall be subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this Decision until its full satisfaction. 

 

[April 10, 2019 G.R. No. 213023] 

 

MICHAEL C. GUY, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.

RAFFY TULFO, ALLEN MACASAET, NICOLAS V. QUIJANO, JR., JANET BAY, JESUS P. GALANG, RANDY HAGOS, JEANY LACORTE, and VENUS TANDOC, Accused-Appellants 

 

✍️👨‍⚖️ LEONEN, J. 

 

Full text: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2019/apr2019/gr_213023_2019.html

 

To keep you posted,

𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐮𝐬!

@ Facebook Pages @ Telegram Channel