PEOPLE vs GACOTT

FACTS:
On February 2, 1994, a complaint for violation of the Anti-Dummy Law (C.A. No. 108)
was filed by Asst. City Prosecutor Perfecto E. Pe against respondents Strom and Reyes. The
accused filed a Motion to Quash/Dismiss the criminal case contending that since the power to
prosecute is vested exclusively in the Anti-Dummy Board under Republic Act No. 1130, the City
Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa has no power or authority to file the same. The prosecution filed an
opposition pointing out that the Anti-Dummy Board has already been abolished by Letter of
Implementation No. 2, Series of 1972. Despite such opposition, however, respondent judge
granted the motion espousing the position that the Letter Of Implementation relied upon by the
City Fiscal is not the law contemplated in Article 7 of the New Civil Code which can repeal
another law such as R.A. 1130. Thus, respondent judge in the assailed order of March 18, 1994
held that the City Prosecutor has no power or authority to file and prosecute the case and
ordered that the case be quashed.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent judge in granting the Motion to Quash gravely abused his
discretion as to warrant the issuance of a writ of certiorari
RULING:
Yes. The error committed by respondent judge in dismissing the case is quite obvious
in the light of P.D. No. 1, LOI No. 2 and P.D. No. 1275 aforementioned. The intent to abolish the
Anti-Dummy Board could not have been expressed more clearly than in the aforequoted LOI.
Even assuming that the City Fiscal of Puerto Princesa failed to cite P.D. No. 1 in his opposition to
the Motion to Quash, a mere perusal of the text of LOI No. 2 would have immediately apprised
the respondent judge of the fact that LOI No. 2 was issued in implementation of P.D. No. 1.
Paragraph 1 of LOI No. 2 reads:
Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1 dated September 23, 1972, Reorganizing the
Executive Branch of the National Government, the following agencies of the Department of
Justice are hereby reorganized or activated in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
Integrated Reorganization Plan and the following instructions: . . . (emphasis supplied).
General, Presidential Decrees, such as P.D No. 1, issued by the former President Marcos
under his martial law powers have the same force and effect as the laws enacted by Congress.
As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Aquino vs. Comelec, (62 SCRA 275 [1975]), all
proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions and acts promulgated, issued, or done by the former
President are part of the law of the land, and shall remain valid, legal, binding, and effective,
unless modified, revoked or superseded by subsequent proclamations, orders, decrees,
instructions, or other acts of the President. LOI No. 2 is one such legal order issued by former
President Marcos in the exercise of his martial law powers to implement P.D. No. 1. Inasmuch as
neither P.D. No. 1 nor LOI No. 2 has been expressly impliedly revised, revoked, or repealed, both
continue to have the force and effect of law.
Indeed, Section 3, Article XVII of the Constitution explicitly ordains:
Sec. 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions,
and other executive issuances not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until
amended, repealed, or revoked.