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
Showing posts with label absurd conclusion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label absurd conclusion. Show all posts
Aug 25, 2009
Statutory Construction- People vs. Purisima
Statutory Construction
Case of People of the R.P. vs. Purisima
GR Nos. L-42050-66 20November1978
FACTS OF THE CASE:
There are twenty-six (26) Petitions for Review filed by the People of the Philippines represented, respectively, by the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Samar, and joined by the Solicitor General, are consolidated in this one Decision as they involve one basic question of law.
Before those courts, Informations were filed charging the respective accused with "illegal possession of deadly weapon" in violation of Presidential Decree No. 9. On a motion to quash filed by the accused, the three Judges mentioned above issued in the respective cases filed before them — the details of which will be recounted below — an Order quashing or dismissing the Informations, on a common ground, viz, that the Information did not allege facts which constitute the offense penalized by Presidential Decree No. 9 because it failed to state one essential element of the crime.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Are the Informations filed by the People sufficient in form and substance to constitute the offense of "illegal possession of deadly weapon" penalized under Presidential Decree (PD for short) No. 9?
There are two elements to the the offense: first, the carrying outside one's residence of any bladed, blunt, or pointed weapon, etc. not used as a necessary tool or implement for a livelihood; and second, that the act of carrying the weapon was either in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder.
The petitioner by having one particular stand of the carrying of any dangerous weapon outside of the residence w/o regard to motive or intent makes this a case of statutory construction.
HELD:
COURT DISMISSED ALL MOTIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER AND AFFIRMS ALL DECISIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT JUDGES.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LESSON:
The problem of determining what acts fall within the purview of a statute, it becomes necessary to inquire into the intent and spirit of the decree and this can be found among others in the preamble or, whereas" clauses which enumerate the facts or events which justify the promulgation of the decree and the stiff sanctions stated therein.
It is a salutary principle in statutory construction that there exists a valid presumption that undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative measure, and that a construction of which the statute is fairly susceptible is favored, which will avoid all objectionable, mischievous, indefensible, wrongful, evil, and injurious consequence
I hope this helps.
Jeff David
Case of People of the R.P. vs. Purisima
GR Nos. L-42050-66 20November1978
FACTS OF THE CASE:
There are twenty-six (26) Petitions for Review filed by the People of the Philippines represented, respectively, by the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Samar, and joined by the Solicitor General, are consolidated in this one Decision as they involve one basic question of law.
Before those courts, Informations were filed charging the respective accused with "illegal possession of deadly weapon" in violation of Presidential Decree No. 9. On a motion to quash filed by the accused, the three Judges mentioned above issued in the respective cases filed before them — the details of which will be recounted below — an Order quashing or dismissing the Informations, on a common ground, viz, that the Information did not allege facts which constitute the offense penalized by Presidential Decree No. 9 because it failed to state one essential element of the crime.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Are the Informations filed by the People sufficient in form and substance to constitute the offense of "illegal possession of deadly weapon" penalized under Presidential Decree (PD for short) No. 9?
There are two elements to the the offense: first, the carrying outside one's residence of any bladed, blunt, or pointed weapon, etc. not used as a necessary tool or implement for a livelihood; and second, that the act of carrying the weapon was either in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder.
The petitioner by having one particular stand of the carrying of any dangerous weapon outside of the residence w/o regard to motive or intent makes this a case of statutory construction.
HELD:
COURT DISMISSED ALL MOTIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER AND AFFIRMS ALL DECISIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT JUDGES.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LESSON:
The problem of determining what acts fall within the purview of a statute, it becomes necessary to inquire into the intent and spirit of the decree and this can be found among others in the preamble or, whereas" clauses which enumerate the facts or events which justify the promulgation of the decree and the stiff sanctions stated therein.
It is a salutary principle in statutory construction that there exists a valid presumption that undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative measure, and that a construction of which the statute is fairly susceptible is favored, which will avoid all objectionable, mischievous, indefensible, wrongful, evil, and injurious consequence
I hope this helps.
Jeff David
Aug 24, 2009
Statutory Construction- People of the Philippine Islands vs. Rivera
Case of People of the Philippine Islands vs. Faustino Rivera
GR Nos. L-38215, 38216 22December1933
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused Faustino Rivera was being charged by the crime of Indictment of the Innocent planned and punished under the Art 363 of the Revised Penal Code. The Provincial Prosecutor filed a case against Rivera for filing a complaint in writing and executing an oath accusing falsely and without probable cause Vito Sunday and Felisa Moreno of the crime of theft.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Does Art 363 of the R.P.C apply in this case?
It does not apply since the law that the crime Rivera was accused of committing is not explicitly stated in the R.P.C (although it is worthy to mention that the crime of indictment of the innocent is present in the Old Penal Code)
The old penal code described it as the charge of the offense is the imputation itself if made in front of the administrative/ judicial officer while the R.P.C defines the offense as the act that leads (tends directly) to imputation of the offense.
The art 363 of the R.P.C was defined or described as “planting of evidence.”
HELD:
COURT HELD THAT THE ACCUSED FAUSTINO RIVERA IS NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME FO INCRIMINATION OF THE INNOCENT.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LESSON:
It is well settled law that where the text of a statute is clear, it is improper to resort to a caption or title to make it obscure.
It is a well settled rule that statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will give effect to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion. (Lau Ow Bew vs. United States, 144 U. S., 47, 59; 36 Law. ed., 340, 344.)
I hope this helps.
Jeff David
GR Nos. L-38215, 38216 22December1933
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The accused Faustino Rivera was being charged by the crime of Indictment of the Innocent planned and punished under the Art 363 of the Revised Penal Code. The Provincial Prosecutor filed a case against Rivera for filing a complaint in writing and executing an oath accusing falsely and without probable cause Vito Sunday and Felisa Moreno of the crime of theft.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:
Does Art 363 of the R.P.C apply in this case?
It does not apply since the law that the crime Rivera was accused of committing is not explicitly stated in the R.P.C (although it is worthy to mention that the crime of indictment of the innocent is present in the Old Penal Code)
The old penal code described it as the charge of the offense is the imputation itself if made in front of the administrative/ judicial officer while the R.P.C defines the offense as the act that leads (tends directly) to imputation of the offense.
The art 363 of the R.P.C was defined or described as “planting of evidence.”
HELD:
COURT HELD THAT THE ACCUSED FAUSTINO RIVERA IS NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME FO INCRIMINATION OF THE INNOCENT.
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LESSON:
It is well settled law that where the text of a statute is clear, it is improper to resort to a caption or title to make it obscure.
It is a well settled rule that statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will give effect to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion. (Lau Ow Bew vs. United States, 144 U. S., 47, 59; 36 Law. ed., 340, 344.)
I hope this helps.
Jeff David
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
