Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • ASSALI Vs Com. of Customs

    Transféré par

    ladyJuris
    306 vues2 pages
    Five vessels were seized for smuggling cigarettes and rattan chairs in violation of importation law R.A. 426. The accused claimed the crime was abated when R.A. 426 was later repealed by R.A. 650 and customs no longer had jurisdiction. However, the court held that jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of the act, and is continuous until the case is terminated, unless the repeal expressly prohibits jurisdiction, repeals the penalizing provision so the act is no longer punishable, or the court fails to provide counsel when not waived by the accused.

    Description originale:

    case

    Titre original

    ASSALI vs Com. of Customs

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formats disponibles

    DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    Five vessels were seized for smuggling cigarettes and rattan chairs in violation of importation law R.A. 426. The accused claimed the crime was abated when R.A. 426 was later repealed by R.A. 650 and customs no longer had jurisdiction. However, the court held that jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of the act, and is continuous until the case is terminated, unless the repeal expressly prohibits jurisdiction, repeals the penalizing provision so the act is no longer punishable, or the court fails to provide counsel when not waived by the accused.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    306 vues2 pages

    ASSALI Vs Com. of Customs

    Transféré par

    ladyJuris
    Five vessels were seized for smuggling cigarettes and rattan chairs in violation of importation law R.A. 426. The accused claimed the crime was abated when R.A. 426 was later repealed by R.A. 650 and customs no longer had jurisdiction. However, the court held that jurisdiction is determined by the law in force at the time of the act, and is continuous until the case is terminated, unless the repeal expressly prohibits jurisdiction, repeals the penalizing provision so the act is no longer punishable, or the court fails to provide counsel when not waived by the accused.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme DOCX, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 2

    ASSALI vs.

    COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 26 SCRA 382 (1968) FACTS:


    Five vessels were seized in the high seas by customs carrying smuggled cigarettes and rattan chairs which is contrary to the importation law R.A. 426. Later on R.A.426was repealed by R.A. 650. The accused then claimed that customs has no longer jurisdiction over it and that the crime committed was abated.

    ISSUE:
    Is the contention of the accused correct?

    HELD:
    No. Jurisdiction is determined by law in force at the commission of the act and continuous until the termination of the case except only when the repeal: 1. Expressly prohibit the exercise of jurisdiction. 2. When the provision penalizing the act is repealed and the act is no longer punishable. 3. When the court failed to provide a counsel when the accused did not waive his right to counsel.

    RELATED NEW CIVIL CODE PROVISION: ARTICLE 7

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi