This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-09-16 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| . . . the collection of international behavioral regularities that nations over time come to view as binding on them as a matter of law. This standard definition contain two elements. There must be a widespread and uniform practice of nations. And nations must engage in the practice out of a sense of legal obligation. This second requirement, often referred to as opinio juris, is the central concept of CIL. Because opinio juris refers to the reason why a nation acts in accordance with a behavioral regularity, it is often described as the "psychological" element of CIL. It is what distinguishes a national act done voluntarily or out of comity from one that a nation follows because required to do so by law. Courts and scholars say that a longstanding practice among nations "ripens" or "hardens" into a rule of CIL when it becomes accepted by nations as legally binding.[129] (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted) | |||||
|
2007-09-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In addition to the aforecited elements, it must also be proven that the public officer or employee had taken advantage of his official position in making the falsification. In falsification of public document, the offender is considered to have taken advantage of his official position when (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of a document; or (2) he has the official custody of the document which he falsifies.[45] | |||||