Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 274 views

    DIGEST People V Livara

    Uploaded by

    Richthofen Vhonn Relatos Custodio
    The Court held that the Court of First Instance of Romblon had jurisdiction over Felipe Livara's case of malversation of public funds. Both civil courts and courts-martial have concurrent jurisdiction over offenses committed by members of the Armed Forces that violate both military and public law. Concurrent jurisdiction means that two or more courts can simultaneously have jurisdiction over the same case. However, once one court begins trying the case, the other is excluded from taking up the same case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DIGEST People V Livara

    Uploaded by

    Richthofen Vhonn Relatos Custodio
    274 views1 page
    The Court held that the Court of First Instance of Romblon had jurisdiction over Felipe Livara's case of malversation of public funds. Both civil courts and courts-martial have concurrent jurisdiction over offenses committed by members of the Armed Forces that violate both military and public law. Concurrent jurisdiction means that two or more courts can simultaneously have jurisdiction over the same case. However, once one court begins trying the case, the other is excluded from taking up the same case.

    Original Description:

    Hi

    Original Title

    DIGEST People v Livara

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Court held that the Court of First Instance of Romblon had jurisdiction over Felipe Livara's case of malversation of public funds. Both civil courts and courts-martial have concurrent jurisdiction over offenses committed by members of the Armed Forces that violate both military and public law. Concurrent jurisdiction means that two or more courts can simultaneously have jurisdiction over the same case. However, once one court begins trying the case, the other is excluded from taking up the same case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    274 views1 page

    DIGEST People V Livara

    Uploaded by

    Richthofen Vhonn Relatos Custodio
    The Court held that the Court of First Instance of Romblon had jurisdiction over Felipe Livara's case of malversation of public funds. Both civil courts and courts-martial have concurrent jurisdiction over offenses committed by members of the Armed Forces that violate both military and public law. Concurrent jurisdiction means that two or more courts can simultaneously have jurisdiction over the same case. However, once one court begins trying the case, the other is excluded from taking up the same case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    People v Livara

    Facts:
    Felipe A. Livara, was found guilty of malversation of public funds and sentenced to
    imprisonment in the Court of First Instance of Romblon (the case against him was filed there).
    He is a member of the Armed Forces, provincial disbursing officer of the Philippine
    Constabulary in Romblon. As finance and accountable officer, he took charge of paying the
    salaries of the officers (that’s why the crime is malversation of public funds) because he cashed
    out at Taft: 8,000 pesos he obtained via a treasury warrant he secured from the finance officer at
    Camp Crame.
    LIVARA’S CONTENTION: Court of First Instance of Romblon had no jurisdiction over the
    case, because the alleged crime happened in line with his job as an officer of the Philippine
    Constabulary.
    HELD: “The civil courts and courts-martial have concurrent jurisdiction over offenses
    committed by a member of the Armed Forces in violation of military law and the public
    law.”
    Concurrent Jurisdiction: Concurrent jurisdiction exists where two or more courts from
    different systems simultaneously have jurisdiction (Power to try a case) over a specific case.
    This should be taken together with the case of US v Sweet. It supplements the latter case. US v
    Sweet says that Civil courts have jurisdiction over the military. People v Livara adds to this:
    Both civil courts and court-martials (not military courts- because military courts only involve
    service- connected offenses) HAVE CONCURRENT JURISDICTION over soldiers of the
    armed forces of the Philippines.
    “The first court to take cognizance of the case does so to the exclusion of the other”
    Meaning: Once a court started trying the case, the other court can no longer take cognizance/
    try the case. (Both courts, the court-martial and the civil courts, have jurisdiction over acts
    committed by military officials but only one court (either) should try the case).

    You might also like