You are on page 1of 6

CASE RULE USED FACTS ISSUE RULING

CORDILLERA REGIONAL Words to be o Act providing for an Organic for the CAR WON the province of NO.
ASSEMBLY VS. COMELEC given their o Plebiscite was approved by majority votes in Ifugao can validly o It is explicit under the Constitution that the
ordinary the Ifugao Province constitute the CAR words provinces, cities, municipalities
meaning o COMELEC submitted a resolution, stating that connote that “region” is to be made up of
Ifugao alone, legally & validly constitutes the more than 1 constituent unit, meaning 2 or
CAR more provinces
o Ifugao is a province by itself. To become part
of a region, it must join other provinces,
cities, municipalities & geographical areas
LUZ FARMS VS. SEC. OF DENR o Luz Farms is a corp. engaged in the livestock & WON the CARL, NO.
poultry business insofar as the law o Transcripts of the deliberations of the
o The CARL was subsequently promulgated by includes the raising ConCom on the meaning of “agricultural”
the DAR of livestock, poultry show that it was never the intention of the
o Luz Farms questions provisions under RA 6657 & swine in its framers to include livestock & poultry
which includes the raising of livestock, poultry coverage, is industry in the coverage of the
& swine in the coverage of Agricultural constitutional constitutionally mandated agrarian reform
Enterprise/Activity program of the government
o “agricultural land” – land devoted to growth,
including but not limited to lands, saltbeds,
fishponds, idle & abandoned lands
o intention was to limit the application of the
word “agriculture”
o committee contemplated that agricultural
lands are limited to arable & suitable
agricultural lands & therefore, do not include
commercial, industrial & residential lands
ALONZO VS INTERMEDIATE Spirit and o 5 siblings inherited in equal shares of a parcel Correct o Laws must be interpreted to reflect the will
APPELLATE COURT letter of the of land registered in the name of their interpretation & of the legislature
law deceased parents application of Art. o Art. 1088 seeks to ensure that the
o 2 of the heirs sold their shares to the Alonzos 1088 of the Civil redemptioner is properly notified of the sale
o Mariano & Tecia Padua, another heir, sought Code & to indicate the date of such notice as
to redeem the said area starting time of the 30-day period of
o RTC held that right of redemption had lapsed, redemption
not having been exercised within 30 ddays o Right of redemption was invoked 13 years
from notice of sales after the 1st sale & 14 years after the 2nd sale
o CA reversed, held that Art. 1088 of Civil Code o Court is satisfied that the other heirs were
required written notice & that actual notice actually informed, although not in writing, of
would not suffice as a substitute the sales made & such notice was efficient
VERA ET AL VS CUEVAS ET ALL Ejusdem o Commissioner of Internal Revenue issued an Whether filled milk is NO.
Generis order requiring milk manufacturers to covered by Sec. 169 o Skimmed milk – milk in whatever form from
withdraw from the market all of their filled of the Tax Code which the fatty part has been removed
milk products which did not bear the
inscription required by Sec. 169 of the Tax o Filled milk – any milk, whether or not
Code (containers should be marked with “This condensed, evaporated, concentrated,
milk is not suitable for nourishment for infants powdered, dried, dessicated, to which has
less than 1 year of age”) been added or which has been blended or
compounded with any fat or oil other than
milk fat; resulting product is an
imitation/semblance of milk cream/skim
milk.
o In skimmed milk, the fatty part has been
removed, while in filled milk, the fatty part
has also been removed but is substituted
with refine coconut oil or corn or both
o The general clause is restricted by the
specific terms “skimmed milk”
o Under ejusdem generis – general & unlimited
terms are restrained & limited by the
particular terms they follow in the statute
DIMAPORO VS MITRA
GAANAN VS INTERMEDIATE Ejusdem o Petitioner was convicted of violating Sec. 1 of WON an extension NO.
APPELLATE COURT generis RA 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Act) which makes telephone is one of o When the bill was finalized into a statute, no
it unlawful for any person, not being the prohibited mention was made to telephones in the
authorized by all the parties to any private devices covered by enumeration of devices
communication or spoken word, to tap any Sec. 1 of RA 4200 o The omission was not a mere oversight
wire or cable or by using any other device or o Telephone party lines were intentionally
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, deleted from the provisions of the Act
or record such communication or spoken o A telephone extension cannot be placed in
word by using a device (Dictaphone/ the same category as a Dictaphone,
dictagraph/ detectaphone/ walkie-talkie/ dictagraph, or other devices enumerated in
tape recorder/ however otherwise described) RA 4200, as the use thereof cannot be
o Petitioner overheard a private conversation considered as “tapping”
with the use of the telephone extension o The telephone extension in this case was not
installed for that purpose. It just happened to
be there for ordinary office use
o The phrase “device or arrangement” in Sec. 1
of RA 4200, although not exclusive, should be
construed to comprehend instruments of
similar nature, that is, instruments the use of
which would be tantamount to tapping the
main line of a telephone. It refers to
instruments whose installation or presence
cannot be presumed by the parties being
overheard because, by their nature, they are
not of common usage & their purpose is
precisely for tapping, intercepting or
recording a telephone conversation
REPUBLIC OF THE PH VS HON. Legislative o Dionisio, officer of the PNP Central Police 1. WON jurisdiction 1. YES. The mandate of RA 6975 is to divest
MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION Intent District in QC, shot to death T/Sgt. Romeo over crimes courts-martial of criminal cases involving PNP
Sadang committed by PNP members & to return/transfer jurisdiction to the
o Dionisio was charged with homicide. members has been civil courts. The House Bill of the PNP Law
Respondent judge issued an order dismissing transferred to the provides for the exclusive jurisdiction of civil
the case for refiling with the Sandiganbayan regular courts courts over crimes committed by PNP members.
on the ground that the latter, & not the RTC, 2. WON Rep. Albano had the opportunity to express that
has jurisdiction over the case Sandiganbayan is a since what is then being created is a civilian police
o The private prosecutor moved for the “regular court” force, its members should also fall under civil
reconsideration of the dismissal, citing the 3. WON a distinction force.
opinion of the Sec. of Justice, that the between special &
Sandiganbayan, being not a regular, but a regular courts is 2. YES. Regular courts are those within the judicial
special court, has no jurisdiction committed proper department of the government. The
by PNP members, as provided under Sec. 46 of 4. WON PD 1606 was Sandiganbayan was created by PD 1486,
RA 6965. impliedly repealed providing it with jurisdiction over offenses of
by 6875 public officers & employees in relation to their
5. WON there is office.
necessity of
allegation in the 3. NO. “Special” – designed for a particular
complaint of purpose, object, person or class; “Regular” –
commission of a steady or uniform in course, practice, or
crime in relation to occurrence.
function Special courts being permanent in character are
also regular. The Sandiganbayan, being a regular
court, vesting it with all the inherent powers of a
court of justice, is on the same level as a CA.

4. NO. Implied repeal may only be indulged in if


the 2 lawas are irreconcilable. Both provisions are
not irreconcilable & the presumption against an
implied repeal has not been overcome.

5. YES. Not only should the offense be covered by


Sec. 4(a)(2) for the Sandiganbayan to acquire
jurisdiction, the crime should have been
committed in relation to their office.

As the information failed to allege that the


offense was committed in relation to his function,
the dismissal of the case on account of Deloso,
without considering Aguinaldo & Sanchez, is
erroneous. REMAND.
SANTOS TO VS. HON. E. CRUZ Expression o Petitioner was convicted of estafa for having WON petitioner is YES.
PANO unius est issued a bouncing check entitled to probation o Petitioner is not among the offenders
exclusion o Petitioner filed for probation with respondent enumerated in the probation law (PD 968)
alterius judge, who despite the favorable disqualified from availing of the benefits of
recommendation of the Probation Office, probation
denied the same based on the following o Under Sec. 9, the disqualified offenders are
grounds: that the grant of probation will the ff:
depreciate the seriousness of the crime a. those sentenced to serve a max term of
committed & that petitioner is not a penitent imprisonment of 6 years
offender. b. those convicted of any offense against the
security of the State
c. those who have been previously convicted by
final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than 1 month & 1 day
and/or a fine of not less than 200 pesos
d. those who have been once on probation under
the provisions of the decree
e. those who were already serving sentence at the
time the substantive provisions of the decree
became applicable, pursuant to Sec. 33

Under the provision, petitioner may not be


disqualified from being entitled to the benefits of
probation. The provision has to be sought in its
entirety, with liberality, rather than undue
strictness
DIOKNO VS REHABILITATION o Petitioner, the holder of a backpay certificate WON use of the word o In its ordinary signification, the word “shall”
FINANCE of indebtedness issued under RA 304, sought “shall” in the law is is imperative. However, the rule is not
to compel the Rehabilitation Finance Corp. to merely directory, as absolute
accept his backpay certificate as payment of contended by the o In the provision, the verb-phrase “shall
his loan, basing his action on Sec. 2 of the law defendant accept or discount” has 2 modifiers, namely:
which provides that “investment
funds/banks/ other financial institutions “subject to availability of loanable funds” &
owner by the government SHALL subject to “at not more than 2% per annum for 10 years”
availability of loanable funds xxx accept or
discount at not more than 2% per annum for As to the 2nd modifier, the verb-phrase is
10 years such cerficate” for certain specified mandatory, because not only the law uses “at not
purposes more” but the legislative purpose & intent, to
conserve the value of the backpay certificate for
the benefit of the holders, for whose benefit the
same have been issued.

As to the 1st modifier, the phrase “subject” means


“being under the contingency of” a condition. It is
evident that the legislature intended that the
acceptance shall be allowed on the condition that
there are “available loanable funds”. The
acceptance or discount is to be permitted only if
there are loanable funds.

You might also like