Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

PEOPLE VS.

MARIO MAPA Y MAPULONG


Principle: The first and fundamental duty of the Courts is to apply the law
Facts: Defendant Mapa was charged and convicted of the crime of illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition by the CFI Manila. is sole defense is that
he is duly appointed secret agent of then !overn of "atangas. #nd at the time of
the alleged commission of the offense$ he had a confidential mission to proceed
to Manila$ Pasay and %C
Issue: &'( the appointment to and holding 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
eld: The law is e)plicit that e)cept as thereafter specifically allowed$ it shall be
unlawful for any person to possess any firearm. (o provision is made for a secret
agent. #s such$ he is not e)empt. The conviction of the accused must stand.
*+D!,M,(T #FFI-M,D.
PEOPLE VS. AMIGO
Principle: the duty of the Courts is to apply the law disregarding their feeling of
sympathy or pity for the accused
Facts: #ccused Patricio #migo was charged and convicted of murder by the -TC
Davao and was sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. e claims that
the penalty is too cruel and harsh as a penalty and pleads for sympathy.
eld: Courts are not the forum to plead for sympathy. The duty of the Courts is to
apply$ disregarding their feeling of sympathy or pity for an accused. D+-# .,/
0,D .,/. D,CI0I1( #FFI-M,D
SOCORRO RAMIREZ vs CA and ESTER S GARCIA
Principle: .egislative intent is determined principally from the language of the
statue.
Facts: Petitioner -amire2 filed a case alleging that ,ster !arcia$ in a
confrontation in the latter3s office$ allegedly ve)ed$ insulted and humiliated her in
a 4hostile and furious mood5 and in a manner offensive to petitioner3s dignity and
personality. Petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of the event and sought for
moral damages. The transcript on which the civil case was based was from a
tape recording of the confrontation. Private respondent then filed a criminal case
for secretly taping the confrontation and for violation of -epublic #ct 6788.
Petitioner filed a motion to 9uash the information on the ground that the facts
charged do not constitute an offense of -# 6788.
,.D: -# 6788 clearly states that it is unlawful for any person not being
authori2ed by all the parties to any private communication to tap any wire or
cable$ or by using any other device for arrangement$ record such communication.
The provision clearly ma:es it illegal for any person$ not authori2ed by all parties
to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means
of tape recorder.
JMM PROMOTIONS VS NLRC
Principle: In interpreting a statue$ care should be ta:en that every part be given
effect
Facts: In a decision rendered by the P1,#$ Petitioner appealed to the
respondent$ which dismissed the petitioner3s appeal on the ground of failure to
post the re9uired appeal bond. Petitioner contends that the (.-C committed
grave abuse of discretion in applying these rules to decisions rendered by the
P1,#.
Issue: &'n Petitioner was still re9uired to post an appeal bond to perfect its
appeal from a decision of the P1,# to the (.-C
eld: ;es$ the P1,# rules are clear. The appeal bond is intended to further
insure the payment of the monetary award in favor of the employee if it is
eventually affirmed on appeal to the (.-C. P,TITI1( DI0MI00,D
JUANITO PILAR VS. COMELEC
Principle: The rule is well<recogni2ed that where the law does not distinguish$
courts should not distinguish
Facts: Petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of member of
the 0angguiniang Panlalawigan. "ut withdrew his certificate of candidacy.
-espectively$ the C1M,.,C imposed upon petitioner the fine of =8$888 for
faioure to file his statement of contributions and e)penditures. Petitioner
contends that he cannot be held liable for this because he was a 4non candidate5
having withdrawn his certificate of candidacy.
Issue: &'( the petitioner can be considered a candidate despite the withdrawal
of his certificate of candidacy
eld: Petitioner3s argument is w'o merit. It clearly states in the law that 4every
candidate5 has the obligation to file his statement of contribution and
e)penditures. #s the law ma:es no distinction or 9ualification as to whether the
candidate pursued his candidacy or wither the same$ the term 4every candidate5
must be deemed to refer no only to those who pursued his campaign$ but also to
one who withdrew his candidacy.
DE VILLA VS. CA
Principle: &hen the law does not ma:e any e)ception$ courts may not e)cept
something unless compelling reason e)ist to >ustify it
Facts: Petitioner was charged before the -TC with violation of "P 77$ the
bouncing chec:s law. owever he contends that the chec: in 9uestion was
drawn against the dollar account of petitioner with a foreign ban:$ and therefore
not covered by the "P 77 law.
eld: It will be noted that the law does not distinguish the currency involved in the
case. It is a cardinal principle that where the law does not distinguish$ courts
should not distinguish. P,TITI1( DI0MI00,D
JAI ALAI CASE
Principle: The title of a law is a valuable intrinsic aid in determining legislative
intent
Facts: -epublic of the Philippines through the !ames and #musement "oard
contends that Manila 1rdinance ?8@A which grants to #DC a franchise to
conduct >ai<alai operations is void since the approved -# BA6 re9uires a
legislative franchise$ not a municipal franchise$ for the operation of *ai<alai.
eld: The title of -# BA6 does not show that it see:s to limit the operation of >ai<
alai only to entities with franchise given by Congress.
VERA VS. CUEVAS
Principle: 1pinions and rulings of officials of the government called upon to
e)ecute or implement administrative laws command much respect and weight.
Facts: The controversy arose from the petitioner re9uiring plaintiff3s respondents
to withdraw from the mar:et all of their filled mil: products which do not bear the
inscription re9uired by 0ection =@B of the Ta) Code$ with the words 40ection
=@B.. Inscription to be placed on s:immed mil: ))))C This mil: is not suitable for
nourishment for infants less than one year of age5 or words with e9uivalent
import
eld: 0:immed Mil: is different from filled mil:. It cannot then be readily or safely
assumed that 0ection =@B applies to both s:immed and filled mil:. The "oard of
the Food Inspection rendered an opinion that filled mil: does not come within the
purview of 0ection =@B$ it being a product distinct from those specified in the said
0ection. D,CI0I1( #FFI-M,D.