Sep 23, 2009

Statutory Construction- People vs. Yu Hai alias “HAYA”

Statutory Construction

- Headnotes and Epigraphs
- Construction to avoid Absurdity


Case of People of the Philippines vs. Yu Hai alias “HAYA”
GR Nos. L- 9598, 38216 15August1956

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On October 22, 1954, the accused was charged in the Justice of the Peace Court of Caloocan of a violation of Article 195, sub-paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, for having allegedly permitted the game of panchong or paikiu, a game of hazard, and having acted as maintainer thereof. The accused moved to quash the information on the ground that it charged more than one offense and that the criminal action or liability therefore had already been extinguished; and the Justice of the Peace of Court, in its order of December 24, 1954, sustained the motion to quash on the theory that the offense charged was a light offense which, under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, prescribed in two months.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Did the court err in considering the offense committed as a light felony?

No, since the light offenses as defined in art 9 of the R.P.C states that “an offense which penalty arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos." The argument of the SolGen on the matter is erroneous since the basis for his argument of classifying the offense committed as a correctional penalty, is Art 26 of the RPC which classifies fines not offenses.

Also, if the SolGen’s interpretation of the law is accepted then it will lead to and absurd situation wherein a light felony as defined by Art 9 will have 2 prescriptive periods, and 1 peso will mean the difference of 9 years and 10 months, and there is no reason for a law-maker to raise the prescriptive period for certain light offenses over other light offenses

Therefore it is more sensible and to apply Art 9 over Art 26 since we are discussing the prescription of a crime not the penalty. An as this construction is more favorable to the accused, it should be the one to be adopted.

HELD:

THE DECISION IS AFFIRMED WITH COSTS DE OFICIO.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LESSON:

Headnotes or epigraphs- When a statute is divided into several subjects or articles, having respective appropriate headings, it must be presumed that the provisions of each article are controlling upon the subject thereof and operate as a general rule for settling such questions therein.

Construction to avoid absurdity- If the words of the statute are susceptible of more than one meaning, the absurdity of the result of one construction is a strong argument against its adoption, and in favor of such sensible interpretation as will avoid such result.

I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Sep 3, 2009

NO NEW CASES FOR THE MEANTIME.

GUYS, DUE TO SOME PERSONAL REASONS I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO POST NEW DIGESTS FOR THE MEANTIME. BUT REST ASSURED, AFTER THIS HAS PASSED, MORE DIGESTS WOULD BE ADDED.

Sep 2, 2009

Statutory Construction- Regalado vs. Yulo

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

Case of Regalado vs. Yulo
No. 42935 15February1935

FACTS OF THE CASE:

This case was brought about by the action quo warranto to determine the respective rights of the petitioner Felipe Regalado and one of the respondents, Esteban T. Villar, to the office of Justice of the peace of Malinao, Albay.

Felipe Regalado qualified for the office of justice of the peace of Malinao, Albay on April 12, 1906. On September 13, 1934 Regalado became 65 yrs old. As a consequence thereafter the judge of first instance of Albay, acting in accordance w/ instructions from the Sec of Justice, designated Esteban T. Villar, Justice of the peace of Malinao, Albay. Regalado surrendered the office to Villar under protest.


ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Whether or not under the provisions of section 203 of the Administrative Code, as amended by the Act No. 3899, the Justices and auxiliary justices appointed prior to the approval of the Act No. 3899 who reached the age of 65 yrs after said Act took effect shall cease to hold office upon reaching the age of 65 yrs.

No, Because justices appointed prior to the approval of the act and who completed 65 yrs of age on September 13 1934, subsequent to the approval of the Act which was on November 16 1931 and who by law is required to cease to hold office on January 1, 1933 is not affected by the said act.

HELD:
RESPONDENT ESTEBAN VILLAR BE OUSTED FROM THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OF MALINAO, ALBAY, AND THAT THE PETITIONER FELIPE REGALADO BE PLACED IN POSSESSION OF THE SAME.

STAT CON LESSON:


The intent of the law is to be ascertained from the words used in its construction. (If legislative intent is not expressed in some appropriate manner, the courts cannot by interpretation speculate as to an intent and supply a meaning not found in the phraseology of the law.)

I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Statutory Construction- Commissioner vs. Relunia

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION- THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE USE OF THE TITLE OF STATUTE TO MAKE INTERPRETATION EASIER


Case of Commissioner vs. Relunia
No. 11860 29May1959

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On December 10 1953, the RPS “MISAMIS ORIENTAL” a unit of the Philippine Navy was dispatched to Japan to transport contingents of the 14th BCT bound for Pusan Korea and carry Christmas gifts for our troops there. It seems thereafter, it was used for transportation purposes in connection with the needs of Filipino Soldiers in Korea.

While in Japan it loaded 180 cases containing various articles subject to custom duties. Upon arrival in the Philippines all theses articles were then declared forfeit by the Collector of Customs of Manila for violations of the customs law.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Is the RPS MISAMIS ORIENTAL being a Navy vessel required to have a manifest?

Yes, Because although the law prescribes that only vessels engaged in foreign trade are required to present a manifest, the interpretation of the court all vessels whether private or government owned including ships of the Philippine Navy, coming from a foreign port with the possible exception of war vessels or vessels employed by any foreign government not engaged in the transportation of merchandise by way of trade, as provided for in the 2nd paragraph of sec. 1221 of the Revised Administrative Code, are required to prepare and present a manifest to the customs authorities upon arrival at any Philippine Port.

HELD:
APPEALED DECISION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS AS REGARDS TO THE FORFEITURE OF THE ELECTRIC RANGE IN QUESTION IS SET ASIDE, AND THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AFFIRMING THAT OF THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AS REGARDS TO THE SAME ARTICLE IS AFFIRMED.

STAT CON LESSON:

The title of the statute can be resorted to if there is doubt as to the legislative intent. (The title can be resorted to as an aid where there is doubt as to the meaning of the law or the intention of the legislature, and not otherwise.)

I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Criminal Law- People of the R.P. vs. Pugay

THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO ART. 3(2) & 8(2) OF THE R.P.C.

"A Conspiracy exists when two or more people come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it."

"A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of incurring punishment."


Case of People of the R.P. vs. Pugay
No. L-74324 17November1988

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The accused are pronounced by the RTC of Cavite guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of murder of Bayani Miranda and sentencing them to a prison term ranging from 12 years (prison mayor) as mimimum to 20 years (prison temporal) as maximum and for samson to be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

Miranda and the accused Pugay are friends. Miranda used to run errands for Pugay and they used to sleep together. On the evening of May 19, 1982 a town fiesta was held in the public plaza of Rosario Cavite. Sometime after midnight accused Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived (they were drunk), and they started making fun of Bayani Miranda. Pugay after making fun of the Bayani, took a can of gasoline and poured its contents on the latter, Gabion (principal witness) told Pugay not to do the deed. Then Samson set Miranda on fire making a human torch out of him. They were arrested the same night and barely a few hours after the incident gave their written statements.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Is conspiracy present in this case to ensure that murder can be the crime? If not what are the criminal responsibilities of the accused?

There is no:
CONSPIRACY- is determined when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy must be proven with the same quantum of evidence as the felony itself, more specifically by proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is not essential that there be proof as to the existence of a previous agreement to commit a crime. It is sufficient if, at the time of commission of the crime, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its executed.
Since there was no animosity between miranda and the accused, and add to the that that the meeting at the scene of the incident was purely coincidental, and the main intent of the accused is to make fun of miranda.
Since there is no conspiracy that was proven, the respective criminal responsibility of Pugay and Samson arising from different acts directed against miranda is individual NOT collective and each of them is liable only for the act that was committed by him.

**Conspiracy may be implied from concerted action of the assailants in confronting the victim.

Criminal Responsibilities:

PUGAY: Having failed to exercise diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act committed by his companions who at the same time were making fun of the deceased. - GUILTY OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE

SAMSON:Since there are NO sufficient evidence that appears in the record establishing qualifying circumstances (treachery, conspiracy). And granted the mitigating circumstance that he never INTENDED to commit so grave a wrong. - GUILTY OF HOMICIDE

HELD:
JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURT WAS AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. JUDGEMENT FOR GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT FOR MURDER WAS LOWERED TO THE ABOVE JUDGEMENTS.

I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Sep 1, 2009

Political Law- Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations

POLITICAL LAW- THIS IS WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF THE CHECKS TO THE CONGRESSIONAL POWER OF INQUIRY

"what are the checks to the Legislature's all encompassing, awesome power of investigation?

The right to information by congress is not an absolute right"


Case of Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations
G.R.No. 180643 04September2008

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On September 26, 2007, Neri; appeared before the respondent committees and testified for about 11 hours on the matters concerning the National Broadband Project, a project awarded to a Chinese company ZTE. The Petitioner therein disclosed that when he was offered by Abalos a bribe of 200 million pesos to approve the project, he informed PGMA of the attempt and she instructed him not to accept the bribe. However when he was probed further on PGMA’s and petitioner’s discussions relating to the NBN Project, petitioner refused to answer, invoking exec privilege. The questions that he refused to answer were:

1. whether or not PGMA followed up the NBN Project.
2. whether or not PGMA directed him to prioritize it.
3. whether or not PGMA directed him to approve it.

The petitioner did not appear before the respondent committees upon orders of the President invoking exec privilege. He explained that the questions asked of him are covered by exec privilege. He was cited in contempt of respondent committees and an order for his arrest and detention until such time that he would appear and give his testimony.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:
1. Is there a recognized presumptive presidential communications privilege in our legal system?
2. Did the respondent committee commit a grave abuse of discretion in issuing the contempt order?

- YES, presidential communications privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the separation of powers under the constitution.
- The constitutional infirmity found in the blanket authorization to invoke exec privilege granted by the President to exec officials in sec 2(b) of E.O. 464 does not apply in this case.
- In this case, it was the President herself, through exec sec. Ermita, who invoked exec privilege on a specific matter involving an exec agreement between Philippines and China, which was the subject of the 3 questions asked.
- If what is involved is the presumptive privilege of presidential communications when invoked by the President on a matter clearly within the domain of the Executive, the said presumption dictates that the same be recognized.
- YES, an unconstrained congressional investigative power, like an unchecked executive generates its own abuses.
- Constant exposure to congressional subpoena takes its toll on the ability of the executive to function effectively.
- The Legislative inquiry must be confined to permissible areas and thus prevent “roving commissions.”
- The court although a co-equal branch of government to the legislature, must look into the internal rules of congress w/ regard to ensuring compliance by congress to it. Since, the issuance of a contempt order must be done by a vote of majority of all its members. The issuance of the order was w/o concurrence of the majority.

HELD:
RESPONENTS COMMITTEES’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED 08APRIL2008 IS HEREBY DENIED.


I hope this helps.

Jeff David

Political Law- Senate of the Phils. vs. Ermita

POLITICAL LAW- THIS CASE IS WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF E.O. 464

"A transparent government is one of the hallmarks of a republican state. History has been witness to the fact that the power to withhold information lends itself to abuse, hence the need to guard it zealously."


Case of Senate of the Phils. vs. Ermita
G.R.No. 169777 20April2006

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On September 23, 2005, the committee of the senate as a whole issued invitations to various officials of the executive department and Military officials for them to appear as resource speakers in a public hearing on the North Rail Project, and on the issues of “Gloriagate,” Wire-tapping of the President, Electoral fraud, as was shown in the respective privileged speeches of the Senators.

On September 27 & 28 2005, after being invited most of those “resource persons” were not able to make it due to prior commitments (i.e. military officials), while on 27 September then Senate President Drilon, received a letter from Executive Secretary Ermita requesting a postponement of the hearing (re: Northrail).

On September 28, 2005 the president issued E.O 464, and Ermita sent a letter to the Senate President, informing him of the E.O. and that the resource persons from the executive dept would not be able to attend w/o the consent of the president. With regard to the hearing on the wire-tapping of the President, Col. Balutan and Gen. Gudani were relieved from their military posts and faced court martial proceedings for testifying w/o the president’s approval.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

IS E.O. 464 VALID?

- The congress has the power of inquiry that is expressly recognized by ART 6.21 of the Constitution, where congress may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation
- Since congress has authority to inquire into the operations of the executive branch, it would be inconsistent to hold that the power of inquiry does not extend to executive officials who are the most familiar with and informed on the executive operations, although there are exemptions to the power of inquiry which exemptions fall under the rubric of “executive privilege” (the power of the government to withhold info from the public, the courts, the congress) it is only recognized in relation to certain types of information of a sensitive character, and it is inclined heavily against secrecy and in favor of disclosure.
- The power of congress to compel the appearance of exec officials under sec 21 and the lack of it under sec 22 find their basis in the principle of Separation of Powers. While the exec branch is a co-equal branch of the legislature, it cannot frustrate the power of congress to legislate by refusing to comply w/ its demands for info.
- Congress undoubtedly has a right to information from the executive branch, whenever it is sought in aid of legislation. If the executive branch withholds such information on the ground that it is privileged, it must so assert it and state the reason therefore and why it must be respected.

HELD:
PETITIONS ARE PARTLY GRANTED, Sec(s) 2(b) &3 of E.O. 464 ARE DECLARED VOID. Sec(s) 1&2(a) ARE HOWEVER, VALID.


I hope this helps.

Jeff David