Lito Corpuz vs People of the Philippines This court cannot modify the said range of penalties because that
he said range of penalties because that would
FACTS:
Petitioner offered to sell Tangcoy’s (private complainant) jewelries on a
commission basis. Private complainant agreed and turned over to the petitioner the
following items: n 18k diamond ring for men; a woman’s bracelet; one men’s necklace
and another men’s bracelet with an aggregate value of P98,000.00 s eveidenced by a
receipt. They agreed that the petitioner should remit the proceeds of the sale or return
the items if not sold within 60 days. The period expired and the petitioner was not able
to comply with the agreement.
An information was filed by the private complainant for the crime of estafa.
After trial the RTC judge found petitioner guilty. Court of Appeals affirmed the decision
of the RTC with MODIFICATIONS and denied the Corpuz’s petition. The case was elevated
to the supreme court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court can adjust the penalties provided under the law to
prevent injustice.
HELD:
No.
RATIO:
RTC sentenced the accused to an imprisonment of FOUR YEARS AND TWO
MONTHS of Prision Correccional in its medium period as MINIMUM to FOURTEEN
YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS of Reclusion Temporal in its minimum period as
MAXIMUM. The Court of Appeals Modified the said penalties 4 years and 2 months of
Prision Correccional as minimum to 8 years of prision mayor, as maximum, plus 1
year for each additional P10,000.00, or a total of 7 years.
constitute judicial legislation. What the Legislature’s perceived failure in amending the
penalties provided for in the said crimes cannot be remedied through this Court’s
decisions, as that would be encroaching upon the power of another branch of
government. The primordial duty of the Court is merely to apply the law in such a way
that it shall not usurp legislative powers by judicial legislation and that in the course of
such application or construction, it should not make or supervise legislation, or under
the guise of interpretation, modify, revise, amend, distort, remodel or rewrite the law or
give law a construction which is repugnant to its terms.
Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals
FACTS:
On December 8, 1986, Private respondent Teodoro Abistado filed a petition
for original registration of his title over 648 square meters of land under the PD No.
1529. The Land Registration Case is assigned to the RTC of Mamburao, Occidental
Mindoro. The petitioner died during the pendency of the case so his heirs represented
by their aunt Josefa Abistado were substituted as applicants.
The RTC dismissed the petition ‘for want of jurisdiction’. The applicants failed
to publish the notice of initial hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines as required in the P.D. 1529 Sec. 23(1).
The Court of Appeals revised the decision of the RTC ruling that the
publication was merely a procedural and that the failure to cause such publication did
not deprive the trial court its authority to grant application.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not the land registration court can validly confirm and register
the title of private respondents in the absence of publication in a newspaper of general
circulation.
HELD:
The Supreme Court answered this query in the negative.
RATIO:
The law used the term “shall” in prescribing the work to be done by the
Commissioner of Land Registration upon the latter’s receipt of the court order setting
the time for initial hearing. The word “shall” indicates the mandatory character of a
statute, the court held that in the present case the term must be understood in its
normal mandatory meaning.
This Court has declared that where the law speaks in clear and
categorical language, there is no room for interpretation, vacillation or
equivocation; there is only room for application
There was a failure to comply with the explicit publication requirement of the
law. Thus the application for land registration filed by private respondents must be
dismissed without prejudice to reapplication in the future, after all the legal requisites
shall have been duly complied with.
Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways and District Engineer
Celestino R. Contreras vs. Spouses Heracleo and Ramona Tecson
FACTS:
In 1940, DPWH took respondents-movants’ subject property without benefit of
expropriation proceedings for the construction of the MacArthur Highway, they
demanded payment and Celestino Contreras offered to pay for the subject land at the
rate of P0.70 per square meter. Unsatisfied with the offer, the respondents-movants
demanded the return of their property, or the payment of compensation at the current
fair market value. RTC ruled in favour of the latter as well as the Court of Appeals with
the subject property valued at P1,500.00 per square meter, with interest at 6% per
annum.
ISSUE:
Whether or not just compensation should be based on the value property at
the time of the taking.
HELD:
The Court maintain its conclusions in the assailed July 1, 2013 Decision with
modification on the amount of interest awarded, as well as the additional grant of
exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
RATIO:
Just compensation due respondents-movants’ in this case should, therefore,
be fixed not as of the time of payment but at the time of taking in 1940 which is P0.70
per square meter and not P1,500.00 per square meter, as valued by the RTC and CA.
Motion for Reconsideration DENIED.
People of the Philippines vs. Mario Mapa y Mapulong
FACTS:
Defendant Mapa was charged and convicted of the crime illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition by the Court of First Instance of Manila.
 His sole defense is that he is duly appointed secret agent of the then
Governor of Batangas dated June 2, 1962 and at the time of the alleged commission of
the offense, he had a confidential mission to proceed to Manila, Pasay and Quezon City.
ISSUE:
Accused-appellant Patricio Amigo was charged and convicted of murder by
the RTC of Davao City and was sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Accused-appellant claims that the penalty of reclusion perpetuua is too cruel
and harsh as a penalty and pleads for sympathy.

Whether or not the appointment to and holding of the position of a secret
agent to the provincial governor would constitute a sufficient defense to a prosecution
for the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.
HELD:
No. The conviction of the accused must stand. It cannot be set aside.
HELD:
Courts are not the forum to plead for sympathy. The duty of Courts is to
apply, disregarding their feeling of sympathy or pity for an accused. DURA LEX SED
LEX. The remedy is elsewhere— clemency from the executive or an amendment of the
law by the legislative, but surely, at this point, the Court cannot but apply the law.

Ratio:

The law is explicit that except as thereafter specifically allowed, “it shall be
unlawful for any person to possess any firearm, detached parts of firearms or
ammunition”. The next provision provides that “firearms and ammunistion regularly and
lawfully issued to officers, soldiers, sailors, or marines, the Philippines Constabulary,
guards in the employment of the Bureau of Prisons, municipal police , provincial
governors, lieutenant governors, provincial treasurers, municipal treasurers, municipal
mayors and guards of provincial prisoners and jails,” are not covered “when such
firearms are in possession of such official and public servants for use in the
performance of their official duties.”

The law cannot be any clearer. No provision is made for a secret agent. As
such, he is not exempt. The first and fundamental duty if the courts is to apply the law.

People of the Philippines vs. Patricio Amigo

FACTS: