part ii statcon cases

8/12/2019 Part II Statcon Cases

1/27

G.R. No. 72005 May 29, 1987

PHILIPPINE BRITISH ASSURANCE CO., INC.,petitioner,vs.HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT; SC!IN COATING

" !IRES, INC., a#$ DOMINADOR CACPAL, CHIE% DEPUT SHERRI%

O% MANILA, respondents.

GANCACO,J.:

This is a Petition for Review on certiorari of the Resolution dated September12, 1985 of the ntermediate !ppellate "ourt in !"#$.R. %o. "R#&5'&9 1(rantin( private respondent)s motion for e*ecution pendin( appeal and orderin( the issuance of the correspondin( writ of e*ecutionon the counterbond to lift attachment filed b+ petitioner. The focal issue that emer(es is whether an order of e*ecution pendin(

appeal of a ud(ment ma+be enforced on the said bond. n the Resolution of September 25, 19852this "ourt as pra+ed

for, without necessaril+ (ivin( due course to the petition, issued a temporar+ restrainin( orderenoinin( the respondents from enforcin( the order complaint of.

The records disclose that private respondent S+cwin "oatin( - ires, nc., filed a complaintfor collection of a sum of mone+ a(ainst /arian ndustrial "orporation before the Re(ionalTrial "ourt of 0ueon "it+. urin( the pendenc+ of the suit, private respondent succeeded inattachin( some of the properties of /arian ndustrial "orporation upon the postin( of asupersedeas bond. &The latter in turn posted a counterbond in the sum of P1,'&&, &&&.&& 'thru

petitioner Philippine 3ritish !ssurance "o., nc., so the attached properties were released.

4n ecember 28, 198', the trial court rendered a ecision, the dispositive portion of which

reads

67R74R7, plaintiff)s otion for Summar+ :ud(ment is hereb+$R!%T7, and ud(ment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and a(ainstthe defendant /arian ndustrial "orporation, and the latter is hereb+

ordered

1. To pa+ plaintiff the amount of P1,'&1,';8.&&, the principal obli(ationwith 12< interest per annum from the date of default until full+ paid=

2. To pa+ plaintiff 5< of the principal obli(ation as li>uidated dama(es=

?. To pa+ plaintiff P?&,&&&.&& as e*emplar+ dama(es=

'. To pa+ plaintiff 15< of P1,'&1,';8.&&, the principal obli(ation, as andfor attorne+)s fees= and

5. To pa+ the costs of suit.

!ccordin(l+, the counterclaim of the defendant is hereb+ SSS7 forlac@ of merit.

S4 4R7R7. 5

/arian ndustrial "orporation appealed the decision to the respondent "ourt. S+cwin then fileda petition for e*ecution pendin( appeal a(ainst the properties of /arian in respondent "ourt.

/arian was re>uired to file its comment but none was filed. n the Resolution of :ul+ 5, 1985,respondent "ourt ordered the e*ecution pendin( appeal as pra+ed for. (6owever, the writ ofe*ecution was returned unsatisfied as /arian failed to deliver the previousl+ attached personal

properties upon demand. n a Petition dated !u(ust 1?, 1985 filed with respondent "ourt

S+cwin pra+ed that the suret+ Aherein petitionerB be ordered to pa+ the value of it s bond. 7ncompliance with the Resolution of !u(ust 2?, 1985 of the respondent "ourt herein petitionerfiled its comment. 8n the Resolution of September 12, 1985, 9the respondent "ourt (rantedthe petition. 6ence this action.

t is the submission of private respondent S+cwin that without a previous motion forreconsideration of the >uestioned resolution, certiorari would not lie. hile as a (eneral rule a

motion for reconsideration has been considered a conditionsine qua nonfor the (rantin( of awrit of certiorari, this rule does not appl+ when special circumstances warrant immediate ormore direct action. 10t has been held further that a motion for reconsideration ma+ be dispensed with in cases li@e thiswhere e*ecution had been ordered and the need for relief was e*tremel+ ur(ent. 11

The counterbond provides

67R7!S, in the above#entitled case pendin( in the Re(ional Trial "ourt, %ational "apital :udicialRe(ion, 3ranch CDDD/, 0ueon "it+, an order of !ttachment was issued a(ainst abovenamedefendant=

67R7!S, the efendant, for the purpose of liftin( andEor dissolvin( the order of attachment issueda(ainst them in the above#en#titled case, have offered to file a counterbond in the sum of P7S4S 4%7CC4% 4FR 6F%R7 T64FS!% 4%CG AP1,'&&,&&&.&&B, Philippine "urrenc+, as providedfor in Section 5, Rule 5H of the Revised Rules of "ourt.

%4, T67R74R7, we, /!R!% %FSTR!C "4RP4R!T4%, as Principal and theP6CPP%7 3RTS6 !SSFR!%"7 "4P!%G, %"., a corporation dul+ or(anied and e*istin(under and b+ virtue of t he laws of the Philippines, as Suret+, in consideration of the above and of the

liftin( or dissolution of the order of attachment, hereb+ ointl+ and severall+, bind ourselves in favor ofthe above Plaintiff in the sum of P7S4S 4%7 CC4% 4FR 6F%R7 T64FS!% 4%CGAP1,'&&,&&&.&&B, Philippine "urrenc+, under the condition that in case the Plaintiff recovers ud(mentin the action, and efendant will, on demand, re#deliver the attached propert+ so released to the 4fficerof the "ourt and the same shall be applied to the pa+ment of the ud(ment, or in default thereof, thedefendant and Suret+ will, on demand, pa+ to the Plaintiff the full value of the propert+ released.

7D7"FT7 at anila, Philippines, this 28th da+ of :une, 198'. 12

Sections 5, 12, and 1H of Rule 5H of the Revised Rules of "ourt also provide

S7". 5. anner of attachin( propert+. I The officer e*ecutin( the order shall without dela+ attach, toawait ud(ment and e*ecution in the action, all the properties of the part+ a(ainst whom the order isissued in the province, not e*empt from e*ecution, or so much thereof as ma+ be sufficient to satisf+the applicant)s demand, unless the former ma@es a deposit with the cler@ or ud(e of the court fromwhich the order issued, or (ives a counter#bond e*ecuted to the applicant, in an amount sufficient to

satisf+ such demand besides costs, or in an amount e>ual to the value of the propert+ which is about tobe attached, to secure payment to the applicant of any judgement ment which he may recover in the


2/27

action.The officer shall also forthwith serve a cop+ of the applicant)s affidavit and bond, and of theorder of attachment, on the adverse part+, if he be found within the province.

S7". 12. ischar(e of attachment upon (ivin( counterbond. I !t an+ t ime after an order ofattachment has been (ranted, the part+ whose propert+ has been attached, or the person appearin( onhis behalf, ma+, upon reasonable notice to the applicant, appl+ to the ud(e who (ranted the order, or tothe ud(e of the court in which the action is pendin(, for an order dischar(in( the attachment wholl+ orin part on the securit+ (iven. The ud(e shall, after hearin(, order the dischar(e of the attachment if acash deposit is made, or a counter#bond e*ecuted to the attachin( creditor is filed, on behalf of theadverse part+, with the cler@ or ud(e of the court where the application is made, in an amount e>ual tothe value of the propert+ attached as determined b+ the ud(e, to secure the payment of any judgmentthat the attaching creditor may recover in the action.Fpon the filin( of such counter#bond, cop+

thereof shall forthwith be served on the attachin( creditor or his law+er. Fpon the dischar(e of anattachment in accordance with the provisions of this section the propert+ attached, or the proceeds ofan+ sale thereof, shall be delivered to the part+ ma@in( the deposit or (ivin( the counterbond aforesaidstandin( in place of the propert+ so released. Should such counterbond for an+ reason be found to be,or become, insufficient, and the part+ furnishin( the same fail to file an additional counterbond, theattachin( creditor ma+ appl+ for a new order of attachment.

S7". 1H. hen e*ecution returned unsatisfied, recover+ had upon bond. I f the e*ecution be returnedunsatisfied in whole or in part, the surety or sureties on any counter-bond given pursuant to theprovisions of this rule to secure the payment of the judgment shall become charged on such counter-bond, and bound to pay to the judgement creditor upon demand, the amount due under the judgment,which amount ma+ be recovered from such suret+ or sureties after notice and summar+ hearin( in thesame action. A7mphasis supplied.B

Fnder Sections 5 and 12, Rule 5H above reproduced it is provided that the counterbond is intended to secure the pa+ment of"anyjudgment"that the attachin( creditor ma+ recover in the action. Fnder Section 1H of same rule it provides that when Jthe e*ecutionbe returned unsatisfied in whole or in partJ it is onl+ then that Jpa+ment of thejudgmentshall become char(ed on such

counterbond.J

The counterbond was issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 5H of the Rules of "ourt as provided in thesecond para(raph aforecited which is deemed reproduced as part of the counterbond. n the third para(raph it is also stipulated thatthe counterbond is to be Japplied for the pa+ment of the ud(ment.J %either the rules nor the provisions of the counterbond limitedits application to a final and e*ecutor+ ud(ment. ndeed, it is specified that it applies to the pa+ment of any judgment that ma+berecovered b+ plaintiff. Thus, the onl+ lo(ical conclusion is that an e*ecution of an+ ud(ment includin( one pendin( appeal ifreturned unsatisfied ma+be char(ed a(ainst such a counterbond.

t is well reco(nied rule that where the law does not distin(uish, courts should not distin(uish.Ubi lex non distinguish nec nosdistinguere debemos. 1&JThe rule, founded on lo(ic, is a corollar+ of the principle that (eneral words and phrases in a statuteshould ordinaril+ be accorded their natural and (eneral si(nificance. 1'The rule re>uires that a (eneral term or phrase should notbe reduced into parts and one part distin(uished from the other so as to ustif+ its e*clusion from the operation of the law. 15 nother words, there should be no distinction in the application of a statute where none is indicated.1( or courts are not authoriedto distin(uish where the law ma@es no distinction. The+ should instead administer the law not as the+ thin@ it ou(ht to be but asthe+ find it and without re(ard to conse>uences. 17

! corollar+ of the principle is the rule that where the law does not ma@e an+ e*ception, courts ma+ not e*cept somethin(therefrom, unless there is compellin( reason apparent in the law to ustif+ it.18Thus where a statute (rants a person a(ainst whompossession of Jan+ landJ is unlawfull+ withheld the ri(ht to brin( an action for unlawful detainer, this "ourt held that the phraseJan+ landJ includes all @inds of land, whether a(ricultural, residential, or mineral. 19Since the law i n this case does not ma@e an+distinction nor intended to ma@e an+ e*ception, when it spea@s of Jan+ ud(mentJ which ma+be char(ed a(ainst the counterbond,it should be interpreted to refer not onl+ to a final and e*ecutor+ ud(ment in the case but also a ud(ment pendin( appeal.

!ll that is re>uired is that the conditions provided for b+ law are complied with, as outlined in the case of Towers ssurance

!orporation v. rorama #upermart,20

Fnder Section 1H, in order that the ud(ment creditor mi(ht recover fromthe suret+ on the counterbond, it is necessar+ A1B that the e*ecution be firstissued a(ainst the principal debtor and that such e*ecution was returnedunsatisfied in whole or in part= A2B that the creditor ma@e a demand upon

the suret+ for the satisfaction of the ud(ment, and A?B that the suret+ be

(iven notice and a summar+ hearin( on the same action as to his liabilit+for the ud(ment under his counterbond.

The rule therefore, is that the counterbond to lift attachment that is issued in accordance with

the provisions of Section 5, Rule 5H, of the Rules of "ourt, shall be char(ed with the pa+mentof any judgmentthat is returned unsatisfied. t covers not onl+ a final and e*ecutor+ ud(ement

but also the e*ecution of a ud(ment pendin( appeal.

67R74R7, the petition is hereb+ SSS7 for lac@ of merit and the restrainin( order

issued on September 25, 1985 is hereb+ dissolved with costs a(ainst petitioner.

S4 4R7R7.


3/27

G.R. No. 1152'5 )*+y 11, 1995

)UANITO C. PILAR, -//o#-,.COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, -o#$-#.

3UIASON, ).4

This is a petition for certiorari under Rule ;5 of the Revised Rules of "ourt assailin( theResolution dated !pril 28, 199' of the "ommission on 7lections A"47C7"B in F% %o.9'#&'&.

4n arch 22, 1992, petitioner :uanito ". Pilar filed his certificate of candidac+ for theposition of member of the San((unian( Panlalawi(an of the Province of sabela.

4n arch 25, 1992, petitioner withdrew his certificate of candidac+.

n .R. %os. 9?#2;5' and 9'#&&;5 dated %ovember ?, 199? and ebruar+ 1?, 199'

respectivel+, the "47C7" imposed upon petitioner the fine of Ten Thousand PesosAP1&,&&&.&&B for failure to file his statement of contributions and e*penditures.

n .R. %o. 9'#&59' dated ebruar+ 2', 199', the "47C7" denied the motion forreconsideration of petitioner and deemed final .R. %os. 9?#2;5' and 9'#&&;5 ARollo, p. 1'B.

Petitioner went to the "47C7" 7n 3anc AF% %o. 9'#&'&B, which denied the petition in a

Resolution dated !pril 28, 199' ARollo, pp. 1?B.

6ence, this petition for certiorari.

e dismiss the petition.

Section 1' of R.!. %o. H1;; entitled J!n !ct Providin( for S+nchronied %ational and Cocal7lections and for 7lectoral Reforms, !uthoriin( !ppropriations Therefor, and for 4ther

PurposesJ provides as follows

Statement of "ontributions and 7*penditures 7ffect of ailure to ile Statement. 7ver+candidate and treasurer of the political part+ shall, within thirt+ A?&B da+s after the da+ of the

election, file in duplicate with the offices of the "ommission the full, true and itemiedstatement of all contributions and e*penditures in connection with the election.

%o person elected to an+ public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he hasfiled the statement of contributions and e*penditures herein re>uired.

The same prohibition shall appl+ if the political part+ which nominated the winnin( candidatefails to file the statement re>uired herein within the period prescribed b+ this !ct.

7*cept candidates for elective baran(a+ office, failure to file the statements or reports inconnection with electoral contributions and e*penditures as re>uired herein shall constitute an

administrative offense for which the offenders shall be liable to pa+ an administrative fineran(in( from 4ne Thousand Pesos A P1,&&&.&&B to Thirt+ Thousand Pesos AP?&,&&&.&&B, in thediscretion of the "ommission.

The fine shall be paid within thirt+ A?&B da+s from receipt of notice of such failure= otherwise,it shall be enforceable b+ a writ of e*ecution issued b+ the "ommission a(ainst the properties

of the offender.

t shall be the dut+ of ever+ cit+ or municipal election re(istrar to advise in writin(, b+personal deliver+ or re(istered mail, within five A5B da+s from the date of election allcandidates residin( in his urisdiction to compl+ with their obli(ation to file their statements of

contributions and e*penditures.

or the commission of a second or subse>uent offense under this Section, the administrativefine shall be from Two Thousand Pesos AP2,&&&.&&B to Si*t+ Thousand Pesos AP;&,&&&.&&B, inthe discretion of the "ommission. n addition, the offender shall be subect to perpetualdis>ualification to hold public office A7mphasis suppliedB.

To implement the provisions of law relative to election contributions and e*penditures, the

"47C7" promul(ated on :anuar+ 1?, 1992 Resolution %o. 2?'8 ARe Rules andRe(ulations $overnin( 7lectoral "ontributions and 7*penditures in "onnection with the

%ational and Cocal 7lections on

a+ 11, 1992B. The pertinent provisions of said Resolution are

Sec. 1?. Statement of contributions and e*penditures Reminders to candidates to filestatements. ithin five A5B da+s from the da+ of the election, the Caw epartment of the"ommission, the re(ional election director of the %ational "apital Re(ion, the provincialelection supervisors and the election re(istrars shall advise in writin( b+ personal deliver+ or

re(istered mail all candidates who filed their certificates of candidac+ with them to compl+with their obli(ation to file their statements of contributions and e*penditures in connectionwith the elections. 7ver+ election re(istrar shall also advise all candidates residin( in his

urisdiction to compl+ with said obli(ation A7mphasis suppliedB.

Sec. 1H. 7ffect of failure to file statement. AaB %o person elected to an+ public office shallenter upon the duties of his office until he has filed the statement of contributions ande*penditures herein re>uired.

The same prohibition shall appl+ if the political part+ which nominated the winnin( candidatesfails to file the statement re>uired within the period prescribed b+ law.

AbB 7*cept candidates for elective baran(a+ office, failure to file statements or reports inconnection with the electoral contributions and e*penditures as re>uired herein shall constitutean administrative offense for which the offenders shall be liable to pa+ an administrative fine

ran(in( from 4ne Thousand Pesos AP1,&&&B to Thirt+ Thousand Pesos AP?&,&&&B, in thediscretion of the "ommission.


4/27

The fine shall be paid within thirt+ A?&B da+s from receipt of notice of such failure= otherwise,it shall be enforceable b+ a writ of e*ecution issued b+ the "ommission a(ainst the properties

of the offender.

or the commission of a second or subse>uent offense under this section, the administrativefine shall be from Two Thousand Pesos AP2,&&&B to Si*t+ Thousand Pesos AP;&,&&&B, in thediscretion of the "ommission. n addition, the offender shall be subect to perpetualdis>ualification to hold public office.

Petitioner ar(ues that he cannot be held liable for failure to file a statement of contributionsand e*penditures because he was a Jnon#candidate,J havin( withdrawn his certificates ofcandidac+ three da+s after its filin(. Petitioner posits that Jit is . . . clear from the law thatcandidate must have entered the political contest, and should have either won or lostJ ARollo,

p. ?9B.

Petitioner)s ar(ument is without merit.

Section 1' of R.!. %o. H1;; states that Jever+ candidateJ has the obli(ation to file hisstatement of contributions and e*penditures.

ell#reco(nied is the rule that where the law does not distin(uish, courts should not

distin(uish, Fbi le* non distin(uit nec nos distin(uere debemos APhilippine 3ritish !ssurance"o. nc. v. ntermediate !ppellate "ourt, 15& S"R! 52& K198HL= cf 4lfato v. "ommission on7lections, 1&? S"R! H'1 K1981LB. %o distinction is to be made in the application of a lawwhere none is indicated ACo "ham v. 4campo, HH Phil. ;?; K19';LB.

n the case at bench, as the law ma@es no distinction or >ualification as to whether thecandidate pursued his candidac+ or withdrew the same, the term Jever+ candidateJ must bedeemed to refer not onl+ to a candidate who pursued his campai(n, but also to one whowithdrew his candidac+.

The "47C7", the bod+ tas@ed with the enforcement and administration of all laws andre(ulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recallAThe "onstitution of the Republic of the Philippines, !rt. DA"B, Sec. 2K1LB, issued Resolution

%o. 2?'8 in implementation or interpretation of the provisions of Republic !ct %o. H1;; on

election contributions and e*penditures. Section 1? of Resolution %o. 2?'8 cate(oricall+refers to Jall candidates who filed their certificates of candidac+.J

urthermore, Section 1' of the law uses the word Jshall.J !s a (eneral rule, the use of theword JshallJ in a statute implies that the statute is mandator+, and imposes a dut+ which ma+

be enforced , particularl+ if public polic+ is in favor of this meanin( or where public interest is

involved. e appl+ the (eneral rule A3aranda v. $ustilo, 1;5 S"R! H5H K1988L= io@no v.Rehabilitation inance "orporation, 91 Phil. ;&8 K1952LB.

The state has an interest in seein( that the electoral process is clean, and ultimatel+ e*pressiveof the true will of the electorate. 4ne wa+ of attainin( such obective is to pass le(islation

re(ulatin( contributions and e*penditures of candidates, and compellin( the publication of thesame. !dmittedl+, contributions and e*penditures are made for the purpose of influencin( the

results of the elections A3.P. 3l(. 881, Sec. 9'= Resolution %o. 2?'8, Sec. 1B. Thus, laws andre(ulations prescribe what contributions are prohibited A3.P. 3l(. 881, Sec. 95, Resolution %o.2?'8, Sec. 'B, or unlawful A3.P. 3l(. 881, Sec. 9;B, and what e*penditures are authoried A3.P.3l(. 881, Sec. 1&2= R.!. %o. H1;;, Sec. 1?= Resolution %o. 2?'8, Sec. HB or lawfulAResolution %o. 2?'8, Sec. 8B.

Such statutes are not peculiar to the Philippines. n Jcorrupt and ille(al practices actsJ of

several states in the Fnited States, as well as in federal statutes, e*penditures of candidates arere(ulated b+ re>uirin( the filin( of statements of e*penses and b+ limitin( the amount ofmone+ that ma+ be spent b+ a candidate. Some statutes also re(ulate the solicitation of

campai(n contributions A2; !m :ur 2d, 7lections M 28HB. These laws are desi(ned to compelpublicit+ with respect to matters contained in the statements and to prevent, b+ such publicit+,the improper use of mone+s devoted b+ candidates to the furtherance of their ambitions A2;!m :ur 2d, 7lections M 289B. These statutes also enable voters to evaluate the influencese*erted on behalf of candidates b+ the contributors, and to furnish evidence of corrupt

practices for annulment of elections ASpar@man v. Sa+lor K"ourt of !ppeals of Nentuc@+L, 18&N+. 2;?, 2&2 S.. ;'9 K1918LB.

State courts have also ruled that such provisions are mandator+ as to the re>uirement of filin(AState e* rel. 3utchofs@+ v. "rawford K"ourt of "ivil !ppeals of Te*asL, 2;9 S.. 2d 5?;

K195'L= 3est v. Sidebottom, 2H& N+. '2?,1&9 S.. 2d 82; K19?HL= Spar@man v. Sa+lor, supra.B

t is not improbable that a candidate who withdrew his candidac+ has accepted contributionsand incurred e*penditures, even in the short span of his campai(n. The evil sou(ht to be

prevented b+ the law is not all too remote.

t is notesworth+ that Resolution %o. 2?'8 even contemplates the situation where a candidate

ma+ not have received an+ contribution or made an+ e*penditure. Such a candidate is note*cused from filin( a statement, and is in fact re>uired to file a statement to that effect. FnderSection 15 of Resolution %o. 2?'8, it is provided that JKiLf a candidate or treasurer of the part+has received no contribution, made no e*penditure, or has no pendin( obli(ation, the statement

shall reflect such fact.J

Castl+, we note that under the fourth para(raph of Section H? of the 3.P. 3l(. 881 or the4mnibus 7lection "ode of the Philippines, it is provided that JKtLhe filin( or withdrawal ofcertificate of candidac+ shall not affect whatever civil, criminal or administrative liabilities

which a candidate ma+ have incurred.J Petitioner)s withdrawal of his candidac+ did note*tin(uish his liabilit+ for the administrative fine.

67R74R7, the petition is SSS7.

%arvasa, ".:., eliciano, Re(alado, avide, :r., Romero, 3ellosillo, Puno, /itu(, endoa and

rancisco, ::., concur.


5/27

Napunan, :., is on leave.

Separate 4pinions

7C4, :., dissentin(

The maorit+ opinion is to the effect that ever+ candidate, includin( one who has withdrawnhis certificate of candidac+, is obli(ed to file his statement of contributions and e*penditures in

line with Section 1' of Republic !ct %o. H1;; vis#a#vis the pertinent portions of "omelecResolution %o. 2?'8. must concede that the use of the word JshallJ in the main statute as

well as the implementin( rules (enerall+ su((est mandatoriness as to cover all candidates.

3ut is an anspirant for public office who had a sudden chan(e of heart, so to spea@, stillconsidered a candidate to be(in withO am of the impression that he is not and is thus not

bound to render an accountin( subse>uent to election for the simple reason that the term

)candidate) is used to desi(nate a person who actuall+ submits himself and is voted for at ourelection ASantos vs. iranda, ?5 Phil. ;'?, ;'8 A191;B citin( State vs. 6irsch, 125 nd., 2&H= 9C.R.!. 1&H= oreno, Philippine Caw ictionar+, 19H2 2nd ed., p. 8'B "ertainl+, one whowithdraws his certificate of candidac+ ? da+s after the filin( thereof, can not be voted for at anelection. !nd considerin( the shortness of the period of ? da+s from the filin( to the

withdrawal of the certificate of candidac+, petitioner cannot be accused, as indeed there is no

such char(e, of utiliin( his aborted candidac+ for purposes to raise funds or to e*tort mone+from other candidates in e*chan(e for the withdrawal.

, therefore, vote to (rant the petition.

Padilla, :., concurs.


6/27

G.R. No. 110898 %-*ay 20, 199(

PEOPLE O% THE PHILIPPINES,petitioner,vs.HON. )UDGE ANTONIO C. E6ANGELISTA, a P-/$/# )*$- o Ba#: I, 10: )*$//a+

R-/o#, RTC o M/aue T. 3adethereb+ inflictin( upon him the followin( inuries, to wit

Stab wound, ri(ht iliac area,&.5 cm. penetratin( non

perforatin( laceratin( posteriorperitoneum, &,5 cm.

thus performin( all the acts of e*ecution which would produce the crime of 6omicide as aconse>uence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it b+ rea son of causes independent of thewill of the accused, that is b+ timel+ medical attendance which prevented his death.

"4%TR!RG T4 and in violation of !rticle 2'9 in re lation to !rticle ; of the Revised Penal"ode.

!fter trial he was found (uilt+ and sentenced to one +ear ofprision correccionalin its minimum periodand ordered to pa+ to the offended part+ P5,&&&.&& for medical e*pense, without subsidiar+ imprisonment,and the costs. The RT" appreciated in his favor the privile(ed miti(atin( circumstances of incomplete

self#defense and the miti(atin( circumstance of voluntar+ surrender.

4n appeal the "ourt of !ppeals affirmed private respondent)s conviction but modified his sentence b+imposin( on him an indeterminate penalt+ of 2 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 +ears and 'months ofprision correccional, as ma*imum.1

4n ecember 21, 1992, respondent :ud(e !ntonio ". 7van(elista of the RT" set the case forrepromul(ation on :anuar+ ', 199?.

4n ecember 28, 1992, private respondent filed a petition for probation,2alle(in( that A1B he possessed allthe >ualifications and none of the dis>ualifications for probation under P.. %o. 9;8, as amended= A2B the"ourt of !ppeals has in fact reduced the penalt+ imposed on him b+ the trial court= A?B in its resolution,the "ourt of !ppeals too@ no action on a petition for probation which he had earlier filed with it so that the

petition could be filed with the trial court= A'B in the trial court)s decision, two miti(atin( circumstances of

incomplete self#defense and voluntaril+ surrender were appreciated in his favor= and A5B in #antos To v.

$a%o,?the Supreme "ourt upheld the ri(ht of the accused to probation notwithstandin( the fact that he hadappealed from his conviction b+ the trial court.

4n ebruar+ 2, 199?, the RT" ordered private respondent to report for interview to the ProvincialProbation 4fficer. The Provincial Probation 4fficer on the other hand was re>uired to submit his reportwith recommendation to the court within ;& da+s.'

4n ebruar+ 18, 199?, "hief Probation and Parole 4fficer sias 3. /aldehuea recommended denial ofprivate respondent)s application for probation on the (round that b+ appealin( the sentence of the trialcourt, when he could have then applied for probation, private respondent waived the ri(ht to ma@e his

application. The Probation 4fficer thou(ht the present case to be distin(uishable from #antos To v.$a%oin the sense that in this case the ori(inal sentence imposed on private respondent b+ the trial court A1 +earof imprisonmentB was probationable and there was no reason for private respondent not to have filed hisapplication for probation then, whereas in #antos To v.$a%othe penalt+ onl+ became probationable afterit had been reduced as a result of the appeal.

4n !pril 1;, 199? /aldehuea reiterated5his Jrespectful recommendation that private respondent)sapplication for probation be denied and that a warrant of arrest be issued for him to serve his sentence in

ail.J

The RT" set aside the Probation 4fficer)s recommendation and (ranted private respondent)s applicationfor probation in its order of !pril 2?, 199?,;6ence this petition b+ the prosecution.

The issue in this case is whether the RT" committed a (rave abuse of its discretion b+ (rantin( privaterespondent)s application for probation despite the fact that he had appealed from the ud(ment of hisconviction of the trial court.

The "ourt holds that it did.

Fntil its amendment b+ P.. %o. 199& in 198;, it was possible under P.. %o. 98;, otherwise @nown asthe Probation Caw, for the accused to ta@e his chances on appeal b+ allowin( probation to be (ranted evenafter an accused had appealed his sentence and failed to obtain an ac>uittal, ust so lon( as he had not +etstarted to serve the sentence.H!ccordin(l+, in #antos Tov.$a%o, it was held that the fac t that the accusedhad appealed did not bar him from appl+in( for probation especiall+ because it was as a result of theappeal that his sentence was reduced and made the probationable limit.

The law was, however, amended b+ P.. %o. 199& which too@ effect on :anuar+ 15, 198;8precisel+ to put

a stop to the practice of appealin( from ud(ments of conviction even if the sentence is probationable forthe purpose of securin( an ac>uittal and appl+in( for probation onl+ if the accused fails in his bid. Thus, asamended b+ P.. %o, 199&, M' of the Probation Caw now reads

M'. &rant of $robation. Subect to the provisions of this ecree, the trial court ma+, after itshall have convicted and sentenced a defendant, and upon application b+ said defendant withinthe period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the e*ecution of the sentence and place thedefendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and conditions as it ma+ deem

best=$rovided, Thatno application for probation shall be entertained or granted if thedefendant has perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction.

Probation ma+ be (ranted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine onl+.!n application for probation shall be filed with the trial court. The filing of the application

shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt1


7/27

!n order (rantin( or den+in( probation shall not be appealable. A7mphasis addedB.

Since private respondent filed his application for probation on ecember 28, 1992, after P.. %o. 199&had ta@en effect,9it is covered b+ the prohibition that Jno application for probation shall be entertained or(ranted if the defendant has perfec ted the appeal from the ud(ment of convictionJ and that Jthe filin( ofthe application shall be deemed a waiver of the ri(ht to appeal,J 6avin( appealed f rom the ud(ment ofthe trial court and havin( applied for probation onl+ after the "ourt of !ppeals had affirmed hisconviction, private respondent was clearl+ precluded from the benefits of probation.

Private respondent ar(ues, however, that a distinction should be drawn between meritorious appeals Ali@e

his appeal notwithstandin( the appellate court)s affirmance of his convictionB and unmeritorious appeals.3ut the law does not ma@e an+ distinction and so neither should the "ourt. n fact if an appeal is trul+meritorious the accused would be set free and not onl+ (iven probation. Private respondent)s ori(inalsentence A1 +ear ofprision correccionalin its minimum periodB and the modified sentence imposed b+ the"ourt of !ppeals A2 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 2 +ears and ' months of prisioncorreccional, as ma*imumB are probationable. Thus the fact that he appealed meant that privaterespondent was ta@in( his chances which the law precisel+ frowns upon. This is precisel+ the evil that theamendment in P.. %o. 199& sou(ht to correct, since in the words of the preamble to the amendator+ law,Jprobation was not intended as an escape hatch and should not be used to obstruct and dela+ theadministration of ustice, but should be availed of at the first opportunit+ b+ offenders who are willin( to

be reformed and rehabilitated.J

The rulin( of the RT" that JKhLavin( not perfected an appeal a(ainst the "ourt of !ppeals decision,Kprivate respondentL is, therefore, not covered b+ K the amendment inL P.. 199&J is an obvious misreadin(

of the law. The perfection of the appeal referr ed in the law refers to the .appeal ta@en from a ud(ment ofconviction b+ the trial court and not that of the appellate court, since under the law an application forprobation is filed with the trial court which can onl+ (rant the same Jafter it shall have convicted andsentenced KtheL defendant, and upon application b+ said defendant within the period for perfectin( anappeal. J!ccordin(l+, in'lamado v. !ourt of ppeals,1&it was held that the petitioner who had appealedhis sentence could not subse>uentl+ appl+ for probation.

67R74R7, the petition is $R!%T7 and the order of !pril 2?, 199? of the Re(ional Trial "ourt ofisamis 4riental A3ranch 21B (rantin( probation to private r espondent $rildo S. Tu(onon is S7T !S7.

S4 4R7R7.

(egalado, (omero and $uno, )).,concur.

%oo#o-

*+ecision dated )anuary , *, per ssociate )ustice 'orna #. 'ombods-dela /uente and concurred in by ssociate)ustices lfredo 0. 0arigomen and )ainal +. (asul, $etition nnex +, (ollo, pp. 11-1.

$etition, nnex /, (ollo, pp. 2*-2.

*3 #!( 4 5*46.

1$etition, nnex 7, (ollo, p. 28.

2$etition, nnex 9, (ollo, pp. 88-8:.

8$etition, nnex , (ollo, pp. 4-.

:$.+. 9o. 84, ;1< as amended by $.+. 9o. *4: provided=

#ec. 1. &rant of $robation. #ubject to the provisions of this +ecree, the court may, after it shall have convictedand sentenced a defendant but before he begins to serve his sentence and upon his application, suspend theexecution of said sentence and place the defendant on probation for such period and upon such terms and

conditions as it may deem best.

The prosecuting officer concerned shall be notified by the court of the filing of the application for probationand he may submit his comment on such application within ten days from receipt of the notification.

$robation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine with subsidiary

imprisonment in ease of in solvency. n application for probation shall be filed with the trial court, with noticeto the appellate court if an appeal has been ta>en from the sentence of conviction. The filing of the application

shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal, or the automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal. 7n the lattercase, however, if the application is filed on or after the date of the judgment of the appellate court, saidapplication shall be acted upon by the trial court on the basis of the judgment of the appellate court

n order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable. 5?mphasis added6.

4$.+. 9o. *3 was promulgated on ctober 2, *42 and was published in the fficial &a@ette on +ecember 3, *42. Under

its effectivity clause it shall ta>e effect "after *2 days following its publication in the fficial &a@ette."

$.+. 9o. *3, ; provides that the "provisions of #ection 1 of $.+. 9o. 84, as above amended, shall not apply to those whohave already filed their respective applications for probation at the time of the effectivity of this +ecree."
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/jan1983/gr_l_55130_1983.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/jan1983/gr_l_55130_1983.htmlhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1996/feb1996/gr_110898_1996.html#rnt9


8/27

G.R. No. 87'1( A/+ 8, 1991

CECILIO S. DE 6ILLA,petitioner,vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT O% APPEALS, PEOPLE O% THE PHILIPPINES, HONORABLE )OB B.

MADAAG, a#$ ROBERTO =. LORAES,respondents.

#an )ose ?nrique@, 'acas #antos A Borje for petitioner.

?duardo (. (obles for private respondent.

PARAS,J.:p

This petition for review on certiorarisee@s to reverse and set aside the decision >of the "ourt of !ppealspromul(ated on ebruar+ 1, 1989 in "!#$.R. SP %o. 1;&H1 entitled J"ecilio S. de /illa vs. :ud(e :ob 3.ada+a(, etc. and Roberto Q. Cora+es,J dismissin( the petition for certiorarifiled therein.

The factual bac@drop of this case, as found b+ the "ourt of !ppeals, is as follows

4n 4ctober 5, 198H, petitioner "ecilio S. de /illa was char(ed before the Re(ional Trial "ourt of the %ational"apital :udicial Re(ion Aa@ati, 3ranch 1'5B with violation of 3atas Pambansa 3ilan( 22, alle(edl+ committedas follows

That on or about the ?rd da+ of !pril 198H, in the municipalit+ of a@ati, etro anila, Philippines and withinthe urisdiction of this 6onorable "ourt, the above#named accused, did, then and there willfull+, unlawfull+ andfeloniousl+ ma@e or draw and issue to R437RT4 Q. C4R!G7Q, to appl+ on account or for value a epositorsTrust "ompan+ "hec@ %o. ??H1 antedated arch ?1, 198H, pa+able to herein complainant in the total amount ofF.S. 2,5&&.&& e>uivalent to P5&,&&&.&&, said accused well @nowin( that at the time of issue he had no sufficientfunds in or credit with drawee ban@ for pa+ment of such chec@ in full upon its presentment which chec@ when

presented to the drawee ban@ within ninet+ A9&B da+s from the date thereof was subse>uentl+ dishonored for thereason J%SF"7%T F%SJ and despite receipt of notice of such dishonor said accused failed to pa+ saidR437RT4 Q. C4R!G7Q the amount of P5&,&&&.&& of said chec@ or to ma@e arran(ement for full pa+ment ofthe same within five A5B ban@in( da+s after receivin( said notice.

!fter arrai(nment and after private respondent had testified on direct e*amination, petitioner moved to dismissthe nformation on the followin( (rounds AaB Respondent court has no urisdiction over the offense char(ed= andAbB That no offense was committed since the chec@ involved was pa+able in dollars, hence, the obli(ation createdis null and void pursuant to Republic !ct %o. 529 A!n !ct to !ssure Fniform /alue of Philippine "oin and

"urrenc+B.

4n :ul+ 19, 1988, respondent court issued its first >uestioned orders statin(

!ccused)s motion to dismiss dated :ul+ 5, 1988, is denied for lac@ of merit.

Fnder the 3ouncin( "hec@s Caw A3.P. 3l(. 22B, forei(n chec@s, provided the+ are either drawn and issued in thePhilippines thou(h pa+able outside thereof, or made pa+able and dishonored in the Philippines thou(h drawn andissued outside thereof, are within the covera(e of said law. The law li@ewise applied to chec@s drawn a(ainstcurrent accounts in forei(n currenc+.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but his motion was subse>uentl+ denied b+ respondent court in its orderdated September ;, 1988, and which reads

!ccused)s motion for reconsideration, dated !u(ust 9, 1988, which was opposed b+ the prosecution, is denied forlac@ of merit.

The 3ouncin( "hec@s Caw is applicable to chec@s drawn a(ainst current accounts in forei(n currenc+AProceedin(s of the 3atasan( Pambansa, ebruar+ H, 19H9, p. 1?H;, cited in a@ati RT" :ud(e Anow anila "it+iscalB :esus . $uerrero)s The Ramifications of the Caw on 3ouncin( "hec@s, p. 5B. A(ollo, !nne* J!J,ecision, pp. 2B.

! petition for certiorarisee@in( to declare the nullit+ of the afore>uoted orders dated :ul+ 19, 1988 andSeptember ;, 1988 was filed b+ the petitioner in the "ourt of !ppeals wherein he contended

AaB That since the >uestioned chec@ was drawn a(ainst the dollar account of petitionerwith a forei(n ban@, respondent court has no urisdiction over the same or with accounts

outside the territorial urisdiction of the Philippines and that 3atas Pambansa 3ilan( 22could have not contemplated e*tendin( its covera(e over dollar accounts=

AbB That assumin( that the subect chec@ was issued in connection with a privatetransaction between petitioner and private respondent, the pa+ment could not be le(all+

paid in dollars as it would violate Republic !ct %o. 529= and

AcB That the obli(ation arisin( from the issuance of the >uestioned chec@ is null and voidand is not enforceable with the Philippines either in a civil or criminal suit. Fpon such

premises, petitioner concludes that the dishonor of the >uestioned chec@ cannot be said tohave violated the provisions of 3atas Pambansa 3ilan( 22. A(ollo, !nne* J!J, ecision,

p. 22B.

4n ebruar+ 1, 1989, the "ourt of !ppeals rendered a decision, the decretal portion of which reads

67R74R7, the petition is hereb+ dismissed. "osts a(ainst petitioner.

S4 4R7R7. A(ollo, !nne* J!J, ecision, p. 5B

! motion for reconsideration of the said decision was filed b+ the petitioner on ebruar+ H, 1989 A (ollo, Petition,p. ;B but the same was denied b+ the "ourt of !ppeals in its resolution dated arch ?, 1989 A(ollo, !nne* J3J, p.2;B.

6ence, this petition.

n its resolution dated %ovember 1?, 1989, the Second ivision of this "ourt (ave due course to the petition andre>uired the parties to submit simultaneousl+ their respective memoranda A(ollo, Resolution, p. 81B.

The sole issue in this case is whether or not the Re(ional Trial "ourt of a@ati has urisdiction over the case in>uestion.

The petition is without merit.

:urisdiction is the power with which courts are invested for administerin( ustice, that is, for hearin( and decidin(cases A/elunta vs. Philippine "onstabular+, 15H S"R! 1'H K1988LB.

:urisdiction in (eneral, is either over the nature of the action, over the subect matter, over the person of thedefendant, or over the issues framed in the pleadin(s A3alais vs. 3alais, 159 S"R! ?H K1988LB.

:urisdiction over the subect matter is determined b+ the statute in force at the time of commencement of theaction Ae la "ru vs. o+a, 1;& S"R! 5?8 K1988LB.


9/27

The trial court)s urisdiction over the case, subect of this review, can not be >uestioned.

Sections 1& and 15AaB, Rule 11& of the Rules of "ourt specificall+ provide that

Sec. 1&.$lace of the commission of the offense. The complaint or information is sufficient if it can beunderstood therefrom that the offense was committed or some of the essential in(redients thereofoccured at some place within the urisdiction of the court, unless the particular place wherein it wascommitted constitutes an essential element of the offense or is necessar+ for identif+in( the offensechar(ed.

Sec. 15.$lace where action is to be instituted. AaB Subect to e*istin( laws, in all criminalprosecutions the action shall be instituted and tried in the court of the municipalit+ or territor+ wherethe offense was committed or an+ of the essential in(redients thereof too@ place.

n the case of$eople vs.Con.0an@anillaA15; S"R! 2H9 K198HL cited in the case of Cim vs. Rodri(o, 1;HS"R! '8H K1988LB, the Supreme "ourt ruled Jthat urisdiction or venue is determined b+ the alle(ations in theinformation.J

The information under consideration specificall+ alle(ed that the offense was committed in a@ati, etro anilaand therefore, the same is controllin( and sufficient to vest urisdiction upon the Re(ional Trial "ourt of [email protected] "ourt ac>uires urisdiction over the case and over the person of the accused upon the filin( of a complaint orinformation in court which initiates a criminal action ARepublic vs. Sun(a, 1;2 S"R! 191 K1988LB.

oreover, it has been held in the case of 0ue v. People of the Philippines A15' S"R! 1;& K198HL cited in the case

of People vs. $rospe, 15H S"R! 15' K1988LB that Jthe determinative factor Ain determinin( venueB is the place ofthe issuance of the [email protected]

4n the matter of venue for violation of 3atas Pambansa 3ilan( 22, the inistr+ of :ustice, citingthe case ofPeople vs. Gabut AH; S"R! ;2' K19HHL, laid down the followin( (uidelines in emorandum "ircular %o. ' datedecember 15, 1981, the pertinent portion of which reads

A1B /enue of the offense lies at the place where the chec@ was e*ecuted and delivered= A2B the placewhere the chec@ was written, si(ned or dated does not necessaril+ fi* the place where it wase*ecuted, as what is of decisive importance is the deliver+ thereof which is the final act essential toits consummation as an obli(ation= . . . ARes. %o. ?HH, s. 198&, ilte* f(. "orp. vs. anuel "hua,4ctober 28, 198&B.J A#eeThe Caw on 3ouncin( "hec@s !nal+ed b+ :ud(e :esus . $uerrero,Philippine Caw $aette, /ol. H. %os. 11 - 12, 4ctober#ecember, 198?, p. 1'B.

t is undisputed that the chec@ in >uestion was e*ecuted and delivered b+ the petitioner to herein privaterespondent at a@ati, etro anila.

6owever, petitioner ar(ues that the chec@ in >uestion was drawn a(ainst the dollar account of petitioner with aforei(n ban@, and is therefore, not covered b+ the 3ouncin( "hec@s Caw A3.P. 3l(. 22B.

3ut it will be noted that the law does not distin(uish the currenc+ involved in the case. !s the trial court correctl+ruled in its order dated :ul+ 5, 1988

Fnder the 3ouncin( "hec@s Caw A3.P. 3l(. 22B, forei(n chec@s, provided the+ are either drawn andissued in the Philippines thou(h pa+able outside thereof . . . are within the covera(e of said law.

t is a cardinal principle in statutor+ construction that where the law does not distin(uish courts should notdistin(uish. Parentheticall+, the rule is that where the law does not ma@e an+ e*ception, courts ma+ not e*cept

somethin( unless compellin( reasons e*ist to ustif+ it APhil. 3ritish !ssurance "o., nc. vs. !", 15& S"R! 52&K198HLB.

ore importantl+, it is well established that courts ma+ avail themselves of the actual proceedin(s of thele(islative bod+ to assist in determinin( the construction of a statute of doubtful meanin( APalanca vs. "it+ ofanila, '1 Phil. 125 K192&LB. Thus, where there is doubts as to what a provision of a statute means, the meanin(

put to the provision durin( the le(islative deliberation or discussion on the bill ma+ be adopted A!renas vs. "it+of San "arlos, 82 S"R! ?18 K19H8LB.

The records of the 3atasan, /ol. , unmista@abl+ show that the intention of the lawma@ers is to appl+ the law towhatever currenc+ ma+ be the subect thereof. The discussion on the floor of the then 3atasan( Pambansa full+sustains this view, as follows

*** *** ***

T67 SP7!N7R. The $entleman from 3asilan is reco(nied.R. TFP!G. Parliamentar+ in>uir+, r. [email protected] SP7!N7R. The $entleman ma+ proceed.R. TFP!G. r. Spea@er, it has been mentioned b+ one of the $entlemen who interpellated that an+ chec@ ma+ beinvolved, li@e F.S. dollar chec@s, etc. e are tal@in( about chec@s in our countr+. There are F.S. dollar chec@s, chec@s, inour currenc+, and man+ others.T67 SP7!N7R. The Sponsor ma+ answer that in>uir+.R. 7%4Q!. The bill refers to any chec>, 0r.#pea>er, and this chec> may be a chec> in whatever currency.Thiswould not even be limited to U.#. dollar chec>s. The chec> may be in /rench francs or )apanese yen or deutschunorhs.5sic.6 7f drawn, then this bill will apply.R TFP!G. #o it include U.#. dollar chec>s.R. 7%4Q!. Des, 0r. #pea>er.*** *** ***Ap. 1?H;, Records of the 3atasan, /olume = 7mphasis suppliedB.

PR7S7S "4%S7R7, the petition is SSS7 for lac@ of merit.

G.R. No. L?1'787 )a#*ay 28, 19(1


10/27

COLGATE?PALMOLI6E PHILIPPINE, INC.,petitioner,vs.HON. PEDRO M. GIMENE= a A*$/o G-#-a+ a#$ ISMAEL MATHA a AUDITOR O% THE

CENTRAL BAN@ O% THE PHILIPPINES,respondents.

(oss, #elph and !arrascoso for petitioner.ffice of the #olicitor &eneral for respondents.

GUTIERRE= DA6ID,J.4

The petitioner "ol(ate#Palmolive Philippines, nc. is a corporation dul+ or(anied and e*istin( underPhilippine laws en(a(ed in the manufacture of toilet preparations and household remedies. 4n severaloccasions, it imported from abroad various materials such as irish moss e*tract, sodium benoate, sodiumsaccharinate precipitated calcium carbonate and dicalcium phosphate, for use as stabiliers and flavorin(of the dental cream it manufactures. or ever+ importation made of these materials, the petitioner paid tothe "entral 3an@ of the Philippines the 1H< special e*cise ta* on the forei(n e*chan(e used for the

pa+ment of the cost, transportation and other char(es incident thereto, pursuant to Republic !ct %o. ;&1,as amended, commonl+ @nown as the 7*chan(e Ta* Caw.

4n arch 1', 195;, the petitioner filed with the "entral 3an@ three applications for refund of the 1Huoted section of Republic !ct %o. ;&1, Jindustrial starchJ, which does not alwa+s refer to foodfor human consumption, was added amon( the items (rouped with Jstabilier and flavorsJ. Thus, on the

basis of the (roupin( of the articles alone, it cannot validl+ be maintained that the term Jstabilier andflavorsJ as used in the above#>uoted provision of the 7*chan(e Ta* Caw refers onl+ to those used in themanufacture of food and food products. This view is supported b+ the principle JFbi le* non distin(uishnec nos distin(uire debemosJ, or Jwhere the law does not distin(uish, neither do we distin(uishJ. ACi((et- +ers Tobacco "ompan+ vs. "ollector of nternal Revenue, 5? 4ff. $a. %o. 15, pa(e '8?1B. Since thelaw does not distin(uish between Jstabilier and flavorsJ used in the preparation of food and those used inthe manufacture of toothpaste or dental cream, we are not authoried to ma@e an+ distinction and mustconstrue the words in their (eneral sense. The rule of construction that (eneral and unlimited terms arerestrained and limited b+ particular recitals when used in connection with them, does not re>uire thereection of (eneral terms entirel+. t is intended merel+ as an aid in ascertainin( the intention of thele(islature and is to be ta@en in connection with other rules of construction. ASee 6andboo@ of the"onstruction and nterpretation of Caws b+ 3lac@, p. 215.21;, 2nd ed.B

6avin( arrived at the above conclusion, we deem it now idle to pass upon the other >uestions raised b+ theparties.

67R74R7, the decision under review is reversed and the re spondents are hereb+ ordered to auditpetitioners applications for refund which were approved b+ the 4fficer#in#"har(e of the 7*chan(e Ta*!dministration in the total amount of P2?,958.1?.

G.R. No. 89'8&. A** &0, 1990.


11/27

REPUBLIC O% THE PHILIPPINES THRU4 THE PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON GOOD

GO6ERNMENT PCGG, A%P ANTI?GRA%T BOARD, COL. ERNESTO A. PUNSALANG a#$

PETER T. TABANG,Petitioners, . HON. EUTROPIO MIGRINO, a P-/$/# )*$-, R-/o#a+

T/a+ Co*, NC)R, Ba#: 151, Pa/, M-o Ma#/+a a#$ TROADIO TECSON,Respondents.

T:- So+//o G-#-a+, oPetitioners.

Pa//o B. A$/#*+a oPrivate Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CORTES,J.4

This case puts in issue the authorit+ of the Presidential "ommission on $ood $overnment AP"$$B,

throu(h the %ew !rmed orces of the Philippines !nti#$raft 3oard Ahereinafter referred to a s theJ3oardJB, to investi(ate and cause the prosecution of petitioner, a retired militar+ officer, for violation ofRepublic !cts %os. ?&19 and 1?H9.

!ssailed b+ the Republic in this petition for certiorari, prohibition andEor mandamus with pra+er for theissuance of a writ of preliminar+ inunction andEor temporar+ restrainin( order are the orders ofrespondent ud(e in "ivil "ase %o. 5H&92 3ranch 151 of the Re(ional Trial "ourt of Pasi(, etro anilaA1B dated :une 2?, 1989, den+in( petitioners otion to ismiss and 4pposition, and A2B dated :une 2;,1989, (rantin( private respondents application for the issuance of a writ of preliminar+ inunction. Thus,the petition see@s the annulment of the two orders, the issuance of an inunction to enoin respondent

ud(e from proceedin( with "ivil "ase %o. 5H&92 and, finall+, the dismissal of the case before the trialcourt.

The controvers+ traces its roots to the order of then P"$$ "hairman :ovito R. Salon(a, dated a+ 1?,198;, which created the %ew !rmed orces of the Philippines !nti#$raft 3oard. The 3oard was created to

Jinvesti(ate the une*plained wealth and corrupt practices of !P personnel, both retired and in activeservice.J The order further stated thatJ KtLhe 3oard shall be primaril+ char(ed with the tas@ of investi(atin(cases of alle(ed violations of the !nti#$raft and "orrupt Practices !ct ARepublic !ct %o. ?&19, asamendedB and shall ma@e the necessar+ recommendations to appropriate (overnment a(encies andinstrumentalities with respect to the action to be ta@en thereon based on its findin(s.J cralaw virtua1aw librar+

!ctin( on information received b+ the 3oard, which indicated the ac>uisition of wealth be+ond his lawfulincome, private respondent Ct. "ol. Troadio Tecson Aret.B was re>uired b+ the 3oard to submit hise*planationEcomment to(ether with his supportin( evidence b+ 4ctober ?1, 198H K!nne* J3J, PetitionL.Private respondent re>uested, and was (ranted, several postponements, but was unable to produce hissupportin( evidence because the+ were alle(edl+ in the custod+ of his boo@@eeper who had (one abroad.

:ust the same, the 3oard proceeded with its investi(ation and submitted its resolution, dated :une ?&,1988, recommendin( that private respondent be prosecuted and tried for violation of Rep. !ct %o. ?&19,as amended, and Rep. !ct %o. 1?H9, as amended. chanrobles lawlibrar+ rednad

The case was set f or preliminar+ investi(ation b+ the P"$$. Private respondent moved to dismiss thecase on the followin( (rounds A1B that the P"$$ has no urisdiction over his person= A2B that the actiona(ainst him under Rep. !ct %o. 1?H9 has alread+ prescribed= A?B that 7.4. %o. 1', insofar as it suspendedthe provisions of Rep. !ct %o. 1?H9 on prescription of actions, was inapplicable to his ca se= and A'B thathavin( retired from the !P on a+ 9, 198', he was now be+ond the reach of Rep. !ct %o. ?&19. The3oard opposed the motion to dismiss.

n a resolution dated ebruar+ 8, 1989, the P"$$ denied the motion to dismiss for lac@ of merit. Privaterespondent moved for reconsideration but this was denied b+ the P"$$ in a resolution dated arch 8,1989. Private respondent was directed to submit his counter#affidavit and other controvertin( evidence onarch 2&, 1989 at 2&& p.m.

4n arch 1?, 1989, private respondent filed a petition for prohibition with preliminar+ inunction with theRe(ional Trial "ourt in Pasi(, etro anila. The case was doc@eted as "ase %o. 5H&92 and raffled to

3ranch 151, respondent ud(es court. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss and opposed the application forthe issuance of a writ of preliminar+ inunction on the principal (round that the Re(ional Trial "ourt had

no urisdiction over the 3oard, citin( the case of P"$$ v. Pea, $.R. %o. HH;;?, !pril 12, 1988, 159S"R! 55;. Private respondent opposed the motion to dismiss. Petitioner replied to the opposition.

4n :une 2?, 1989, respondent ud(e denied petitioners motion to dismiss. 4n :une 2;, 1989, respondentud(e (ranted the application for the issuance of a writ of preliminar+ inunction, enoinin( petitionersfrom investi(atin( or prosecutin( private respondent under Rep. !cts %os. ?&19 and 1?H9 upon the filin(of a bond in the amount of Twent+ Thousand Pesos AP2&,&&&.&&B.

6ence, the instant petition.

4n !u(ust 29, 1989, the "ourt issued a restrainin( order enoinin( respondent ud(e from enforcin( his

orders dated :une 2?, 1989 and :une 2;, 1989 and from proceedin( with "ivil "ase %o. 5H&92.

Private respondent filed his comment, to which petitioners filed a repl+. ! reoinder to the repl+ was filedb+ private(espondent. The "ourt (ave due course to the petition and the parties filed their memoranda.Thereafter, the case was deemed submitted.

The issues raised in the petition are a s followschanrob1es virtual 1awlibrar+

.

67T67R 4R %4T R7SP4%7%T :F$7 $R!/7CG !3FS7 6S S"R7T4% 4R !"T7 T64FT 4R % 7D"7SS 4:FRS"T4% % !SSF%$ :FRS"T4% 4/7R !% %T7R7R%$ T6 T67 4R7RS !% F%"T4%S 4 T67

PR7S7%T!C "4SS4% 4% $44 $4/7R%7%T.

.

67T67R, 4R %4T R7SP4%7%T :F$7 $R!/7CG !3FS7 6S S"R7T4% 4R !"T7 T64FT 4R % 7D"7SS 4:FRS"T4% % SSF%$ T67 !SS!C7 4R7R !T7 :F%7 2;, 1989 7%:4%%$ P7TT4%7RS R4 %/7ST$!T%$

!% PR4S7"FT%$ PR/!T7 R7SP4%7%T 4R /4C!T4% 4 R7PF3C" !"T %4. ?&1 9, 4T67RS7 N%4% !S !%T#$R!T !% "4RRFPT PR!"T"7S !"T !% R7PF3C" !"T %4. 1?H9, 4T67RS7 N%4% !S !% !"T 4R T674R7TFR7 4 F%C!FCCG !"0FR7 PR4P7RTG KRollo, p. 19L.

!s to the first issue, petitioner contends that followin( the rulin( of the "ourt in P"$$ v. Pea the 3oard,bein( a creation andEor e*tension of the P"$$, is be+ond the urisdiction of the Re(ional Trial "ourt. 4nthe second issue, petitioner stron(l+ ar(ues that the private respondents case falls within the urisdictionof the P"$$.

The pivotal issue is the second one. 4n this point, private respondents position is as follows chanrob1es virtual 1aw librar+

1. . . . he is not one of the subordinates contemplated in 7*ecutive 4rders 1 , 2 , 1' and 1'#! as the alle(edille(al acts bein( imputed to him, that of alle(ed amassin( wealth be+ond his le(al means while inance

4fficer of the Philippine "onstabular+, are acts of his own alone, not connected with his be in( a cron+,business associate, etc. or subordinate as the petition does not alle(e so. 6ence the P"$$ has nourisdiction to investi(ate him.

f indeed private respondent amassed wealth be+ond his le(al means, the procedure laid down b+ Rep. !ct1?H9 as alread+ pointed out before be applied. !nd since, he has been separated from the (overnmentmore than four +ears a(o, the action a(ainst him under Republic !ct 1?H9 has alread+ prescribed.

2. . . . no action can be filed an+more a(ainst him now under Republic !ct 1?H9 for recover+ ofune*plained wealth for the reason that he has retired more than four +ears a(o.

?. . . . The order creatin( the !P !nti#$raft 3oard A!nne* J!J, PetitionB is null and void. %owhere in7*ecutive 4rders 1, 2, 1' and 1'#! is there an+ authorit+ (iven to the commission, its chairman andmembers, to create 3oards or bodies to be invested with powers similar to the powers invested with thecommission .. K"omment, pp. ;#H= Rollo, pp. 11H#118L.

1. The most important >uestion to be resolved in this case is whether or not private respondent ma+ be


12/27


13/27

oreover, from the alle(ations of petitioner in its memorandum, it would appear that private r espondentaccumulated his wealth for his own account. Petitioner >uoted the letter of (nacio atahan, a retired P"ser(eant, to $eneral idel Ramos, the material portion of which reads chanrob1es virtual 1aw librar+

. . . !fter an official in the militar+ unit received an !llotment !dvice the same si(ned a cash advancevoucher, let us sa+ in the amount of P5,&&&.&&. ithout much ado, outri(ht, "ol. Tecson paid the amount.The official concerned was also made to si(n the receipt portion on the voucher the amount of which wasleft blan@. 3efore the voucher is passed for routine processin( b+ rs. Ceonor "a(as, cler@ of "ol. Tecsonand its facilitator, the maneuver be(an. The amount on the face of the cash advance voucher is altered orsuperimposed. The ori(inal amount of P5,&&&.&& was now made sa+, P95,&&&.&&. So it was actuall+ the

amount of P95,&&&.&& that appeared on the records. The difference of P9&,&&&.&& went to the s+ndicate.

. . . 3o+ Tan+a(, boo@@eeper in "ol. Tecsons office too@ care of the wor@.

. . . n the li>uidation of the altered cash advance amount, names of persons found in the etropolitananila Telephone irector+ with fictitious addresses appeared as recipients or pa+ees. Ceonor and 3o+(ot their shares on commission basis of the looted amount while the (reater part went to "ol. Tecson.KRollo, pp. 18'#185.L.

"learl+, this alle(ed unlawful accumulation of wealth is not that contemplated in 7.4. %os. 1, 2, 1' and1'#!.

2. t will not do to cite the order of the P"$$ "hairman, dated a+ 1?, 198;, creatin( the 3oard andauthoriin( it to investi(ate the une*plained wealth and corrupt practices of !P personnel, both retiredand in active service, to support the contention that P"$$ has urisdiction over the case of private

(espondent. The P"$$ cannot do more than what it was empowered to do. ts powers are limited. ts tas@is limited to the recover+ of the ill#(otten wealth of the arcoses, their relatives and cronies. The P"$$cannot, throu(h an order of its chairman, (rant itself additional powers I powers not contemplated in itsenablin( law.

?. Petitioner assails the trial courts co(niance of the petition filed b+ private (espondent. Particularl+,petitioner ar(ues that the trial court cannot ac>uire urisdiction over the P"$$. This matter has alread+been settled in Pea, supra, where the "ourt ruled that those who wish to >uestion or challen(e theP"$$s acts or orders must see@ recourse in the Sandi(anba+an, which is vested with e*clusive andori(inal urisdiction. The Sandi(anba+ans decisions and final orders are in turn subect to review oncertiorarie*clusivel+ b+ this "ourt. Kbid, at pp. 5;'#5;5L.

The rulin( in Pea was applied in P"$$ v. !>uino, $.R. %o. HH81;, :une ?&, 1988, 1;? S"R! ?;?,Soriano v. Guson, $.R. %o. H'91& Aand five other casesB, !u(ust 1&, 1988, 1;' S"R! 22; and 4la(uerv. RT", %":R, 3r. '8, $.R. %o. 81?85, ebruar+ 21, 1989, 1H& S"R! 'H8, amon( others, to enoin the

re(ional trial courts from interferin( with the ac tions of the P"$$.

Respondent ud(e clearl+ acted without or in e*cess of his urisdiction when he too@ co(niance of "ivil"ase %o. 5H&92 and issued the writ of preliminar+ inunction a(ainst the P"$$.

'. Thus, we are confronted with a situation wherein the P"$$ acted in e*cess of its urisdiction and,hence, ma+ be enoined from doin( so, but the court that issued the inunction a(ainst the P"$$ has not

been vested b+ law with urisdiction over it and, thus, the inunction issued was null and void.

The nullification of the assailed order of respondent ud(e issuin( the writ of preliminar+ inunction istherefore in order. Ci@ewise, respondent ud(e must be enoined from proceedin( with "ivil "ase %o.5H&92.

3ut in view of the patent lac@ of authorit+ of the P"$$ to investi(ate and cause the prosecution of privaterespondent for violation of Rep. !cts %os. ?&19 and 1?H9, the P"$$ must also be enoined f rom

proceedin( with the case, without preudice to an+ action that ma+ be ta@en b+ the proper prosecutor+a(enc+. The rule of law mandates that an a(enc+ of (overnment be allowed to e*ercise onl+ the powers

(ranted it.

5. The pronouncements made above should not be ta@en to mean that the P"$$s creation of the !P!nti#$raft 3oard is a nullit+ and that the P"$$ has no authorit+ to investi(ate and cause the prosecutionof members and former members of the !rmed orces of the Philippines for violations of Rep. !cts %os.?&19 and 1?H9. The P"$$ ma+ investi(ate and cause the prosecution of active and retired members ofthe !P for violations of Rep. !cts %os. ?&19 and 1?H9 onl+ in relation to 7.4. %os. 1, 2, 1' and 1'#!,i.e., insofar as the+ involve the recover+ of the ill#(otten wealth of former Pres. arcos and his famil+ andJcronies.J 3ut the P"$$ would not have urisdiction over an ordinar+ case fallin( under Rep. !cts %os.?&19 and 1?H9, as in the case at bar. 7.4. %os. 1, 2, 1' and 1'#! did not envision the P"$$ as theinvesti(ator and prosecutor of all unlawful accumulations of wealth. The P"$$ was created for a specific

and limited purpose, as we have e*plained earlier, and necessaril+ its powers must be construed with thisin mind.

;. n his pleadin(s, private respondent contends that he ma+ no lon(er be prosecuted because ofprescription. 6e relies on section 2 of Rep. !ct %o. 1?H9 which provides thatJ KtLhe ri(ht to file suchpetition Kfor forfeiture of unlawfull+ ac>uired wealthL shall prescribe within four +ears from the date ofresi(nation, dismissal or separation or e*piration of the term of the officer or emplo+ee concerned.J 6eretired on a+ 9, 198', or more than si* A;B +ears a(o. 6owever, it must be pointed out that section 2 ofRep. !ct %o. 1?H9 should be deemed amended or repealed b+ !rticle D, section 15 of the 198H"onstitution which provides thatJ KtLhe ri(ht of the State to recover properties unlawfull+ ac>uired b+

public officials or emplo+ees, from them or from their nominees or transferees, shall not be barred b+prescription, laches, or estoppel.J "onsiderin( that sec. 2 of Rep. !ct %o. 1?H9 was deemed amended orrepealed before the prescriptive period provided therein had lapsed insofar as private respondent isconcerned, we cannot sa+ that he had alread+ ac>uired a vested r i(ht that ma+ not be preudiced b+ asubse>uent enactment.

oreover, to bar the $overnment from recoverin( ill#(otten wealth would result in the validation orle(itimiation of the unlawful ac>uisition, a conse>uence at variance with the clear intent of Rep. !ct %o.1?H9, which provides chanrobles virtual lawlibrar+

S7". 11. Caws on prescription. I The laws concernin( ac>uisitive prescription and limitation of actionscannot be invo@ed b+, nor shall the+ benefit the respondent, in respect to an+ propert+ unlawfull+ ac>uired

b+ him.

Thus, we hold that the appropriate prosecutor+ a(encies, i.e., the cit+ or provincial prosecutor and theSolicitor $eneral under sec. 2 of Rep. !ct %o. 1?H9, ma+ still investi(ate the case and file the petition forthe forfeiture of unlawfull+ ac>uired wealth a(ainst private respondent, now a private citien. A4n theother hand, as re(ards respondents for violations of Rep. !cts %os. ?&19 and 1?H9 who are still in the(overnment service, the a(enc+ (ranted the power to investi(ate and prosecute them is the 4ffice of the4mbudsman KRep. !ct %o. ;HH&LB. Fnder Presidential ecree %o. 1;&;, as amended, and 3atas

Pambansa 3l(. 195 violations of Rep. !cts %os. ?&19 and 1?H9 shall be tried b+ the Sandi(anba+an.

H. The "ourt hastens to add that this decision is without preudice to the prosecution of private respondentunder the pertinent provisions of the Revised Penal "ode and other related penal laws.

67R74R7, the order of respondent ud(e dated :une 2;, 1989 in "ivil "ase %o. 5H&92 is%FCC7 and S7T !S7. Respondent ud(e is 4R7R7 to dismiss "ivil "ase %o. 5H&92. Thetemporar+ restrainin( order issued b+ the "ourt on !u(ust 29, 1989 is !7 P7R!%7%T. The P"$$is 7%:4%7 from proceedin( with the investi(ation and prosecution of private re spondent in .S. %o.?H, without preudice to his investi(ation and prosecution b+ the appropriate prosecutor+ a(enc+.

S4 4R7R7.

G.R. No. L?'7757?(1 )a#*ay 28, 1980


14/27

THE PEOPLE O% THE PHILIPPINES, ABUNDIO R. ELLO, A ': A/a# o Po/#/a+ Bo:o+ 6ICENTE DE LA SERNA. )R.,

a ouattin( and similar acts,applies to a(ricultural lands. The decree Awhich too@ effect on !u(ust 2&, 19H5B provides

S7"T4% 1. !n+ person who, with the use of force, intimidation or threat, or ta@in(advanta(e of the absence or tolerance of the landowner, succeeds in occup+in( or

possessin( the propert+ of the latter a(ainst his will for residential, commercial or an+other purposes, shall be punished b+ an imprisonment ran(in( from si* months to one+ear or a fine of not less than one thousand nor more than five thousand pesos at thediscretion of the court, with subsidiar+ imprisonment in case of insolvenc+. A2nd

para(raph is omitted.B

The record shows that on 4ctober 25, 19HH iscal !bundio R. 7llo filed with the lower court separateinformations a(ainst si*teen persons char(in( them with s>uattin( as penalied b+ Presidential ecree %o. HH2.The information a(ainst ario !parici which is similar to the other fifteen informations, reads

That sometime in the +ear 19H' continuousl+ up to the present at baran(a+ a(sa+sa+,municipalit+ of Talibon, province of 3ohol, Philippines and within the urisdiction of this6onorable "ourt, the above#named accused, with stealth and strate(+, enter into, occup+

and cultivate a portion of a (rain( land ph+sicall+ occupied, possessed and claimed b+!tt+. /icente de la Serna, :r. as successor to the pasture applicant "elestino de la Serna ofPasture Cease !pplication %o. 8919, accused)s entrance into the area has been and is stilla(ainst the win of the offended part+= did then and there willfull+, unlawfull+, andfeloniousl+ s>uat and cultivate a portion of the said (rain( land= said cultivatin( hasrendered a nuisance to and has deprived the pasture applicant from the full use thereof forwhich the land applied for has been intended, that is preventin( applicant)s cattle from(rain( the whole area, thereb+ causin( dama(e and preudice to the said applicant#

possessor#occupant, !tt+. /icente de la Serna, :r. AsicB

ive of the informations, wherein !no acullo, $eronimo 4ro+an, ario !parici, Ruperto "aes and odestoSuello were the accused, were raffled to :ud(e /icente 3. 7chaves, :r. of 3ranch A"riminal "ases %os. 182',1828, 18?2, 18?? and 18?9, respectivel+B.

3efore the accused could be arrai(ned, :ud(e 7chaves motu proprio issued an omnibus order dated ecember 9,

19HH dismissin( the five informations on the (rounds A1B that it was alle(ed that the accused entered the landthrou(h Jstealth and strate(+J, whereas under the decree the entr+ should be effected Jwith the use of force,intimidation or threat, or ta@in( advanta(e of the absence or tolerance of the landownerJ, and A2B that under therule of ejusdem generis the decree does not appl+ to the cultivation of a (rain( land.

3ecause of that order, the fiscal amended the informations b+ usin( in lieu of Jstealth and strate(+J thee*pression Jwith threat, and ta@in( advanta(e of the absence of the ranchowner andEor tolerance of the saidranchownerJ. The fiscal as@ed that the dismissal order be reconsidered and that the amended informations beadmitted.

The lower court denied the motion. t insisted that the phrase Jand for other purposesJ in the decree does notinclude a(ricultural purposes because its preamble does not mention the Secretar+ of !(riculture and ma@esreference to the affluent class.

rom the order of dismissal, the fiscal appealed to this "ourt under Republic !ct %o. 5''&. The appeal is devoidof merit.

e hold that the lower court correctl+ ruled that the decree does not appl+ to pasture lands because its preambleshows that it was intended to appl+ to s>uattin( in urban communitiesor more particularl+ to ille(al constructionsin s>uatter areas made b+ well#to#do individuals. The s>uatin( complained of involves pasture lands in ruralareas.

The preamble of the decree is >uoted below

67R7!S, it came to m+ @nowled(e that despite the issuance of Cetter of nstruction%o. 19 dated 4ctober 2, 19H2, directin( the Secretaries of %ational efense, Publicor@. 9 and communications, Social elfare and the irector of Public or@s, the

P66" $eneral ana(er, the Presidential !ssistant on 6ousin( and Rehabilitation!(enc+, $overnors, "it+ and unicipal a+ors, and "it+ and istrict 7n(ineers, Jtoremove an ille(al constructions includin( buildin(s on and alon( esteros and river ban@s,those alon( railroad trac@s and those built without permits on public and private

propert+.J s>uattin( is still a maor problem in urban communities all over the countr+=

67R7!S, man+ persons or entities found to have been unlawfull+ occup+in( publicand private lands belon( to the affluent class=

67R7!S, there is a need to further intensif+ the (overnment)s drive a(ainst this ille(aland nefarious practice.

t should be stressed that Cetter of nstruction %o. 19 refers to ille(al constructions on public and private propert+.t is complemented b+ Cetter of nstruction %o. 19#! which provides for the relocation of s>uatters in the interestof public health, safet+ and peace and order.

4n the other hand, it should be noted that s>uattin( on public a(ricultural lands, li@e the (rain( lands involved inthis case, is punished b+ Republic !ct %o. 9'H which ma@es it unlawful for an+ person, corporation orassociation to forcibl+ enter or occup+ public a(ricultural lands. That law provides

S7"T4% 1. t shall be unlawful for an+ person corporation or association to enter oroccup+, throu(h force, intimidation, threat, strate(+ or stealth, an+ public a(riculture landincludin( such public lands as are (ranted to private individuals under the provision ofthe Public Cand !ct or an+ other laws providin( for the of public a(riculture lands in thePhilippines and are dul+ covered b+ the correspondin( applications for thenotwithstandin( standin( the fact that title thereto still remains in the $overnment or foran+ person, natural or udicial to investi(ate induce or force another to commit such acts.

/iolations of the law are punished b+ a fine of not e*ceedin( one thousand or imprisonment for not more than

one +ear, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court, with subsidiar+ imprisonment in caseof insolvenc+. ASee People vs. Capasaran 1&& Phil. '&.B

The rule of ejusdem generisAof the same @ind or speciesB invo@ed b+ the trial court does not appl+ to this case.6ere, the intent of the decree is unmista@able. t is intended to appl+ onl+ to urban communities, particularl+ toille(al constructions. The rule of ejusdem generisis merel+ a tool of statutor+ construction which is resorted towhen the le(islative intent is uncertain A$enato "ommercial "orp. vs. "ourt of Ta* !ppeals, 1&' Phil. ;15,;18=28 ".:.S. 1&'9#5&B.

67R74R7, the trial court)s order of dismissal is affirmed. %o costs.

S4 4R7R7.

G.R. No. L?&&(9&?9' May &1, 1979

MISAEL P. 6ERA, a Co


15/27

HON. SERA%IN R. CUE6AS, a )*$- o :- Co* o %/ I#a#- o Ma#/+a, Ba#: I6, INSTITUTE O%

E6APORATED %ILLED MIL@ MANU%ACTURERS O% THE PHILIPPINES, INC., CONSOLIDATED MIL@

COMPAN PHIL. INC., a#$ MIL@ INDUSTRIES, INC., -o#$-#.

Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio and Solicitor Bernardo P. Pardo for petitioners.

Sycip, Salazar, Lna, !analo " Feliciano for private respondents.

DE CASTRO,J.:

This is a petition for certiorari with preliminar+ inunction to review the decision rendered b+respondent ud(e, in "ivil "ase %o. 522H; and in Special "ivil !ction %o. 52?8? both of the"ourt of irst nstance of anila.

Plaintiffs, in "ivil "ase %o. 522H; private respondents herein, are en(a(ed in the manufacture,sale and distribution of filled mil@ products throu(hout the Philippines. The products of

private respondent, "onsolidated Philippines nc. are mar@eted and sold under the brandari(old whereas those of private respondent, $eneral il@ "ompan+ APhil.B, nc., under the

brand JCibert+=J and those of private respondent, il@ ndustries nc., under the brand Jutch3ab+.J Private respondent, nstitute of 7vaporated illed il@ anufacturers of the

Philippines, is a corporation or(anied for the principal purpose of upholdin( and maintainin(at its hi(hest the standards of local filled mil@ industr+, of which all the other privaterespondents are members.

"ivil "ase %o. 522H; is an action for declarator+ relief with e*#parte petition for preliminar+inunction wherein plaintiffs pra+ for an adudication of their respective ri(hts and obli(ations

in relation to the enforcement of Section 1;9 of the Ta* "ode a(ainst their filled mil@products.

The controvers+ arose from the order of defendant, "ommissioner of nternal Revenue nowpetitioner herein, re>uirin( plaintiffs# private respondents to withdraw from the mar@et all oftheir filled mil@ products which do not bear the inscription re>uired b+ Section 1;9 of the Ta*"ode within fifteen A15B da+s from receipt of the order with the e*plicit warnin( that failure of

plaintiffs) private respondents to compl+ with said order will result in the institution of the

necessar+ action a(ainst an+ violation of the aforesaid order. Section 1;9 of the Ta* "odereads as follows

Section 1;9.7nscription to be placed on s>immed mil>. E !ll condensed s@immed mil@ andall mil@ in whatever form, from which the fatt+ part has been removed totall+ or in part, sold

or put on sale in the Philippines shall be clearl+ and le(ibl+ mar@ed on its immediatecontainers, and in all the lan(ua(e in which such containers are mar@ed, with the words, JThismil@ is not suitable for nourishment for infants less than one +ear of a(e,J or with othere>uivalent words.

The "ourt issued a writ of preliminar+ inunction dated ebruar+ 1;, 19;? restrainin( the"ommissioner of nternal Revenue from re>uirin( plaintiffs) private respondents to print onthe labels of their rifled mil@ products the words, JThis mil@ is not suitable for nourishment for

infants less than one +ear of a(e or words of similar import, J as directed b+ the above >uotedprovision of Caw, and from ta@in( an+ action to enforce the above le(al provision a(ainst theplaintiffs) private respondents in connection with their rifled mil@ products, pendin( the finaldetermination of the case, "ivil "ase %o. 522H;, on the merits.

4n :ul+ 25, 19;9, however, the 4ffice of the Solicitor $eneral brou(ht an appeal from the saidorder b+ wa+ of certiorari to the Supreme "ourt. 1n view thereof, the respondent court in the meantimesuspended disposition of these cases but in view of the absence of an+ inunction or restrainin( order from the Supreme"ourt, it resumed action on them until their final disposition therein.

Special "ivil !ction %o. 52?8?, on the other hand, is an action for prohibition and inunction with a petition forpreliminar+ inunction. Petitioners therein pra+ that the respondent air Trade 3oard desist from further proceedin( withT3 .S. %o. . entitled J!ntonio R. de :o+a vs. nstitute of 7vaporated il@ anufacturers of the Philippines, etc.Jpendin( final determination of "ivil "ase %o. 522H;. The facts of this special civil action show that on ecember H,19;2, !ntonio R. de :o+a and Sufronio "arrasco, both in their individual capacities and in their capacities as PublicRelations "ounsel and President of the Philippine !ssociation of %utrition, respectivel+, filed T3 .S. %o. 1 with air

Trade 3oard for misleadin( advertisement, mislabelin( andEor misbrandin(. !mon( other thin(s, the complaint filedinclude the char(e of omittin( to state in their labels an+ statement sufficient to dentif+ their filled mil@ products asJimitation mil@J or as an imitation of (enuine cows mil@. and omittin( to mar@ the immediate containers of their filledmil@ products with the words JThis mil@ is not suitable for nourishment for infants less than one +ear of a(e or withother e>uivalent words as re>uired under Section 1;9 of the Ta* "ode. The 3oard proceeded to hear the complaint until itreceived the writ of preliminar+ inunction issued b+ the "ourt of irst nstance on arch 19, 19;?.

Fpon a(reement of the parties, "ivil "ase %o. 522H; and Special "ivil !ction %o. 52?8? were heard ointl+ bein(intimatel+ related with each other, with common facts and issues bein( also involved therein. 4n !pril 1;, 19H1, therespondent court issued its decision, the dispositive part of which reads as follows

herefore, ud(ment is hereb+ rendered

7n !ivil !ase 9o. 2:8=

AaB Perpetuall+ restrainin( the defendant, "ommissioner of nternal Revenue, his a(ents, oremplo+ees from re>uirin( plaintiffs to print on the labels of their filled mil@ products the wordsJThis mil@ is not suitable for nourishment for infants less than one +ear of a(eJ or words withe>uivalent import and declarin( as nun and void and without authorit+ in law, the order of saiddefendant dated September 28, 19;1, !nne* ! of the complaint, and the Rulin( of the Secretar+of inance, dated %ovember 12, 19;2, !nne* $ of the complaint= and

7n #pecial !ivil ction 9o. 24=

AbB Restrainin( perpetuall+ the respondent air Trade 3oard, its a(ents or emplo+ees fromcontinuin( in the investi(ation of the complaints a(ainst petitioners doc@eted as T3 .S. %o. 2,or an+ char(es related to the manufacture or sale b + the petitioners of their filled mil@ productsand declarin( as null the proceedin(s so far underta@en b+ the respondent 3oard on saidcomplaints. App. 2 21, RolloB.

rom the above decision of the respondent court, the "ommissioner of nternal Revenue and the air Trade 3oard oinedto(ether to file the present petition for certiorari with preliminar+ inunction, assi(nin( the followin( errors

. T67 C47R "4FRT 7RR7 % RFC%$ T6!T S7". T4% 1;9 4 T67 T!D "47 6!S 377% R7P7!C73G PC"!T4%.

. T67 C47R "4FRT 7RR7 % RFC%$ T6!T S7"T4% 1;9 4 T67 T!D "47 6!S C4ST TS T!DPFRP4S7, !% T6!T "4SS4%7R %7"7SS!RCG C4ST 6S !FT64RTG T4 7%4R"7 T67 S!7!% T6!T T67 PR4P7R !FT64RTG T4 PR44T7 T67 67!CT6 4 %!%TS S T67 44 !% RF$!%STR!T4%, T67 S7"R7T!RG 4 67!CT6 !% T67 S7"R7T!RG 4 :FST"7, !S PR4/7 4R% R! ?H2&, %4T T67 "4SS4%7R 4 %T7R%!C R7/7%F7.

. T67 C47R "4FRT 7RR7 % RFC%$ T6!T T67 P47R T4 %/7ST$!T7 !% T4 PR4S7"FT7/4C!T4%S 4 44 C!S S 7%TRFST7 T4 T67 44 !% RF$ %SP7"T4%, T67 44 !%RF$ !%STR!T4%, T67 S7"R7T!RG 4 67!CT6 !% T67 S7"R7T!RG 4 :FST"7, !% T6!TT67 !R TR!7 34!R S T64FT :FRS"T4% T4 %/7ST$!T7 !% PR4S7"FT7 !CC7$7


16/27

S3R!%%$, SC!37CC%$ !%E4R SC7!%$ !/7RTS77%T 4 CC7 CN PR4F"TS.App, '#5, RolloB.

The lower court did not err in rulin( that Section 1;9 of the Ta* "ode has been repealed b+ implication. Section 1;9 wasenacted in 19?9, to(ether with Section 1'1 Awhich imposed a Specific ta* on s@immed mil@B and Section 1HH Awhichpenalied the sale of s@immed mil@ without pa+ment of the specific ta* and without the le(end re>uired b+ Section 1;9B.6owever, Section 1'1 was e*pressl+ repealed b+ Section 1 of Republic !ct %o. ?'', and Section 1HH, b+ Section 1 ofRepublic !ct %o. ';?. 3+ the e*press repeal of Sections 1'1 and 1HH, Section 1;9 became a merel+ declarator+provision, without a ta* purpose, or a penal sanction.

oreover, it seems apparent that Section 1;9 of the Ta* "ode does not appl+ to filled mil@. The use of the specific and

>ualif+in( terms Js@immed mil@J in the headnote and Jcondensed s@immed mil@J in the te*t of the cited section, wouldrestrict the scope of the (eneral clause Jall mil@, in whatever form, from which the fatt+ pat has been removed totall+ orin part.J n other words, the (eneral clause is restricted b+ the specific term Js@immed mil@J under the familiar rule ofejusdem generis that (eneral and unlimited terms are restrained and limited b+ the particular terms the+ follow in thestatute.

S@immed mil@ is different from filled mil@. !ccordin( to the Jefinitions, Standards of Purit+, Rules and Re(ulations ofthe 3oard of ood nspection,J s@immed mil@ is mil@ in whatever form from which the fatt+ part has been removed.illed mil@, on the other hand, is an+ mil@, whether or not condensed, evaporated concentrated, powdered,

part ii statcon cases

Documents