You are on page 1of 55

Statutory Construction Part IV and V AY 2011-2012 IV. Adherence to or Departure from Lan ua e of a statute a. Ver!a Le is "u#e i. Amores $s.

%"&'( ).". *o. 1+,-00( .une 2,( 2010 ii. Aparri $s. Court of Appea#s( ).". *o. /0001( .anuary /1( 1,+2 iii. San Die o $s. Sayson( ).". *o. 1-20+( Au ust /1( 1,-1 !. 3hen departure to #itera# interpretation a##o4ed i. 3hen necessary to determine #e is#ati$e intent 5.S. $s. )o Chico( 12 Phi# 12+ 61,0,7 ii. 3hen a #itera# interpretation 4ou#d #ead to un8ust( unfair and a!surd resu#ts So#id %omes $s. 'an( 2-0 SC"A 1/1 620007 5S $s. Pa uiri an( 12 Phi# 200 61,0,7 Amatan $s. Au8ero( 22+ SC"A 011 61,,07 Peop#e $s. Purisima( supra. iii. In order to accomp#ish its purpose "i$era $s. Camp!e##( /2 Phi# /2+ 61,1-7 Peop#e $s. Lacson( ).". *o. 12,20/ 6200/7 5S $s. 'ori!io( 10 Phi# +0 61,107 i$. 3hen reason of #a4 ceases( #a4 itse#f ceases "amire9 $s. Court of Appea#s( ).". *o. 2/0+1 61,-17 :e#o $s. P*:( ).". *o. 1/2//0( ;arch 1( 2001 $. In order to supp#y #e is#ati$e omissions and<or correctin c#erica# errors $i. In order to a$oid dan er to pu!#ic interest Co =im Cham $s. Va#de9 'an 'eh 10 Phi# 11/ 61,207 $ii. 3hen necessary to adopt construction in fa$or of ri ht and 8ustice V. D>C'"I*& >? *&C&SSA"Y I;PLICA'I>* a. City of ;ani#a $s. )ome9( ).". *o. /1201 61,+17 !. )atcha#ian $s. C>;&L&C( ).". *o. /20-0 61,107 c. ?e#ipe $s. Leuterio( ,1 Phi# 2+2 61,027 d. ;ani#a Prince %ote# $s. )SIS( 2-1 SC"A 20+ 61,,17 e. Dima i!a $s. %era#de9( 102 Phi# 101- 61,0+7 f. Shio8i $s. %ar$ey( 2/ Phi# /// 61,227 . Peop#e $s. La@andu#a( ).". *o. /110/ 61,+/7 h. Din a#asan $s. Lee %un( ,, Phi# 221 61,0-7 i. Peop#e $s. Concepcion( 22 Phi# 12- 61,22 G.R. No. 189600 June 29, 2010

6pri$ate respondent7 as representati$e of the party-#ist or ani9ation Citi9ensA :att#e A ainst Corruption 6CI:AC7 in the %ouse of "epresentati$es( and denied petitionerAs ;otion for "econsideration. In her Petition for Buo 3arranto1 see@in the ouster of pri$ate respondent( petitioner a##e ed that( amon other thin s( pri$ate respondent assumed office 4ithout a forma# proc#amation issued !y the Commission on &#ections 6C>;&L&C7D he 4as disCua#ified to !e a nominee of the youth sector of CI:AC since( at the time of the fi#in of his certificates of nomination and acceptance( he 4as a#ready /1 years o#d or !eyond the a e #imit of /0 pursuant to Section , of "epu!#ic Act 6"A7 *o. 1,21( other4ise @no4n as the Party-List System ActD and his chan e of affi#iation from CI:ACAs youth sector to its o$erseas ?i#ipino 4or@ers and their fami#ies sector 4as not effected at #east siE months prior to the ;ay 12( 2001 e#ections so as to !e Cua#ified to represent the ne4 sector under Section 10 of "A *o. 1,21. *ot ha$in fi#ed his Ans4er despite due notice( pri$ate respondent 4as deemed to ha$e entered a enera# denia# pursuant to pu!#ic respondentAs "u#es.2 As ear#ier ref#ected( pu!#ic respondent( !y Decision of ;ay 12( 200,( / dismissed petitionerAs Petition for Buo 3arranto( findin that CI:AC 4as amon the party-#ist or ani9ations 4hich the C>;&L&C had partia##y proc#aimed as entit#ed to at #east one seat in the %ouse of "epresentati$es throu h *ationa# :oard of Can$assers 6*:C7 "eso#ution *o. 01--0 dated .u#y ,( 2001. It a#so found the petition 4hich 4as fi#ed on >cto!er 11( 2001 to !e out of time( the re #ementary period !ein 10 days from pri$ate respondentAs proc#amation. "espectin the a e Cua#ification for youth sectora# nominees under Section , of "A *o. 1,21( pu!#ic respondent he#d that it app#ied on#y to those nominated as such durin the first three con ressiona# terms after the ratification of the Constitution or unti# 1,,+( un#ess a sectora# party is thereafter re istered eEc#usi$e#y as representin the youth sector( 4hich CI:AC( a mu#ti-sectora# or ani9ation( is not. In the matter of pri$ate respondentAs shift of affi#iation from CI:ACAs youth sector to its o$erseas ?i#ipino 4or@ers and their fami#ies sector( pu!#ic respondent he#d that Section 10 of "A *o. 1,21 did not app#y as there 4as no resu#tant chan e in party-#ist affi#iation. %er ;otion for "econsideration ha$in !een denied !y "eso#ution *o. 0,-1/0 dated Au ust -( 200,( 2 petitioner fi#ed the present Petition for Certiorari.0 Petitioner contends that( amon other thin s( pu!#ic respondent created distinctions in the app#ication of Sections , and 10 of "A *o. 1,21 that are not found in the su!8ect pro$isions( fosterin interpretations at 4ar 4ith eCua# protection of the #a4sD and *:C "eso#ution *o. 01--0( 4hich 4as a partia# proc#amation of 4innin party-#ist or ani9ations( 4as not enou h !asis for pri$ate respondent to assume office on .u#y 10( 2001( especia##y considerin that he admitted recei$in his o4n Certificate of Proc#amation on#y on Decem!er 1/( 2001. In his Comment(- pri$ate respondent a$ers in the main that petitioner has not su!stantiated her c#aims of ra$e a!use of discretion a ainst pu!#ic respondentD and that he !ecame a mem!er of the o$erseas ?i#ipinos and their fami#ies sector years !efore the 2001 e#ections. It !ears notin that the term of office of party-#ist representati$es e#ected in the ;ay( 2001 e#ections 4i## eEpire on .une /0( 2010. 3hi#e the petition has( thus( !ecome moot and academic( renderin of a decision on the merits in this case 4ou#d sti## !e of practica# $a#ue.1 'he Court adopts the issues framed !y pu!#ic respondent( to 4itF 617 4hether petitionerAs Petition for Buo 3arranto 4as dismissi!#e for ha$in !een fi#ed unseasona!#yD and 627 4hether Sections , and 10 of "A *o. 1,21 app#y to pri$ate respondent.

MILAGROS E. AMORES, Petitioner( $s. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRI UNAL !n" EMMANUEL JOEL J. VILLANUEVA,"espondents. D&CISI>* CARPIO MORALES, J.: Via this petition for certiorari( ;i#a ros &. Amores 6petitioner7 cha##en es the Decision of ;ay 12( 200, and "eso#ution *o. 0,1/0 of Au ust -( 200, of the %ouse of "epresentati$es &#ectora# 'ri!una# 6pu!#ic respondent7( 4hich respecti$e#y dismissed petitionerAs Petition for Buo 3arranto Cuestionin the #e a#ity of the assumption of office of &mmanue# .oe# .. Vi##anue$a

>n the first issue( the Court finds that pu!#ic respondent committed ra$e a!use of discretion in considerin petitionerAs Petition for Buo 3arranto fi#ed out of time. Its countin of the 10-day re #ementary period pro$ided in its "u#es + from the issuance of *:C "eso#ution *o. 01--0 on .u#y ,( 2001 is erroneous. 'o !e sure( 4hi#e *:C "eso#ution *o. 01--0 partia##y proc#aimed CI:AC as a 4inner in the ;ay( 2001 e#ections( a#on 4ith other party-#ist or ani9ations(, it 4as !y no measure a proc#amation of pri$ate respondent himse#f as reCuired !y Section 1/ of "A *o. 1,21. Section 1/. How Party-List Representatives are Chosen. Party-#ist representati$es sha## !e proc#aimed !y the C>;&L&C !ased on the #ist of names su!mitted !y the respecti$e parties( or ani9ations( or coa#itions to the C>;&L&C accordin to their ran@in in said #ist. A' ALL &V&*'S( this Court set aside *:C "eso#ution *o. 01--0 in :aran ay Association for *ationa# Ad$ancement and 'ransparency $. C>;&L&C10 after re$isitin the formu#a for a##ocation of additiona# seats to party-#ist or ani9ations. Considerin ( ho4e$er( that the records do not disc#ose the eEact date of pri$ate respondentAs proc#amation( the Court o$er#oo@s the technica#ity of time#iness and ru#es on the merits. A#ternati$e#y( since petitionerAs cha##en e oes into pri$ate respondentAs Cua#ifications( it may !e fi#ed at anytime durin his term. Bua#ifications for pu!#ic office are continuin reCuirements and must !e possessed not on#y at the time of appointment or e#ection or assumption of office !ut durin the officerGs entire tenure. >nce any of the reCuired Cua#ifications is #ost( his tit#e may !e seasona!#y cha##en ed.11 >n the second and more su!stantia# issue( the Court sha## first discuss the a e reCuirement for youth sector nominees under Section , of "A *o. 1,21 readin F Section ,. Qualifications of Party-List Nominees. *o person sha## !e nominated as party-#ist representati$e un#ess he is a natura#!orn citi9en of the Phi#ippines( a re istered $oter( a resident of the Phi#ippines for a period of not #ess than one 617year immediate#y precedin the day of the e#ection( a!#e to read and 4rite( a !ona fide mem!er of the party or or ani9ation 4hich he see@s to represent for at #east ninety 6,07 days precedin the day of the e#ection( and is at #east t4enty-fi$e 6207 years of a e on the day of the e#ection. In case of a nominee of the youth sector( he must at #east !e t4enty-fi$e 6207 !ut not more than thirty 6/07 years of a e on the day of the e#ection. Any youth sectora# representati$e 4ho attains the a e of thirty 6/07 durin his term sha## !e a##o4ed to continue in office unti# the eEpiration of his term. 6&mphasis and underscorin supp#ied.7 'he Court finds no teEtua# support for pu!#ic respondentAs interpretation that Section , app#ied on#y to those nominated durin the first three con ressiona# terms after the ratification of the Constitution or unti# 1,,+( un#ess a sectora# party is thereafter re istered eEc#usi$e#y as representin the youth sector. A cardina# ru#e in statutory construction is that 4hen the #a4 is c#ear and free from any dou!t or am!i uity( there is no room for construction or interpretation. 'here is on#y room for app#ication. 12 As the #a4 states in uneCui$oca# terms that a nominee of the youth sector must at #east !e t4enty-fi$e 6207 !ut not more than thirty 6/07 years of a e on the day of the e#ection( so it must !e that a candidate 4ho is more than /0 on e#ection day is not Cua#ified to !e a youth sector nominee. Since this mandate is contained in "A *o. 1,21( the Party-List System Act( it co$ers ALL youth sector nominees $yin for party-#ist representati$e seats.

As petitioner points out( "A *o. 1,21 4as enacted on#y in ;arch( 1,,0. 'here is thus no reason to app#y Section , thereof on#y to youth sector nominees nominated durin the first three con ressiona# terms after the ratification of the Constitution in 1,+1. 5nder this interpretation( the #ast e#ections 4here Section , app#ied 4ere he#d in ;ay( 1,,0 or t4o months after the #a4 4as enacted. 'his is certain#y not sound #e is#ati$e intent( and cou#d not ha$e !een the o!8ecti$e of "A *o. 1,21. 'here is #i@e4ise no rhyme or reason in pu!#ic respondentAs ratiocination that after the third con ressiona# term from the ratification of the Constitution( 4hich eEpired in 1,,+( Section , of "A *o. 1,21 4ou#d app#y on#y to sectora# parties re istered eEc#usi$e#y as representin the youth sector. 'his distinction is no4here found in the #a4. 5!i #eE non distin uit nec nos distin uire de!emus. 3hen the #a4 does not distin uish( 4e must not distin uish. 1/ "espectin Section 10 of "A *o. 1,21( the Court fai#s to find e$en an iota of teEtua# support for pu!#ic respondentAs ratiocination that the pro$ision did not app#y to pri$ate respondentAs shift of affi#iation from CI:ACAs youth sector to its o$erseas ?i#ipino 4or@ers and their fami#ies sector as there 4as no resu#tant chan e in party-#ist affi#iation. Section 10 readsF Section 10. Change of Affiliation; ffect. Any e#ected party-#ist representati$e 4ho chan es his po#itica# party or sectora# affi#iation durin his term of office sha## forfeit his seatF Pro$ided( 'hat if he chan es his po#itica# party orsectora# affi#iation 4ithin siE 6-7 months !efore an e#ection( he sha## not !e e#i i!#e for nomination as party-#ist representati$e under his ne4 party or or ani9ation. 6emphasis and underscorin supp#ied.7 3hat is c#ear is that the 4ordin of Section 10 co$ers chan es in !oth po#itica# party and sectora# affi#iation. And the #atter may occur 4ithin the same party since mu#ti-sectora# party-#ist or ani9ations are Cua#ified to participate in the Phi#ippine party-#ist system. %ence( a nominee 4ho chan es his sectora# affi#iation 4ithin the same party 4i## on#y !e e#i i!#e for nomination under the ne4 sectora# affi#iation if the chan e has !een effected at #east siE months !efore the e#ections. A ain( since the statute is c#ear and free from am!i uity( it must !e i$en its #itera# meanin and app#ied 4ithout attempted interpretation. 'his is the p#ain meanin ru#e or $er!a #e is( as eEpressed in the maEim indeE animi sermo or speech is the indeE of intention. 12 It is( therefore( !eyond ca$i# that Sections , and 10 of "A *o. 1,21 app#y to pri$ate respondent. 'he Court finds that pri$ate respondent 4as not Cua#ified to !e a nominee of either the youth sector or the o$erseas ?i#ipino 4or@ers and their fami#ies sector in the ;ay( 2001 e#ections. 'he records disc#ose that pri$ate respondent 4as a#ready more than /0 years of a e in ;ay( 2001( it !ein stipu#ated that he 4as !orn in Au ust( 1,10.10 ;oreo$er( he did not chan e his sectora# affi#iation at #east siE months !efore ;ay( 2001( pu!#ic respondent itse#f ha$in found that he shifted to CI:ACAs o$erseas ?i#ipino 4or@ers and their fami#ies sector on#y on ;arch 11( 2001.1-!avvphi! 'hat pri$ate respondent is the first nominee of CI:AC( 4hose $ictory 4as #ater uphe#d( is of no moment. A party-#ist or ani9ationAs ran@in of its nominees is a mere indication of preference( their Cua#ifications accordin to #a4 are a different matter. It not !ein contested( ho4e$er( that pri$ate respondent 4as e$entua##y proc#aimed as a party-#ist representati$e of CI:AC and rendered ser$ices as such( he is entit#ed to @eep the compensation and emo#uments pro$ided !y #a4 for the position unti# he is proper#y dec#ared ine#i i!#e to ho#d the same.11 3%&"&?>"&( the petition is )"A*'&D. 'he Decision dated ;ay 12( 200, and "eso#ution *o. 0,-1/0 dated Au ust -( 200, of the %ouse of "epresentati$es &#ectora# 'ri!una# are S&' ASID&. &mmanue# .oe# .. Vi##anue$a is dec#ared ine#i i!#e to ho#d office as a mem!er of the %ouse of "epresentati$es representin the party-#ist or ani9ation CI:AC. S> >"D&"&D.

G.R. No. L#$00%& J!nu!'( $1, 198) RUNO O. APARRI, petitioner( $s. THE COURT OF APPEALS !n" LAN* AUTHORIT+, ,-e .!,,e' /n 0u10,/,u,/on 2o' REME*IOS O. FORTICH, !0 C-!/'3!n, ANGELINO M. AN4ON, RAFAEL . HILAO, VALERIANO PLANTILLA !n" SEVERO +AP, !0 3e31e'0 o2 ,-e o!'" o2 */'e5,o'0 o2 ,-e "e2un5, N!,/on!. Re0e,,.e3en, !n" Re-!1/./,!,/on A"3/n/0,'!,/on 6NARRA7, respondents. MA8ASIAR, J.:

'he po4er of the :oard of Directors of the *A""A to appoint the enera# mana er is pro$ided for in para raph 627(Section +( "epu!#ic Act *o. 11-0 6appro$ed .une 1+( 1,027( to 4itF Sec. +. Po4ers and Duties of the :oard of Directors. H 'he :oard of Directors sha## ha$e the fo##o4in po4ers and dutiesF ... 27 %o appoint an( fi) the term of office of *eneral +anager ..., su-.ect to the recommen(ation of the #ffice of conomic Coor(ination an( the approval of the Presi(ent of the Philippines, .... 'he :oard( !y a ma8ority $ote of a## mem!ers( may( for cause( upon recommendation of the >ffice of &conomic Coordination and 4ith the appro$a# of the President of the Phi#ippines( suspend and<or remo$e the )enera# ;ana er and<or the Assistant )enera# ;ana er 6p. 2-( rec.( emphasis supp#ied7. >n ;arch 10( 1,-2( the same :oard of Directors appro$ed the fo##o4in reso#utionF

'his petition for certiorari see@s to re$ie4 the decision of the then Court of Appea#s 6no4 Intermediate Appe##ate Court under :P 12,7 dated Septem!er 22( 1,-+( affirmin the decision of the then Court of ?irst Instance 6no4 "e iona# 'ria# Court7( the dispositi$e portion of 4hich is as fo##o4sF 3%&"&?>"&( the 8ud ment of the #o4er court insofar as it decrees the dismissa# of the present petition for mandamus is here!y affirmed( 4ithout pronouncement as to costs 6p. 00( rec.7. 'he facts of the case are as fo##o4sF >n .anuary 10( 1,-0( pri$ate respondents 6as mem!ers of the :oard of Directors of the defunct *ationa# "esett#ement and "eha!i#itation Administration created under "epu!#ic Act *o. 11-0( appro$ed .une 1+( 1,02 H *A""A7 appro$ed the fo##o4in reso#utionF R "#L$%&#N N#. !' 6Series of 1,-07 "&S>LV&D( as it is here!y reso#$ed( to appoint ;r. :runo 0. Aparri( as )enera# ;ana er of the *ationa# "esett#ement and "eha!i#itation Administration 6*A""A7 4ith a## the ri hts( prero ati$es and compensation appurtenant thereto to ta@e effect on .anuary 1-( 1,-07D "&S>LV&D ?5"'%&"( as it is here!y reso#$ed( to inform the President of the Phi#ippines of the a!o$e appointment of ;r. Aparri 6p. 2( rec.7. Pursuant thereto( pri$ate respondent "emedies >. ?ortich( in her capacity as Chairman of the *A""A :oard( appointed petitioner :runo >. Aparri as ref#ected in the fo##o4in #etterF ;ani#a( .anuary 22( 1,-0 ;r. :runo >. Aparri c<o *A""A( ;ani#a SI"F You are here!y appointed as )&*&"AL ;A*A)&" in the *ationa# "esett#ement and "eha!i#itation Administration 6*A""A7 4ith compensation at the rate of '3&LV& '%>5SA*D 6P12(000.007 P&S>S per annum the appointment to ta@e effect .anuary 1-(1,-0 . . . . "&I*S'A'&;&*' ... 6p. 2( rec.7.

R "#L$%&#N N#. /0 6Series of 1,-27 3%&"&AS( the Chairman of the :oard has transmitted to the :oard of Directors the (esire of the #ffice of the Presi(ent +alacanang, +anila, to fi) the term of office of the incum!ent )enera# ;ana er up to the c#ose of office hours on ;arch /1( 1,-2( in accordance 4ith the pro$ision of Section +( su!-section 2 of ".A. *o. 11-0D *>3( '%&"&?>"&( :& I' "&S>LV&D( as it is here!y reso#$ed( that the :oard of Directors here!y fiE( as it is here!y fiEed( the term of office of the incum!ent )enera# ;ana er of the *ationa# "esett#ement and "eha!i#itation Administration 6*A""A7 to ;arch /1( 1,-2 6pp. --1( rec.( emphasis supp#ied7. Petitioner fi#ed a petition for mandamus 4ith pre#iminary in8unction 4ith the then Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a on ;arch 2,( 1,-2. 'he petition prayed to annu# the reso#ution of the *A""A :oard dated ;arch 10( 1,-2( to command the :oard to a##o4 petitioner to continue in office as )enera# ;ana er unti# he $acates said office in accordance 4ith #a4 and to sentence the pri$ate respondents 8oint#y and se$era##y to pay the petitioner actua# dama es in the sum of P,0(000.00( p#us costs. >n Au ust +( 1,-/( 4hen the case 4as sti## pendin decision in the #o4er court( "epu!#ic Act *o. /+22( other4ise @no4n as the A ricu#tura# Land "eform Code( too@ effect. 'he said #a4 a!o#ished the *A""A 6Sec. 1/( ".A. /+227 and transferred its functions and po4ers to the Land Authority. >n >cto!er 21( 1,-/( the then Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a rendered 8ud ment( findin Ithat this case has !ecome academic !y reason of the appro$a# of the A ricu#tura# Land "eform Code 6"epu!#ic Act *o. /+227 and there!y dismissin the instant petition 4ithout pronouncement as to costsI 6p. 0( rec.7. >n appea# to the then Court of Appea#s( the appe##ate tri!una# spea@in throu h then ;r. .ustice Antonio C. Lucero( affirmed the decision of the #o4er court. in dismissin the petition for mandamus. Pertinent pro$isions of the decision are as fo##o4sF EEE EEE EEE In the #i ht of the fore oin facts( it is e$ident that :runo >. Aparri accepted the position of )enera# ;ana er 4ithout fiEed term and his appointment is( in essence( termina!#e at the p#easure of the appointin po4er 4hich( in this case( is the :oard of Directors. 3here( as in the case at !ar( the appointin officer( that is( the :oard of Directors( had fiEed the term of office of the incum!ent ;ana er to end on ;arch /1( 1,-2( the rep#acement of :runo >. Aparri is not remo$a# !ut !y reason of the term of his office 4hich is one of the reco ni9ed modes of terminatin officia# re#ations. Consi(ering that the term of office of the *eneral +anager of the NARRA is not fi)e( -y law nor has it -een fi)e( -y the 1oar( of 2irectors at the time of his appointment although it ha( the power to (o so, it is o-vious that the term of office of herein petitioner 1runo #. Aparri e)pire( on +arch '!, !34/ and his ri ht to ho#d the said office 4as there!y eEtin uished. In other 4ords( 1runo #. Aparri cessation from office invo5es no removal -ut merely the e)piration of the term of office which was within the power of the 1oar( of 2irectors to fi) . %ence( :runo >. Aparri continues on#y for so #on as the term of his office has not ended 6A#!a $s. %on. .ose *. &$an e#ists( 100 Phi#. -+/7 JDecision of the Court of Appea#s( pp. 2+-2,( rec.( emphasis supp#iedK.

'he motion for reconsideration !y petitioner in the then Court of Appea#s 4as denied on .anuary 10( 1,-,. >n .anuary 20( 1,-,( the petitioner fi#ed a petition for certiorari to re$ie4 the decision of the then Court of Appea#s dated Septem!er 22( 1,-+ 6pp. 1-21( rec.7. 'he same 4as initia##y denied for #ac@ of merit in a reso#ution dated .anuary 21( 1,-, 6p. 00( rec.7D !ut on motion for reconsideration fi#ed on ?e!ruary 11( 1,-,( the petition 4as i$en due course 6p. --( rec.7. 'he on#y #e a# issue sou ht to !e re$ie4ed is 4hether or not :oard "eso#ution *o. 22 6series of 1,-27 4as a remo$a# or dismissa# of petitioner 4ithout cause. 3& affirm. 3& ho#d that the term of office of the petitioner eEpired on ;arch /1( 1,-2. A pu!#ic office is the ri ht( authority( and duty created and conferred !y #a4( !y 4hich for a i$en period( either fiEed !y #a4 or endurin at the p#easure of the creatin po4er( an indi$idua# is in$ested 4ith some portion of the so$erei n functions of the o$ernment( to !e eEercise !y him for the !enefit of the pu!#ic 6 6+echem Pu-lic #ffices an( #fficers,7 Sec. 17. 'he ri ht to ho#d a pu!#ic office under our po#itica# system is therefore not a natura# ri ht. It eEists( 4hen it eEists at a## on#y !ecause and !y $irtue of some #a4 eEpress#y or imp#ied#y creatin and conferrin it 6 +echem &-i(.( Sec. -27. 'here is no such thin as a $ested interest or an estate in an office( or e$en an a!so#ute ri ht to ho#d office. &Eceptin constitutiona# offices 4hich pro$ide for specia# immunity as re ards sa#ary and tenure( no one can !e said to ha$e any $ested ri ht in an office or its sa#ary 6 0/ Am. 8ur. ++17. 'he *ationa# "esett#ement and "eha!i#itation Administration 6*A""A7 4as created under "epu!#ic Act *o. 11-0 6appro$ed .une 1+(1,027( 4hich pro$ides thatF Sec. 2. *A'I>*AL "&S&''L&;&*' A*D "&%A:ILI'A'I>* AD;I*IS'"A'I>* H ... there is here!y created a corporation to !e @no4n as *ationa# "esett#ement and "eha!i#itation Administration hereafter referred to as I*A""AI to perform under the super$ision and contro# of the President of the Phi#ippines( throu h the >ffice of &conomic Coordinator a## the duties and functions of the :ureau of Lands as pro$ided for in Common4ea#th Act num!ered SiE %undred and *inety-one( as amended( and such other duties as are hereinafter specified in this Act. &t shall -e hea(e( -y a *eneral +anager an( an Assistant +anager who shall -e appointe( as hereinafter provi(e( 6emphasis supp#ied7. Para raph 2( Section + of "epu!#ic Act 11-0 eEpress#y i$es to the :oard of Directors of the *A""A the po4er Ito appoint and fiE the term of office of the enera# mana er ... su-.ect to the recommen(ation of conomic Coor(ination an( the approval of the Presi(ent of the PhilippinesI 6emphasis supp#ied7. :y IappointmentI is meant the act of desi nation !y the eEecuti$e officer( !oard or !ody( to 4hom that po4er has !een de#e ated( of the indi$idua# 4ho is to eEercise the functions of a i$en office 6 +echem op. cit.( Sec. 1027. 3hen the po4er of appointment is a!so#ute( and the appointee has !een determined upon( no further consent or appro$a# is necessary( and the forma# e$idence of the appointment( the commission( may issue at once. 3here( ho4e$er( the assent or confirmationof some other officer or !ody is reCuired( the Commission can issue or the appointment is comp#ete on#y 4hen such assent or condition is o!tained 6Peop#e $s. :isse##( 2, Ca#. 2017. 'o constitute an IappointmentI to office( there must !e some open( uneCui$oca# act of appointment on the part of the appointin authority empo4ered to ma@e it( and it may !e said that an appointment to office is ma(e an( is complete when the last act re9uire( of the appointing authority has -een performe( 6;o#nar $s. City of Aurora( /2+ *.&. 2d 2-2( /+ III App. /d 0+07. In either case( the appointment !ecomes comp#ete 4hen the #ast act reCuired of the appointin po4er is performed 6State $s. :ar!our( 0/ Conn. 1-( 00 Am. "ep. -07. 'he petitioner 4as appointed as enera# mana er pursuant to "eso#ution *o. 1/ 6series of 1,-0 H appro$ed on .anuary 10( 1,-07 of the :oard of Directors. A carefu# perusa# of the reso#ution points out the fact that the appointment is !y itse#f incomp#ete !ecause of the #ac@ of appro$a# of the President of the Phi#ippines to such appointment. 'hus( 3e note that "eso#ution *o. 1/ statesF EEE EEE EEE

... "&S>LV&D ?5"'%&"( as it is here!y reso#$ed( to inform the President of the Phi#ippines of the a!o$e appointment of ;r. Aparri 6p. 2( rec.7. Presuma!#y( the :oard of Directors of the *A""A eEpected that such appointment !e i$en appro$a# !y the then President. Lac@in such appro$a# !y the President as reCuired !y the #a4 6par. 2( Sec. + of ".A. 11-07( the appointment of petitioner 4as not comp#ete. 'he petitioner can( at !est( !e c#assified as a (e facto officer !ecause he assumed office Iunder co#or of a @no4n appointment or e#ection( $oid !ecause the officer 4as not e#i i!#e or !ecause there 4as a 4ant of po4er in the e#ectin !ody( or !y reasons of some defect or irre u#arity in its eEercise( such ine#i i!i#ity( 4ant of po4er( or defect !ein un@no4n to the pu!#icI 6State $s. Carro##( /+ Conn. 22,( ,Am. "ep. 20,7. %o4e$er( such appointment 4as made comp#ete upon appro$a# of "eso#ution *o. 22 6series of 1,-2-appro$ed ;arch 10( 1,-27 4herein the President su!mitted to the :oard his IdesireI to fi) the term of office of the petitioner up to the c#ose of office hours on ;arch /1( 1,-2. 'he Cuestioned reso#ution corrected 4hate$er reCuisite #ac@in in the ear#ier "eso#ution *o. 1/ of the respondent :oard. "eso#ution *o. 22( appro$ed !y the respondent :oard and pursuant to Ithe desire of the PresidentI #e a##y fiEed the term of office of petitioner as mandated !y para raph 2( Section + of "epu!#ic Act 11-0. 'he 4ord ItermI in a #e a# sense means a fiEed and definite period of time 4hich the #a4 descri!es that an officer may ho#d an office 6Sueppe# $s. City Counci# of Io4a City( 1/- *.3. 2D 02/( Cuotin -1 C.S >??IC&"S( secs. 22( 02J1K7. Accordin to ;ochem( the term of office is the period durin 4hich an office may !e he#d. 5pon the eEpiration of the officerGs term( un#ess he is authori9ed !y #a4 to ho#d o$er( his ri hts( duties and authority as a pu!ic officer must ipso facto cease 6;echem( op. cit.( Secs. /,--/,17. In the #a4 on Pu!#ic >fficers( the most natura# and freCuent method !y 4hich a pu!#ic officer ceases to !e such is !y the eEpiration of the term for 4hich he 4as e#ected or appointed. 'he Cuestion of 4hen this e$ent has occurred depends upon a num!er of considerations( the most prominent of 4hich( perhaps( are 4hether he 4as ori ina##y e#ected or appointed for a definite term or for a term dependent upon some act or e$ent ... 6;echem op. cit.( Sec. /+27. It is necessary in each case to interpret the 4ord ItermI 4ith the pur$ie4 of statutes so as to effectuate the statutory scheme pertainin to the office under eEamination 6:ar!er $s. :#ue( 211 P.2D 201( 01 Ca#. "ptr. +-0( -0 C.2d *07. In the case at !ar( the term of office is not fiEed !y #a4. %o4e$er( the po4er to fiE the term is $ested in the :oard of Directors su-.ect to the recommendation of the >ffice of &conomic Coordination and the appro$a# of the President of the Phi#ippines. "eso#ution *o. 22 6series of 1,-27 spea@s of no remo$a# !ut an eEpiration of the term of office of the petitioner. 'he statute is undenia!#y c#ear. It is the ru#e in statutory construction that if the 4ords and phrase of a statute are not o!scure or am!i uous( its meanin and the intention of the #e is#ature must !e determined from the #an ua e emp#oyed( and( 4here there is no am!i uity in the 4ords( there is no room for construction 6:#ac@ on Interpretation of La4s( Sec. 017. 'he courts may not specu#ate as to the pro!a!#e intent of the #e is#ature apart from the 4ords 6%ondoras $s. Soto( + Am. St.( "ep. 1227. 'he reason for the ru#e is that the #e is#ature must !e presumed to @no4 the meanin of 4ords( to ha$e used 4ords ad$ised#y and to ha$e eEpressed its intent !y the use of such 4ords as are found in the statute 600 Am. .ur. p. 2127. "emo$a# entai#s the ouster of an incum!ent !efore the eEpiration of his term 6;ana#an $s. Buitoriano( 00 >.). 20107. 'he petitioner in this case 4as not remo$ed !efore the eEpiration of his term. "ather( his ri ht to ho#d the office ceased !y the eEpiration on ;arch /1( 1,-2 of his term to ho#d such office. 3%&"&?>"&( '%& D&CISI>* APP&AL&D ?">; IS %&"&:Y A??I";&D. 3I'%>5' C>S'S. S> >"D&"&D. G.R. No. L#162%8 Au9u0, $1, 1961

ARTOLOME E. SAN *IEGO, petitioner( $s. ELIGIO SA+SON, respondent.

LA RA*OR, J.: 'his is a petition for certiorari to re$ie4 a decision of the Court of Appea#s affirmin a 8ud ment of the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a 4hich sentenced petitioner :arto#ome San Die o to pay respondent &#i io Sayson the sum of P0(021.1- 4ith #e a# interest thereon from Septem!er 10( 1,0-( p#us P000 as attorneyGs fees and costs. In the action !rou ht !y respondent &#i io Sayson in the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a( he a##e ed that in *o$em!er( 1,02( he and San Die o entered into an a reement 4here !y Sayson 4ou#d furnish #a!or for the construction of a !ui#din at 1200 Ar#e ui( ?arnecio Buiapo( ;ani#a( in accordance 4ith the p#ans appro$ed !y the city en ineer( at the price of P10(000D that in the course of the construction the p#ans appro$ed !y the city en ineer 4ere modified and chan es 4ere made not ca##ed for in the appro$ed p#ans( for 4hich p#aintiff had to perform and or furnish additiona# #a!or $a#ued at P-(+20./1D and that San Die o has refused to pay this additiona# sum. In a specia# de defense( San Die o a##e ed that e$en rantin that additiona# 4or@ had !een performed( he may not !e he#d #ia!#e for the same in $ie4 of the pro$isions of Artic#e 1122 of the Ci$i# Code. At the tria# the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a found the fo##o4in eEtra or additiona# 4or@ performed !y SaysonF . . . he testified that the 4idth of the !ui#din 4as in decreased from 1/.+0 meters in the p#an as appro$ed to 12./0 metersD the party 4a## of ho##o4 !#oc@ as appearin in the p#an 4as chan ed to reinforced concreteD that a#thou h the me99anine 4as ordered e#iminated in the p#an and therefore not inc#uded in the contract( defendant had it constructedD that after the stairs 4ere constructed( it 4as ordered remo$ed 6&Ehi!it A-1-a7 that the partitions 4ere en#ar ed 6&Ehi!it A-1-!7D that the partitions on the second f#oor 4as raised( the transem 4as remo$ed and the partition e#e$ated to the cei#in 6&Eh. A-1-c7 D that a## the partitions 4hich 4ere sin #e in the p#an 4ere ordered made into dou!#e 4a##D the 4ooden f#oorin in Section 22 in the p#an 4as chan ed to reinforced concrete 6&Ehi!it A-/-a7 D that the ea$es facin ?arnecio Street a#thou h crossed out !y the City &n ineer 4ere ordered made 6&Eh. A-1-d7 D that the 4a##s had IcosturaI on#y under the p#an !ut 4ere ordered p#astered and cei#in s 4ere ordered a#thou h not inc#uded in the p#an 6&Ehi!it A#e 'hese chan es 4hich 4ere ordered !y defendant and his en ineer are summari9ed on pa e + &Ehi!it : as fo##o4sF EEE EEE EEE

>!$ious#y( the aforeCuoted pro$ision of #a4 is not app#ica!#e on the c#aim of defendant. 'he decision 4as affirmed. %ence the case 4as !rou ht re on an appea# !y certiorari. Artic#e 1122 of the Ci$i# Code is a modified form of artic#e 10,/ of the Spanish Ci$i# Code 4hich pro$ides as fo##o4sF *o architect or contractor 4ho( for a #ump sum( underta@es the construction of a !ui#din ( or any other 4or@ to !e done in accordance 4ith a p#an a reed upon 4ith the o4ner the round( may demand an increase of the price( e$en if the cost of the materia#s or #a!or has increasedD !ut he may do 4hen any chan e increasin the 4or@ is made in the p#ans( pro$ided the o4ner has i$en his consent thereto. In his commentaries on this Artic#e( ;anresa saidF &# articu#o 1.1,/ de# Codi o frances es mas pre$isor Cue e# Cue comentamos( pues eEi e para Cue e# aumento de precio eda pedirse Cue #os cam!ios o amp#icaciones de# p#ano se hayan autori9ado por escrito y Cue se haya con$enido e# precio con e# propietario 6L ;anresa( ?ifth ed.( p. ,2-.7 >!$ious#y inf#uenced !y the a!o$e criticism of the artic#e( the Code Commission recommended and the #e is#ature pro$ed the pro$ision as it no4 stands. It 4i## !e noted at 4hereas under the o#d artic#e reco$ery for additiona# cost in a construction contract can !e had if authori9ation on to ma@e such additions can !e pro$ed( the amendment e$ident#y reCuires that instead of mere#y pro$in authori9ation( such authori9ation !y the proprietor must !e made 4ritin . 'he e$ident purpose of the amendment is pre$ent #iti ation for additiona# costs incurred !y reason of additions or chan es in the ori ina# p#ans. Is this additiona# reCuirement of a 4ritten authori9ation( to !e considered as a mere eEtension of the Statute of ?rauds( or is it a su!stanti$e pro$isionM 'hat the reCuirement for a 4ritten authori9ation is not mere#y to prohi!it admission of ora# testimony a ainst the o!8ection >f the ad$erse fact that the pro$ision is party( can !e inferred Gfrom the not inc#uded amon those specified in the Statute of ?rauds( Artic#e 120/ of the Ci$i# Code. As it does not appear to ha$e !een intended as an eEtension of the Statute of ?rauds( it must ha$e !een adopted as a su!stanti$e pro$ision or a condition precedent to reco$ery. >ur duty in this respect is not to dispute the 4isdom of the pro$isionD 4e shou#d on#y #imit ourse#$es to inCuirin into the #e is#ati$e intent( and once that is determined to ma@e said intent effecti$e. 'he ne4 pro$ision 4as e$ident#y adopted to pre$ent misunderstandin s and #iti ations !et4een contractors and o4ners. C#ear#y it 4as the intention of the #e is#ature in ma@in the amendment to reCuire authori9ation in 4ritin !efore costs of additiona# #a!or in a contract for the construction of a !ui#din may !e demanded. 3e find that the pro$ision is app#ica!#e to the circumstances surroundin the case at !ar( and 4e are duty !ound to enforce the same. 'he tria# court shou#d ha$e denied the demand for additiona# cost as directed !y the pro$isions of Artic#e 1122 of the Ci$i# Code. 3%&"&?>"&( the 4rit is here!y ranted( the decision of the Court of Appea#s re$ersed( and the action of respondent dismissed. 3ithout costs ).". *o. 2,-/ THE UNITE* STATES( p#aintiff-appe##ee( $s. GO CHICO( defendant-appe##ant. Mo'e.!n", J.:

?or additiona# 4or@ performed P-(+20./1. 6"ecord on Appea#( pp. 1+( 1,-20.7 . .ud ment for Sayson ha$in !een ordered for this amount the case 4as appea#ed to the Court of Appea#s. In said court petitioner herein a ain raised as his defense the pro$isions of Artic#e 1122 of the Ci$i# Code( !ut this court he#dF. 3e do not see any p#ausi!#e reason 4hy defendant shou#d not compensate p#aintiff for the a#terations done !y the #atter at the instance of the former 4ho has !enefited there!y. :id for such a#terations 4ere not inc#uded in the amount of P10(000.00( 4hich amount 4as computed and su!mitted in the #i ht of the appro$ed p#ans. And since these a#terations undou!ted#y entai#ed eEpenses( time and efforts on the part of the contractor( then he shou#d !e in 8ustice and eCuity to him paid for !y defendant as o4ner of the !ui#din 4here they 4ere done. It is true that there 4as no 4ritten a reement for such a#terations !ut the a!sence thereof shou#d not !e a##o4ed to ma@e the contractor poorer and the o4ner of the !ui#din richer. Defendant in tryin to 8ustify his refusa# to pay p#aintiff for the #atterGs c#aim cites the fo##o4in artic#e of the Ci$i# Code H Art. 1122. 'he contractor 4ho underta@es to !ui#d a structure or any other 4or@ for a stipu#ated price( in conformity 4ith p#ans and specifications a reed upon 4ith the #ando4ner( in neither 4ithdra4 from the contract nor demand an increase to the price on account of the hi her cost of #a!or or materia#s( sa$e 4hen there has !een a chan e in the p#ans and specifications pro$idedF 617 Such chan e has !een authori9ed !y the proprietor in 4ritin D and

'he defendant is char ed 4ith the $io#ation of section 1 of Act *o. 1-,- of the Phi#ippine Commission( 4hich reads as fo##o4sF 627 'he additiona# price to !e paid to the contractor has en determined in 4ritin !y !oth parties. Any person 4ho sha## eEpose( or cause or permit to !e eEposed( to pu!#ic $ie4 on his o4n premises( or 4ho sha## eEpose( or cause to !e eEposed( to pu!#ic $ie4( either on his o4n premises or e#se4here( any f#a ( !anner( em!#em( or de$ice used durin the

#ate insurrection in the Phi#ippine Is#ands to desi nate or identify those in armed re!e##ion a ainst the 5nited States( or any f#a ( !anner( em!#em( or de$ice used or adopted at any time !y the pu!#ic enemies of the 5nited States in the Phi#ippine Is#and for the purpose of pu!#ic disorder or of re!e##ion or insurrection a ainst the authority of the 5nited States in the Phi#ippine Is#ands( or any f#a ( !anner( em!#em( or de$ice of the =atipunan Society( or 4hich is common#y @no4n as such( sha## !e punished !y a fine of not #ess that fi$e hundred pesos for more than fi$e thousand pesos( or !y imprisonment for not #ess than three months nor more than fi$e years( or !y !oth such fine and imprisonment( in the discretion of the court. 'he defendant 4as tried in the Court of ?irst Instance of the city of ;ani#a on the +th day of Septem!er( 1,0+. After hearin the e$idence adduced the court ad8ud ed the defendant ui#ty of the crime char ed and sentenced him under that 8ud ment to pay a fine of P000( Phi#ippine currency( and to pay the costs of the action( and to suffer su!sidiary imprisonment durin the time and in the form and in the p#ace prescri!ed !y #a4 unti# said fine shou#d !e paid. ?rom that 8ud ment and sentence the defendant appea#ed to this court. A carefu# eEamination of the record !rou ht to this court disc#oses the fo##o4in factsF 'hat on or a!out the 2th day of Au ust( 1,0+( in the city of ;ani#a( the appe##ant )o Chico disp#ayed in one of the 4indo4s and one of the sho4 cases of his store( *o. +, Ca##e "osario( a num!er of meda##ions( in the form of a sma## !utton( upon the faces of 4hich 4ere imprinted in miniature the picture of &mi#io A uina#do( and the f#a or !anner or de$ice used durin the #ate insurrection in the Phi#ippine Is#ands to desi nate and identify those in armed insurrection a ainst the 5nited States. >n the day pre$ious to the one a!o$e set forth the appe##ant had purchased the stoc@ of oods in said store( of 4hich the meda##ions formed a part( at a pu!#ic sa#e made under authority of the sheriff of the city of ;ani#a. >n the day in Cuestion( the 2th of Au ust aforesaid( the appe##ant 4as arran in his stoc@ of oods for the purpose of disp#ayin them to the pu!#ic and in so doin p#aced in his sho4case and in one of the 4indo4s of his store the meda##ions descri!ed. 'he appe##ant 4as i norant of the eEistence of a #a4 a ainst the disp#ay of the meda##ions in Cuestion and had conseCuent#y no corrupt intention. 'he facts a!o$e stated are admitted. 'he appe##ant rests his ri ht to acCuitta# upon t4o propositionsF ?irst. 'hat !efore a con$iction under the #a4 cited can !e had( a crimina# intent upon the part of the accused must !e pro$ed !eyond a reasona!#e dou!t. Second. 'hat the prohi!ition of the #a4 is directed a ainst the use of the identica# !anners( de$ices( or em!#ems actua##y used durin the Phi#ippine insurrection !y those in armed re!e##ion a ainst the 5nited States. In the opinion of this court it is not necessary that the appe##ant shou#d ha$e acted 4ith the crimina# intent. In many crimes( made such !y statutory enactment( the intention of the person 4ho commits the crime is entire#y immateria#. 'his is necessari#y so. If it 4ere not( the statute as a deterrent inf#uence 4ou#d !e su!stantia##y 4orth#ess. It 4ou#d !e impossi!#e of eEecution. In many cases the act comp#ained of is itse#f that 4hich produces the pernicious effect 4hich the statute see@s to a$oid. In those cases the pernicious effect is produced 4ith precise#y the same force and resu#t 4hether the intention of the person performin the act is ood or !ad. 'he case at !ar is a perfect i##ustration of this. 'he disp#ay of a f#a or em!#em used particu#ar#y 4ithin a recent period( !y the enemies of the )o$ernment tends to incite resistance to o$ernmenta# functions and insurrection a ainst o$ernmenta# authority 8ust as effecti$e#y if made in the !est of ood faith as if made 4ith the most corrupt intent. 'he disp#ay itse#f( 4ithout the inter$ention of any other factor( is the e$i#. It is Cuite different from that #ar e c#ass of crimes( made such !y the common #a4 or !y statute( in 4hich the in8urious effect upon the pu!#ic depends upon the corrupt intention of the person perpetratin the act. If A dischar es a #oaded un and @i##s :( the interest 4hich society has in the act depends( not upon :Gs death( upon the intention 4ith 4hich A consummated the act. If the un 4ere dischar ed intentiona##y( 4ith the purpose of accomp#ishin the death of :( then society has !een in8ured and its security $io#atedD !ut if the un 4as dischar ed accidenta##y on the part of A( then society( strict#y spea@in ( has no concern in the matter( e$en thou h the death of : resu#ts. 'he reason for this is that A does not !ecome a dan er to society and institutions unti# he !ecomes a person 4ith a corrupt mind. 'he mere dischar e of the un and the death of : do not of themse#$es ma@e him so. 3ith those t4o facts must o the corrupt intent to @i##. In the case at !ar( ho4e$er( the e$i# to society and the )o$ernmenta# does not depend upon the state of mind of the one 4ho disp#ays the !anner( !ut upon the effect 4hich that disp#ay has upon the pu!#ic mind. In the one case the pu!#ic is affected !y the intention of the actorD in the other !y the act itse#f.

It is stated in $o#ume 12 of Cyc.( pa e 12+( that H 'he #e is#ature( ho4e$er( may for!id the doin of an act and ma@e its commission a crime 4ithout re ard to the intent of the doer( and if such an intention appears the courts must i$e it effect a#thou h the intention may ha$e !een innocent. 3hether or not in a i$en case the statute is to !e so construed is to !e determined !y the court !y considerin the su!8ect-matter of the prohi!ition as 4e## as the #an ua e of the statute( and thus ascertainin the intention of the #e is#ature. In the case of %he People vs. :i-ler 610- *.Y. /217 the defendant 4as char ed 4ith the sa#e of adu#terated mi#@ under a statute readin as fo##o4sF *o person or persons sha## se## or eEchan e or eEpose for sa#e or eEchan e any impure( unhea#thy( adu#terated( of un4ho#esome mi#@. It 4as pro$ed in that case that one Vande!ur purchased at the defendantGs store 1 pint of mi#@ 4hich 4as sho4n to contain a $ery sma## percenta e of 4ater more than that permitted !y the statute. 'here 4as no dispute a!out the facts( !ut the o!8ection made !y the defendant 4as that he 4as not a##o4ed( upon the tria#( to sho4 an a!sence of crimina# intent( or to o the 8ury upon the Cuestion 4hether it eEisted( !ut 4as condemned under a char e from the court 4hich made his intent tota##y immateria# and his ui#t consist in ha$in so#d the adu#terated artic#e 4hether he @ne4 it or not and ho4e$er carefu##y he may ha$e sou ht to @eep on hand and se## the enuine artic#e. 'he opinion of the court in that case saysF As the #a4 stands( @no4#ed e or intention forms no e#ements of the offense. 'he act a#one( irrespecti$e of its moti$e( constitutes the crime. EEE EEE EEE It is notorious that the adu#teration of food products has ro4n to proportions so enormous as to menace the hea#th and safety of the peop#e. In enuity @eeps pace 4ith reed( and the care#ess and heed#ess consumers are eEposed to increasin peri#s. 'o redress such e$i#s is a p#ain duty !ut a difficu#t tas@. &Eperience has tau ht the #esson that repressi$e measures 4hich depend for their efficiency upon proof of the dea#erGs @no4#ed e or of his intent to decei$e and defraud are of tit#e use and rare#y accomp#ish their purpose. Such an emer ency may 8ustify #e is#ation 4hich thro4s upon the se##er the entire responsi!i#ity of the purity and soundness of 4hat he se##s and compe#s him to @no4 and certain. In the case of *ar(ner vs. %he People 6-2 *.Y. 2,,7 the Cuestion arose under a statute 4hich pro$ided that an inspector of e#ections of the city of *e4 Yor@ shou#d not !e remo$ed from office eEcept Iafter notice in 4ritin to the officer sou ht to !e remo$ed( 4hich notice sha## set forth c#ear#y and distinct#y the reasons for his remo$a#(I and further pro$ided that any person 4ho remo$ed such an officer 4ithout such notice shou#d !e ui#ty of a misdemeanor. An officer named Sheridan 4as remo$ed !y )ardener( the defendant( 4ithout notice. )ardener 4as arrested and con$icted of a misdemeanor under the statute. %e appea#ed from the 8ud ment of con$iction and the opinion from 4hich the fo##o4in Cuotation is made 4as 4ritten upon the decision of that appea#. Chief .ustice Church( 4ritin the opinion of the court( says in re#ation to crimina# intentF In short( the defense 4as an honest misconstruction of the #a4 under #e a# de$ice. 'he court ru#ed out the e$idence offered( and he#d that intentiona##y doin the act prohi!ited constituted the offense. It is Cuite c#ear that the facts offered to !e sho4n( if true( 4ou#d re#ie$e the defendant from the imputation of a corrupt intent( and( indeed( from any intent to $io#ate the statute. 'he defendants made a mista@e of #a4. Such mista@es do not eEcuse the commission of prohi!ited acts. I'he ru#e on the su!8ect appears to !e( that in acts mala in se( intent o$erns !ut in those mala prohi-ita( the on#y inCuiry is( has the #a4 !een $io#atedM EEE EEE EEE 'he authorities seem to esta!#ish that sustain and indictment for doin a prohi!ited act( it is sufficient to pro$e that the act 4as @no4in #y and intentiona##y done. EEE EEE EEE

intention. 'he court saidF In this case( if the defendants cou#d ha$e sho4n that they !e#ie$ed that in fact notice had !een i$en to the inspector( a#thou h it had not( they 4ou#d not ha$e !een ui#ty of the offense( !ecause the intention to do the act 4ou#d ha$e !een 4antin . 'heir p#ea isF 'rue( 4e intended to remo$e the inspector 4ithout notice( !ut 4e thou ht the #a4 permitted it. 'his 4as a mista@e of #a4( and is not strict#y a defense. EEE EEE EEE If the offense is mere#y technica#( the punishment can !e made correspondin #y nomina#D 4hi#e a ru#e reCuirin proof of a crimina# intent to $io#ate the statute( independent of an intent to do the act 4hich the statute dec#ares sha## constitute the offense( 4ou#d( in many cases( pre$ent the restrainin inf#uence 4hich the statute 4as desi ned to secure. In the case of ;ie(ler vs. 2arrin 600 *.Y. 2/17 the court saysF :ut 4hen an act is i##e a#( the intent of the offender is immateria#. In the case of %he Commonwealth vs. +urphy 61-0 ;ass. --7 the court saysF In enera#( it may !e said that there must !e malus animus( or a crimina# intent. :ut there is a #ar e c#ass of cases in 4hich( on rounds of pu!#ic po#icy( certain acts are made punisha!#e 4ithout proof that the defendant understands the facts that i$e character to his act. In such cases it is deemed !est to reCuire e$ery!ody at his peri# to ascertain 4hether his act comes 4ithin the #e is#ati$e prohi!ition. EEE EEE EEE Considerin the nature of the offense( the purpose to !e accomp#ished( the practica# methods a$ai#a!#e for the enforcement of the #a4( and such other matters as thro4 #i ht upon the meanin of the #an ua e( the Cuestion in interpretin a crimina# statute is 4hether the intention of the #e is#ature 4as to ma@e @no4#ed e of the facts an essentia# e#ement of the offense( or to put upon e$eryone the !urden of findin out 4hether his contemp#ated act is prohi!ited( and of refrainin from it if it is. In the case of Halste( vs. %he "tate 621 *...L. 002D /2 Am. "ep. 2217( the Cuestion of a crimina# intent arose under a statute( under 4hich the defendant 4as con$icted of a crime( pro$idin that if any to4nship committee or other !ody sha## dis!urse or $ote for the dis!ursement of pu!#ic moneys in eEcess of appropriations made for the purpose( the persons constitutin such !oard sha## !e ui#ty of a crime. 'he defendant 4as one 4ho $io#ated this #a4 !y $otin to incur o!#i ations in eEcess of the appropriation. %e 4as con$icted and appea#ed and the opinion from 4hich the Cuotation is ta@en 4as 4ritten upon a decision of that appea#. 'hat court saysF 3hen the State had c#osed( the defense offered to sho4 that the defendant( in aidin in the passa e and effectuation of the reso#ution 4hich I ha$e pronounced to !e i##e a#( did so under the ad$ice of counse# and in ood faith( and from pure and honest moti$es( and that he therein eEercise due care and caution. EEE EEE EEE As there is an undou!ted competency in the #a4ma@er to dec#are an act crimina#( irrespecti$e of the @no4#ed e or moti$e of the doer of such act( there can !e of necessity( no 8udicia# authority ha$in the po4er to reCuire( in the enforcement of the #a4( such @no4#ed e or moti$e to !e sho4n. In such instances the entire function of the court is to find out the intention of the #e is#ature( and to enforce the #a4 in a!so#ute conformity to such intention. And in #oo@in o$er the decided cases on the su!8ect it 4i## !e found that in the considered ad8udications this inCuiry has !een the 8udicia# uide. In the case of Re) vs. #g(en 6- C. N P. -/1D 20 &.C.L. -117( the prisoner 4as indicted for un#a4fu##y transposin from one piece of 4rou ht p#ate to another the #ion-poisson contrary to the statutes. It 4as conceded that the act 4as done 4ithout any fraudu#ent In the case of the Commonwealth vs. <eiss 61/, Pa. St. 2217( the Cuestion arose on an appea# !y the defendant from a 8ud ment reCuirin him to pay a pena#ty for a $io#ation of the statute of the State 4hich pro$ided that any person 4ou#d !e #ia!#e to pay a pena#ty I4ho sha## manufacture( se##( or offer or eEpose for sa#e( or ha$e in his possession 4ith intent to se##(I o#eomar arine( etc. At the tria# the defendant reCuested the court to instruct the in8ury that if they !e#ie$ed( from the e$idence( that the defendant did not @no4in #y furnish or authori9e to !e furnished( or @ne4 of there furnished( to any of his customers any o#eomar arine( !ut( as far as he @ne4( furnished enuine !utter( then the $erdict must !e for the defendant. 'he court refused to ma@e the char e as reCuested and that is the on#y point upon 4hich the defendant appea#ed Boyr0"1VrC. 'he court saysF 'he prohi!ition is a!so#ute and enera#D it cou#d not !e eEpressed in terms more eEp#icit and comprehensi$e. 'he statutory definition of the offense em!races no 4ord imp#yin that the for!idden act sha## !e done @no4in #y or 4i##fu##y( and if it did( the desi ned purpose of the act 4ou#d !e practica##y defeated. 'he intention of the #e is#ature is p#ain( that persons en a ed in the traffic so en a e in it at their peri# and that they can not set up their i norance of the nature and Cua#ities of the commodities they se##( as a defense. 'he fo##o4in authorities are to the same effectF State $s. )ou#d 620 Ia. /127D Common4ea#th $s. ?arren 6, A##en 2+,7D Common4ea#th $s. *icho#s 610 A##en 1,,7D Common4ea#th $s. :oyton 62 A##en 1-07D 3hartonGs Crimina# La4( section 2222D Common4ea#th $s. Se##ers 61/0 Pa. /27D / )reen#eaf on &$idence( section 21D ?arre## $s. 'he State 6/2 >hio State 20-7D :ee@man $s. Anthony 60- ;iss. 22-7D 'he Peop#e $s. "o!y 602 ;ich. 0117. It is c#ear from the authorities cited that in the act under consideration the #e is#ature did not intend that a crimina# intent shou#d !e a necessary e#ement of the crime. 'he statutory definition of the offense em!races no 4ord imp#yin that the prohi!ited act sha## !e done @no4in #y or 4i##fu##y. 'he 4ordin is p#ain. 'he Act means 4hat it says. *othin is #eft to the interpretation. Care must !e eEercised in distin uishin the differences !et4een the intent to commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate the act. 'he accused did not conscious#y intend to commit a crimeD !ut he did intend to commit an act( and the act is( !y the $ery nature of thin s( the crime itse#f H intent and a##. 'he 4ordin of the #a4 is such that the intent and the act are insepara!#e. 'he act is the crime. 'he accused intended to put the de$ice in his 4indo4. *othin more is reCuired to commit the crime. 3e do not !e#ie$e that the second proposition of the accused( name#y( that the #a4 is app#ica!#e on#y to the identica# !anners( etc.( actua##y used in the #ate insurrection( and not to dup#icates of those !anners( can !e sustained. It is impossi!#e that the Commission shou#d ha$e intended to prohi!it the disp#ay of the f#a or f#a s actua##y used in the insurrection( and( at the same time( permit eEact dup#icates thereof 6sa$in ( perhaps( si9e7 to !e disp#ayed 4ithout hindrance. In the case !efore us( to say that the disp#ay of a certain !anner is a crime and that the disp#ay of its eEact dup#icate is not is to say nonsense. 'he ru#es o$ernin the interpretation of statutes are ru#es of construction not destruction. 'o i$e the interpretation contended for !y the appe##ant 4ou#d( as to this particu#ar pro$ision( nu##ify the statute a#to ether. 'he 4ords Iused durin the #ate insurrection in the Phi#ippine Is#ands to desi nate or identity those in armed re!e##ion a ainst the 5nited StatesI mean not on#y the identica# f#a s actua##y used in the insurrection( !ut any f#a 4hich is of that type. 'his It is a mista@en notion that positi$e( 4i##fu# intent to $io#ate the crimina# #a4 is an essentia# in redient in e$ery crimina# offense( and that 4here is an a!sence of such intent there is no offenseD this is especia##y true as to statutory offenses. 3hen the statute p#ain#y for!ids an act to !e done( and it is done !y some person( the #a4 imp#ies conc#usi$e#y the ui#ty intent( a#thou h the offender 4as honest#y mista@en as to the meanin of the #a4 he $io#ates. 3hen the #an ua e is p#ain and positi$e( and the offense is not made to depend upon the positi$e( 4i##fu# intent and purpose( nothin is #eft to interpretation. 'here are no 4ords in the act of Par#iament referrin to any fraudu#ent intention. 'he 4ords of it are( GSha## transpose or remo$e( or cause of procure to !e transposed or remo$ed( from one piece of 4rou ht p#ate to another. In the case of %he "tate vs. +c1rayer 6,+ *.C. -2/7 the court statedF

description refers not to a particu#ar f#a ( !ut to a type of f#a . 'hat phrase 4as used !ecause there 4as and is no other 4ay of descri!in that type of f#a . 3hi#e different 4ords mi ht !e emp#oyed( accordin to the taste of the draftsman( the method of description 4ou#d ha$e to !e the same. 'here is no concrete 4ord @no4n !y 4hich that f#a cou#d !e apt#y or proper#y descri!ed. 'here 4as no opportunity( 4ithin the scope of a #e is#ati$e enactment( to descri!e the physica# detai#s. It had no characteristics 4hate$er( apart from its use in the insurrection( !y 4hich it cou#d( in such enactment( !e identified. 'he reat and the on#y characteristic 4hich it had upon the 4hich the Commission cou#d sei9e as a means of description and identification 4as the fact that it 4as used in the insurrection. 'here 4as( therefore( a!so#ute#y no 4ay in 4hich the Commission cou#d( in the Act( descri!e the f#a eEcept !y recitin 4here and ho4 it 4as used. It must not !e for otten that the Commission( !y the 4ords and phrases used( 4as not attemptin to descri!e a particu#ar f#a ( !ut a type of f#a . 'hey 4ere not descri!in a f#a used upon a particu#ar fie#d or in a certain !att#e( !ut a type of f#a used !y an army H a f#a under 4hich many persons ra##ied and 4hich stirred their sentiments and fee#in s 4here$er seen or in 4hate$er form it appeared. It is a mere incident of description that the f#a 4as used upon a particu#ar fie#d or in a particu#ar !att#e. 'hey 4ere descri!in the f#a not a f#a . It has a Cua#ity and si nificance and an entity apart from any p#ace 4here or form in 4hich it 4as used. Lan ua e is rare#y so free from am!i uity as to !e incapa!#e of !ein used in more than one sense( and the #itera# interpretation of a statute may #ead to an a!surdity or e$ident#y fai# to i$e the rea# intent of the #e is#ature. 3hen this is the case( resort is had to the princip#e that the spirit of a #a4 contro#s the #etter( so that a thin 4hich is 4ithin the intention of a statute is as much 4ithin the statute as if it 4ere 4ithin the #etter( and a thin 4hich is 4ithin the #etter of the statute is not 4ithin the statute un#ess it !e 4ithin the intention of the ma@ers( and the statute shou#d !e construed as to ad$ance the remedy and suppress the mischief contemp#ated !y the framers. 65.S. $s. =ir!y( 1 3a##. 2+1D State :o#den( 101 La. 11-( 11+D 5.S. $s. :uchanan( , ?ed. "ep. -+,D )reen $s. =emp( 1/ ;ass. 010D La@e Shore ". ". Co. $s. "oach( +0 *.Y. //,D De#afie#d $s. :rady( 10+ *.Y. 022 Doy#e $s. Doy#e( 00 >hio State //0.7 'he intention of the #e is#ature and the o!8ect aimed at( !ein the fundamenta# inCuiry in 8udicia# construction( are to contro# the #itera# interpretation of particu#ar #an ua e in a statute( and #an ua e capa!#e of more than one meanin is to !e ta@en in that sense 4hich 4i## harmoni9e 4ith such intention and o!8ect( and effect the purpose of the enactment. 62- Am. N &n . &ncy. of La4 -02.7 Litera##y hundreds of cases mi ht !e cited to sustain this proposition PtS0. 'he pream!#e is no part of the statute( !ut as settin out the o!8ect and intention of the #e is#ature( it is considered in the construction of an act. 'herefore( 4hene$er there is am!i uity( or 4here$er the 4ords of the act ha$e more than one meanin ( and there is no dou!t as to the su!8ect-matter to 4hich they are to !e app#ied( the pream!#e may !e used.I 65.S. $s. 5nion Pacific ". ". Co.( ,1 5.S. 12D P#att $s. 5nion Pacific ". ". Co.( ,, 5.S. 2+D ;yer $s. 3estern Car Co.( 102 5.S. 1D %o#y 'rinity Church $s. 5.S.( 12/ 5.S. 201D Coosa4 ;inin Co. $s. South Caro#ina( 122 5.S. 000D Cohn $s. :arrett( 0 Ca#. 1,0D :arnes $s. .ones( 01 Ca#. /0/D ?ie#d $s. )oodin ( 10- ;ass. /10D Peop#e $s. ;o#ineauE( 20 *.Y. 11/D Smith $s. 'he Peop#e( 21 *.Y. //0D 'he Peop#e $s. Da$enport( ,1 *.Y. 021D 'he Peop#e $s. >G:rien( 111 *.Y. 17 'he statute( then( !ein pena#( must !e construed 4ith such strictness as to carefu##y safe uard the ri hts of the defendant and at the same time preser$e the o!$ious intention of the #e is#ature. If the #an ua e !e p#ain( it 4i## !e construed as it reads( and the 4ords of the statute i$en their fu## meanin D if am!i uous( the court 4i## #ean more stron #y in fa$or of the defendant than it 4ou#d if the statute 4ere remedia#. In !oth cases it 4i## endea$or to effect su!stantia# 8ustice.I 6:o##es $s. >utin Co.( 110 5.S. 2-2( 2-0D 5.S. $s. 3i#t!er er( 0 3heat. 1-( ,0D 5.S. $s. "eese( ,2 5.S. 2127 It is said that not4ithstandin this ru#e 6the pena# statutes must !e construed strict#y7 the intention of the #a4ma@ers must o$ern in the construction of pena# as 4e## as other statutes. 'his is true( !ut this is not a ne4( independent ru#e 4hich su!$erts the o#d. It is a modification of the @no4n maEim and amounts to this -- that thou h pena# statutes are to !e construed strict#y( they are not !e construed so strict#y as to defeat the o!$ious purpose of the #e is#ature. 65.S. $s. 3i#t!er er( 0 3heat. 1-D 'ay#or $s. )ood4in( L.". 2( B.:.Ci$. 22+.7 In the #atter case it 4as he#d that under a statute 4hich imposed a pena#ty for Ifurious#y dri$in any sort of carria eI a person cou#d !e con$icted for immoderate#y dri$in a !icyc#e.

It is presumed that the #e is#ature intends to impart to its enactments such a meanin as 4i## render then operati$e and effecti$e( and to pre$ent persons from e#udin or defeatin them. Accordin #y( in case of any dou!t or o!scurity( the construction 4i## !e such as to carry out these o!8ects. 6:#ac@( Interpretation of La4s( p. 10-.7 In %he People vs. "upervisors 62/ *.Y. 1/07 the court saidF 'he occasion of the enactment of a #a4 a#4ays !e referred to in interpretin and i$in effect to it. 'he court shou#d p#ace itse#f in the situation of the #e is#ature and ascertain the necessity and pro!a!#e o!8ect of the statute( and then i$e such construction to the #an ua e used as to carry the intention of the #e is#ature into effect so far as it can !e ascertained from the terms of the statute itse#f. 65. S. $s. 5nion Pacific ". ". Co.( ,1 5.S. 12( 1,.7 3e do not !e#ie$e that in construin the statute in Cuestion there is necessity reCuirin that c#auses shou#d !e ta@en from the position i$en them and p#aced in other portions of the statute in order to i$e the 4ho#e Act a reasona!#e meanin . Lea$in a## of the c#auses #ocated as they no4 are in the statute( a reasona!#e interpretation( !ased upon the p#ain and ordinary meanin of the 4ords used( reCuires that the Act shou#d !e he#d app#ica!#e to the case at !ar. 'he 8ud ment of the court !e#o4 and the sentence imposed thereunder are here!y affirmed. So ordered.

SOLI* HOMES, INC., petitioner, vs. SPOUSES ANCHETA 8. TAN !n" CORA4ON *E JESUS TAN,respondents. *ECISION GARCIA, J.: In this appea# !y 4ay of a petition for re$ie4 on certiorari under "u#e 20 of the "u#es of Court( petitioner So#id %omes( Inc. ur es us to nu##ify and set aside the fo##o4in issuances of the Court of Appea#s in CA#G.R. SP No. %$))$ and %%$2)( to 4itF 1. *e5/0/on "!,e" M!( 2$, 2000(J1K settin aside an ear#ier decision of the >ffice of the President in a comp#aint for !reach of o!#i ation fi#ed !y the herein respondents a ainst the petitioner in connection 4ith the sa#e of a su!di$ision #otD and 2. Re0o.u,/on "!,e" Se;,e31e' 12, 2000(J2K denyin petitionerAs motion for reconsideration.

'he materia# facts( undisputed !y the parties( may !e !rief#y stated( as fo##o4sF >n Apri# 1( 1,+0( petitioner So#id %omes( Inc.( so#d to the spouses .oe 5y and ;yrna 5y a su!di$ision #ot 4ith an area of 1(0-, sCuare meters( more particu#ar#y identified as Lot 1+( :#oc@ 2( #ocated at petitionerAs Loyo#a )rand Vi##as Su!di$ision( Bue9on City. 'hereafter( the #ot 4as re istered in the name of the 5ys under 'ransfer Certificate of 'it#e 6'C'7 *o. 2+0,-/<'-120, of the "e ister of Deeds of Bue9on City. Sometime in ?e!ruary( 1,+0( the spouses 5y so#d the same #ot to herein respondents( the spouses Ancheta =. 'an and Cora9on de .esus-'an( !y reason of 4hich the former tit#e co$erin the #ot 4as cance##ed and rep#aced !y 'C' *o. "'-122-0 6/211027 in respondentsA name. ?rom then on( respondents $isited their property a num!er of times( on#y to find out the sad state of de$e#opment thereat. 'here 4as no infrastructure and uti#ity systems for 4ater( se4era e( e#ectricity and te#ephone( as announced in the appro$ed p#ans and ad$ertisements of the su!di$ision. 3orse( sCuatters occupy their #ot and its surroundin areas. In short( there has !een no de$e#opment at a##. Accordin #y( in a #etter dated Decem!er 1+( 1,,0( respondents demanded on petitioner to pro$ide the needed uti#ity systems and c#ear the area of sCuatters and other o!structions !y the end of .anuary( 1,,- to ena!#e them to start the construction of their house thereon and to a##o4 other #ot o4ners in the area a fu## access to and peacefu# possession of their respecti$e #ots(

conforma!#y 4ith P.D. *o. ,01 4hich reCuires an o4ner or de$e#oper of a su!di$ision pro8ect to de$e#op the same 4ithin one year from the issuance of its #icense. %a$in recei$ed no rep#y from petitioner( respondents fi#ed 4ith the ?ie#d >ffice of the %ousin and Land 5se "e u#atory :oard 6%L5":7( *C" a comp#aint for specific performance and dama es therein prayin ( inter alia( that petitioner !e ordered to pro$ide the needed faci#ities in the premises and rid the same of sCuattersD or( in the a#ternati$e( for petitioner to rep#ace respondentsA property 4ith another #ot in the same su!di$ision 4here there are faci#ities and sans sCuatters. After due proceedin s( the %ousin and Land 5se Ar!iter( in a decision dated Septem!er 11( 1,,-( J/K rendered 8ud ment for the respondents !y directin petitionerF a. to perform its o!#i ation to pro$ide su!di$ision faci#ities in the su!8ect premises and to rid the premises of sCuatters. In the a#ternati$e( at the option of comp#ainants EEE to rep#ace su!8ect #ot 4ith a #ot of simi#ar si9e and 4ith a$ai#a!#e faci#ities( #ocated in the su!8ect su!di$ision. !. to pay comp#ainants P20(000.00 as and !y 4ay of attorneyAs fees.

3%&"&?>"&( Premises Considered( the assai#ed Decision dated 0/ .une 1,,, is here!y SET ASI*E and the Decision of the %L5": dated 1- Apri# 1,,1 is here!y AFFIRME* su-.ect to the mo(ification that if there is no more a$ai#a!#e #ot in Loyo#a )rand Vi##as to rep#ace su!8ect #ot( So#id %omes( Inc. shou#d pay the spouses 'an the current mar@et $a#ue of their #ot. S> >"D&"&D. 'his time( petitioner mo$ed for reconsideration !ut its motion 4as denied !y the same court in its 'e0o.u,/on o2 Se;,e31e' 12, 2000.J+K %ence( petitionerAs present recourse( contendin that the Court of Appea#s erred P 1. LLL I* "5LI*) '%A' P"&SC"IP'I>* %AS *>' S&'-I*D

2. LLL I* APPLYI*) '%& P"I*CIPL& >* &B5I'Y AS A)AI*S' P>SI'IV& LA3 '> '%& P"&.5DIC& >? %&"&I* P&'I'I>*&"D A*D /. LLL I* "5LI*) '%A' P&'I'I>*&" S%>5LD PAY "&SP>*D&*'S '%& C5""&*' ;A"=&' VAL5& >? '%& L>' I* B5&S'I>*. 3e *EN+. 'he errors assi ned actua##y simmered do4n to on#y t4o 627 issues( name#yF B!C 4hether or not respondentsA ri ht to !rin the instant case a ainst petitioner has a#ready prescri!edD and B/C in the e$ent respondents opt to rescind the contract( shou#d petitioner pay them mere#y the price they paid for the #ot p#us interest or the current mar@et $a#ue thereof. In the matter of prescription( it is petitionerAs posture that respondentsA ri ht to !rin the action a ainst it has a#ready prescri!ed( ar uin that the 10-year prescripti$e period therefor shou#d !e rec@oned from Apri# 1( 1,+0 4hen petitioner ori ina##y so#d the #ot in Cuestion to the spouses .oe 5y and ;yrna 5y( or( at the #atest from ?e!ruary( 1,+0( 4hen respondents acCuired the same #ot from the 5y spouses. %ence( and as respondentsA action 4as fi#ed 4ith the %L5": ?ie#d >ffice on#y on Apri# 1( 1,,- or after more than ten 6107 years( it fo##o4s that the same 4as fi#ed out of time and( therefore( ou ht to ha$e !een dismissed. 3e disa ree.

In the same decision( the Ar!iter dismissed the comp#aint a ainst petitionerAs co-defendant( Purita So#i$en. Dissatisfied( petitioner 4ent on appea# to the %L5": :oard of Commissioners( 4hich( in a decision dated Apri# 1-( 1,,1( J2K affirmed that of the Ar!iter. ?rom there( petitioner e#e$ated the case to the >ffice of the President 6>.P.7. In a decisionJ0K dated .une /( 1,,,( the >.P.( thru then &Eecuti$e Secretary "ona#do :. Oamora( affirmed 4ith modification the appea#ed decision of the %L5": :oard of Commissioners( thusF 3%&"&?>"&( premises considered( the first para raph of the decision appea#ed from is here!y AFFIRME* with the mo(ification that in case "oli( Homes, &nc. fails to replace su-.ect lot with a lot of similar si=e an( with availa-le facilities locate( in the su-(ivision, -ecause it ha( alrea(y sol( or transferre( all of its properties in the su-(ivision, it shall pay spouses Ancheta %an an( Cora=on %an the total amount receive( from them as purchase price, with legal rate of interest from ;e-ruary !3>?, until fully pai(. "ave for this mo(ification, the (ecision appeale( from is here-y AFFIRMED. S> >"D&"&D 6Ita#ics( ours7. >n .une 20( 1,,,( respondents fi#ed a motion for partia# reconsideration of the aforementioned decision( prayin for the de#etion of that portion thereof i$in petitioner the option of mere#y payin them the ;u'5-!0e ;'/5e 4ith interest in the e$ent petitioner @fails to replace su-.ect lot with a lot of similar si=e an( with availa-le facilities locate( in the su-(ivision, -ecause it ha( alrea(y sol( or transferre( all of its properties in the su-(ivision.A "espondents ar ued that it 4ou#d !e more in accord 4ith eCuity and fair p#ay if they 4i## !e paid the 2!/' 3!'<e, =!.ue of the #ot in Cuestion and not mere#y its purchase price( shou#d there !e no a$ai#a!#e #ot 4ith faci#ities in the area. %o4e$er( in a reso#ution dated Septem!er 22( 1,,,(J-K >.P. denied respondentsA motion. :oth parties then 4ent to the Court of Appea#s via their respecti$e petitions for re$ie4( thereat separate#y doc@eted as CA# G.R. SP No. %$))$ 6for petitioners7 and CA#G.R. SP No. %%$2) 6for respondent7. Pursuant to Section 1( "u#e /1 of the "u#es of the Court( the appe##ate court ordered the conso#idation of the t4o 627 petitions. As stated at the thresho#d hereof( the Court of Appea#s( in its conso#idated "e5/0/on "!,e" M!( 2$, 2000(J1K set aside that of the >.P. and affirmed the ear#ier decision dated Apri# 1-( 1,,1 of the %L5": :oard of Commissioners( !ut su!8ect to the modification that petitioner sha## pay respondents the 5u''en, 3!'<e, =!.ue of the #ot( not mere#y its purchase price( shou#d there !e no more a$ai#a!#e #ots 4ith faci#ities in petitionerAs Loyo#a )rand Vi##as Su!di$ision. 3e Cuote the decreta# portion of the appe##ate courtAs decisionF

'here can !e no de!ate at a## on the #e a# postu#ate that the prescripti$e period for !rin in action for specific performance( as here( prescri!es in ten 6107 years. 'his is so pro$ided in Artic#e 1122 of the Ci$i# Code. 3hat 4e cannot a ree on 4ith the petitioner( and a!out 4hich petitioner is in serious error( is its su!mission that the 10-year prescripti$e period shou#d commence either on Apri# 1( 1,+0( 4hen petitioner ori ina##y so#d the #ot to spouses 5yD or in ?e!ruary( 1,+0( 4hen the respondents thereafter !ou ht the same #ot from the 5y coup#e. >!$ious#y( petitioner misread Artic#e 1122 4hich specifica##y pro$ides that the 10-year period therein referred to commences to run on#y from the time the ri ht of action accrues. 3e Cuote in fu## the coda# pro$ision re#ied upon !y petitionerF Artic#e 1122. 'he fo##o4in actions must !e !rou ht 4ithin ,en (e!'0 2'o3 ,-e ,/3e ,-e '/9-, o2 !5,/on !55'ue0 F 617 627 6/7 5pon a 4ritten contractD 5pon an o!#i ation created !y #a4D 5pon a 8ud ment 6&mphasis supp#ied7.

If not on a 4ritten contract( petitionerAs o!#i ation to introduce impro$ements on the area in Cuestion arises from #a4( more specifica##y P.D. ,01( as amended !y P.D. 121-( Section /1 of 4hich pertinent#y readsF S&C'I>* /1. Roa(s, Alleys, "i(ewal5s an( #pen "paces. P 'he o4ner as de$e#oper of a su!di$ision sha## pro$ide adeCuate roads( a##eys and side4a#@s. ?or su!di$ision pro8ects one 617 hectare or more( the o4ner or de$e#oper sha## reser$e thirty percent 6/0Q7 of the ross area for open space. 'he neEt inCuiry( then( is 4hen the respondentsA cause of action accrued. >ur ear#ier ru#in in 1anco ;ilipino "avings an( +ortgage 1an5 vs. CAJ,K pro$ides the ans4erF 'hus( the period of prescription of any action is rec@oned on#y from the date the cause of action accrued. An" ! 5!u0e o2 !5,/on !'/0e0 >-en ,-!, >-/5- 0-ou." -!=e 1een "one /0 no, "one, o' ,-!, >-/5- 0-ou." no, -!=e 1een "one /0 "one . 'he period shou#d not !e made to retroact to the date of eEecution of the contract on .anuary 10( 1,10 as c#aimed !y the petitioner for at that time( there 4ou#d !e no 4ay for the respondents to @no4 of the $io#ation of their ri hts. 'he Court of Appea#s therefore correct#y found that respondentsA cause of action accrued on >cto!er /0( 1,1+( the date they recei$ed the statement of account sho4in the increased rate of interest( for it 4as on#y from that moment that they disco$ered the petitionerAs uni#atera# increase thereof. 3e Cuote 4ith appro$a# the pertinent portions of the Court of Appea#s decision as fo##o4sF It is the #e a# possi!i#ity of !rin in the action that determines the startin point for the computation of the period of prescription. J10K In fine( the ten-year prescripti$e period is to !e rec@oned from the accrua# of the Appe##eeAs ri ht of action( not necessari#y on the $ery date of the eEecution of the contracts su!8ect of the action J11K6&mphasis supp#ied7 In #a4( a cause of action eEists 4hen the fo##o4in reCuisites concur( to 4itF B!C a ri ht in fa$or of the p#aintiff !y 4hate$er means and under 4hate$er #a4 it arises or is createdD B/C an o!#i ation on the part on the defendant to respect such ri htD and B'C an act or omission on the part of such defendant $io#ati$e of the ri ht of the p#aintiff. J12K 'ime and a ain( 4e ha$e emphasi9ed that it is on#y upon the happenin of the #ast e#ement 4hen it can !e said that a cause of action has arisen. In short( it is from the time an act is performed or an omission incurred 4hich is $io#ati$e of the p#aintiffAs ri ht( that si na#s the accrua# of a cause of action. And it is from that time that the 10-year prescripti$e period commences to run. %ere( it 4as on#y on Decem!er 1+( 1,,0 4hen respondents made a 4ritten demand upon petitioner to construct su!di$ision roads( put up uti#ity faci#ities and rid the premises of sCuatters( o!#i ations 4hich are unCuestiona!#y in the nature of an o-ligation to (o. And under Artic#e 11-, J1/K of the Code( a party 4ho is under o!#i ation to do somethin incurs de#ay on#y from the time that the o!#i ee demands( either 8udicia##y or eEtra8udicia##y( for the fu#fi##ment of the o!#i ation. Parenthetica##y( and as 4e ha$e said in "ocial "ecurity "ystem vs. +oonwal5 2evelopment an( Housing Corporation, et al. (J12K an o!#i or $io#ates his o!#i ation to the o!#i ee from the time the #atter made a demand for performance( 4hich demand a#so mar@s the point of time 4hen the former incurs mora or de#ayF 'he de!tor( therefore( $io#ates the o!#i ation in point of time if there is mora or de#ay. *o4( there is no mora or de#ay un#ess there is a demand. It is note4orthy that in the present case durin a## the period 4hen the principa# o!#i ation 4as sti## su!sistin ( a#thou h there 4ere #ate amorti9ations there 4as no demand made !y the creditor( p#aintiff-appe##ant for the payment of the pena#ty. 'herefore up to the time of the #etter of p#aintiff-appe##ant there 4as no demand for the payment of the pena#ty( hence the de!tor 4as not in mora in the payment of the pena#ty. %ence( a!sent any demand from the o!#i ee( the o!#i or does not incur de#ay. And so #on as the o!#i or does not incur in de#ay( he cannot !e said to !e ui#ty of some omission $io#ati$e of the o!#i eeAs ri hts. ConseCuent#y( as #on as the o!#i or is not ui#ty of some omission $io#ati$e of the o!#i eeAs ri hts( the #atter has no cause of action a ainst the former. As a resu#t( the prescripti$e period 4ithin 4hich the o!#i ee may !rin an action a ainst the o!#i or does not commence to run unti# a demand is made.

3ith the rea#ity that in this case( respondents made their 4ritten demand upon petitioner to perform 4hat is incum!ent upon it on#y on Decem!er 1+( 1,,0( it 4as on#y from that date 4hen the 10-year prescripti$e period under Artic#e 1122 commenced to run. And since respondentsA comp#aint for specific performance 4as fi#ed 4ith the ?ie#d >ffice of the %L5": on#y on Apri# 1( 1,,-( or #ess than four 627 months after the date of their demand( petitionerAs re#iance on prescription of action is simp#y 4ithout any #e to stand on. 'his !rin s us to the second Cuestion. Petitioner su!mits as erroneous the appe##ate courtAs ru#in that @6e79uity an( .ustice (ictate that the in.ure( party shoul( -e pai( the mar5et value of the lot, otherwise, respon(ents "oli( Homes, &nc. D Purita "oliven woul( enrich themselves at the e)pense of herein lot owners when they sell the same lot at the present mar5et valueA. 'o petitioner( eCuity may !e a$ai#ed of on#y in the a!sence of and ne$er a ainst statutory #a4 or 8udicia# ru#es of procedure. It then in$o@es Artic#e 1/+0 of the *e4 Ci$i# Code( 4hich pro$idesF Artic#e 1/+0. "escission creates the o!#i ation to return the thin s 4hich 4ere the o!8ect of the contract( to ether 4ith their fruits( and the price 4ith its interestsD conseCuent#y( it can !e carried out on#y 4hen he 4ho demands rescission can return 4hate$er he may !e o!#i ed to restore. >n surface( petitionerAs ar ument appears infa##i!#e. %o4e$er( a c#oser #oo@ at our #a4s and the reason and spirit !ehind their enactment( as 4e## as esta!#ished 8urisprudence( ne ates petitionerAs thesis. It is true that this Court ha$e( in the past( app#ied the pro$ision of Artic#e 1/+0 to cases of rescission due to !reach of o!#i ation under Artic#e 11,1.J10K :ut this not4ithstandin ( the Court finds no reason to a#ter the ru#in of the Court of Appea#s. In many instances( this Court has refused to app#y the #itera# import of a particu#ar pro$ision of #a4 4hen to do so 4ou#d #ead to un8ust( unfair and a!surd resu#ts. After a##( it is the function of courts to see to it that 8ustice is dispensed( fairness is o!ser$ed and a!surdity pre$ented. So it is that in Commissioner of &nternal Revenue vs. "oli(-an5 Corporation (J1-K 4e made the fo##o4in pronouncementF A ./,e'!. !;;./5!,/on o2 !n( ;!', o2 ! 0,!,u,e /0 ,o 1e 'e?e5,e" /2 /, >/.. o;e'!,e un?u0,.(, .e!" ,o !10u'" 'e0u.,0, o' 5on,'!"/5, ,-e e=/"en, 3e!n/n9 o2 ,-e 0,!,u,e ,!<en !0 ! >-o.e. 5n#i@e the CA( 4e find that the #itera# app#ication of the aforesaid sections of the 'aE Code and its imp#ementin re u#ations does not operate un8ust#y or contradict the e$ident meanin of the statute ta@en as a 4ho#e. *either does it #ead to a!surd resu#ts. Indeed( our courts are not to i$e 4ords meanin s that 4ou#d #ead to a!surd or unreasona!#e conseCuences. 3e ha$e repeated#y he#d thusF EEE @S,!,u,e0 0-ou." 'e5e/=e ! 0en0/1.e 5on0,'u5,/on, 0u5- !0 >/.. 9/=e e22e5, ,o ,-e .e9/0.!,/=e /n,en,/on !n" 0o !0 ,o !=o/" !n un?u0, o' !n !10u'" 5on5.u0/on. 6&mphasis supp#ied.7 3ere 4e to fo##o4 the #etter of Artic#e 1/+0( 4e 4i## in effect !e pa$in the 4ay to an a!surd situation 4here!y su!di$ision de$e#opers 4ho ha$e rene ed on their contractua# and #e a# o!#i ation to pro$ide uti#ity systems and faci#ities for the use of su!di$ision #ot o4ners may themse#$es profit from their $ery o4n 4ron s and shortcomin s. In the curt #an ua e of the Court of Appea#s( to 4hich 4e are in fu## accordF Indeed( there 4ou#d !e un8ust enrichment if respondents "oli( Homes, &nc. D Purita "oliven are made to pay on#y the purchase price p#us interest. It is definite that the $a#ue of the su!8ect property a#ready esca#ated after a#most t4o decades from the time the petitioner paid for it. &Cuity and 8ustice dictate that the in8ured party shou#d !e paid the mar@et $a#ue of the #ot( other4ise( respondents So#id %omes( Inc. N Purita So#i$en 4ou#d enrich themse#$es at the eEpense of herein #ot o4ners 4hen they se## the same #ot at the present mar@et $a#ue. Sure#y( such a situation shou#d not !e countenanced for to do so 4ou#d !e contrary to reason and therefore( unconsciona!#e. >$er time( courts ha$e reco ni9ed 4ith a#most pedantic adherence that 4hat is incon$enient or contrary to reason is not a##o4ed in #a4.

'he fore oin scenario !ecomes e$en more into#era!#e 4hen it is considered that P.D. ,0, 4as issued precise#y as a measure a ainst su!di$ision o4ners( de$e#opers( operators and<or se##ers 4ho rene ed on their o!#i ation to pro$ide the needed uti#ity systems and faci#ities in their su!di$isions. As eEpressed in one of the decreeAs 4hereas c#ausesF 3%&"&AS( numerous reports re$ea# that many rea# estate su!di$ision o4ners( de$e#opers( operators and<or se##ers ha$e rene ed on their representations and o!#i ations to pro$ide and maintain proper#y su!di$ision roads( draina e( se4era e( 4ater systems( #i htin systems( and other simi#ar !asic reCuirements( thus endan erin the hea#th and safety of home and #ot !uyers. AHEREFORE( the instant petition is D&*I&D and the assai#ed decision and reso#ution of the Court of Appea#s A??I";&D. Costs a ainst petitioner. SO OR*ERE*. THE UNITE* STATES, p#aintiff-appe##ee( $s. ALEJO PAGUIRAN, defendant-appe##ant. ELLIOTT, J.: 'he defendant Pa uiri an( char ed 4ith ha$in threatened to @i## Sotero Pascua( Vicente ;arCue9( and ;aEimo Lope9( 4as con$icted and sentenced under the second part of artic#e 2,2 of the Pena# Code to one month and one day of arresto mayor( and to pay a fine of /20 pesetas( and in case of inso#$ency( to suffer su!sidiary imprisonment at the rate of 12 R pesetas a day( said su!sidiary imprisonment not to eEceed ten days( and to pay the costs of this prosecution. 'he court found no eEtenuatin or a ra$atin circumstances( and a$e the defendant the !enefit of artic#e 11 of the Pena# Code( for the purpose of reducin the pena#ty from the medium to the minimum de ree. 'he offense 4as not a serious one( and there is nothin in the e$idence to sho4 that the defendant e$er rea##y contemp#ated carryin his threat into effect. 'he men 4ere en a ed in transp#antin rice upon #and 4hich 4as c#aimed !y the defendant. 3hi#e they 4ere at 4or@ the defendant appeared( and f#ourishin a cane in an eEcited manner( ordered them to stop their 4or@ and #ea$e( at the time threatenin to @i## them un#ess they o!eyed. 'hey o!eyed the order( and the incident 4as c#osed. 5pon these facts the defendant shou#d ha$e !een con$icted under the third su!di$ision of artic#e 0+,( instead of artic#e 2,2 of the Pena# Code. 'he threats referred to in artic#e 2,2 consist in forma##y threatenin a pri$ate person 4ith some in8ury to himse#f or his fami#y 4hich 4ou#d amount to a crime. A threat made in 8est or in the heat of an er is a misdemeanor on#y under artic#e 0+,. Su!di$ision / of artic#e 0+, pro$ides that I'hose 4ho sha## threaten another( !y 4ords and in the heat of an er( 4ith an in8ury that 4ou#d constitute a crime( and 4ho !y their su!seCuent actions sho4 that they persiste( in the intention 4hich they a$e utterance to in their threatD pro$ided that( in $ie4 of the circumstances of the deed( it shou#d not !e inc#uded in :oo@ II of this code(I sha## !e punished 4ith the pena#ty of from one to fi$e days of arrest( or a fine of from 10 to 120 pesetas. 'he fact that the threat 4as made in the heat of an er( and that the su!seCuent actions of the party sho4 that he did not serious#y intend to carry the threat into eEecution( reduce the offense from a crime to a misdemeanor. It is true that the code uses the 4ords Iand 4ho !y their su!seCuent actions sho4ed that they persisted in the intention 4hich they a$e utterance to in their threat(I !ut a #itera# adherence to this #an ua e 4ou#d produce the a!surd resu#t of ma@in persistence in an i##e a# purpose operate in miti ation of the offense. 'he po4er of the court to supp#y or omit 4ords from a statute in order to pre$ent an a!surd resu#t 4hich the #e is#ature 4i## not !e supposed to ha$e intended( is 4e## esta!#ished. 6State vs. :ates( ,- ;inn.( 110.7 It is e$ident that 4ords of ne otiation shou#d !e inserted !et4een the 4ords Ithey and Ipersisted(I thus ma@in the pro$ision read Iand 4ho !y their su!seCuent actions sho4ed that they ha( not persiste( in the intention 4hich they a$e utterance to in their threat.I In connectin upon this section( Viada( $o#ume / pa e /10( saysF 'he artic#e says . . . Ethat (i( persist.E 'his is undou!ted#y a mista@e( !ecause it is precise#y the persistence in a threat that i$es it the a ra$atin character so as to amount the crime. %o4e$er( this mista@e is not found amon the many that 4ere corrected !y the decree of .anuary 1( 1+10. :ut the strict mora# and 8uridica# sense shou#d supp#y this omission.

'hat this is understood to !e the true meanin of the pro$ision of the code appears from the #an ua e used in $nite( "tates vs. stra(a 610 Phi#. "ep.( 0+/7. 'he defendant had ta@en offense at some 4ords used !y one De# ado( and threatened to @i## him. 3hi#e &strada 4as searchin for a re$o#$er( De# ado concea#ed himse#f. >n the fo##o4in day &strada ca##ed at De# adoGs house and stated that the threat had !een uttered 4ithout premeditation( and that it 4as not serious#y made. 'he court commented upon the fact that it appeared that the defendant had not persisted in carryin out the threat( and he#d that the offense had on#y the characteristics of a misdemeanor( and 4as punisha!#e under artic#e 0+,( instead of artic#e 2,2( of the Pena# Code. 'hese artic#es ha$e !een construed !y this court se$era# other cases. In $nite( "tates vs. "evilla 61 Phi#. "ep.( 12/7 it appeared that the defendant 4hi#e !eatin certain parties said that he 4ou#d @i## them if they did not return his 8e4e#s. It 4as he#d that the threats dea#t 4ith under artic#e 2,2 are those made 4ith the de#i!erate purpose of creatin in the mind of the person threatened the !e#ief that the threat 4i## !e carried into effect( and that under the circumstances of the case the defendant 4as punisha!#e under artic#e 0+,( instead of artic#e 2,2. So in $nite( "tates vs. "imeon 6/ Phi#. "ep.( /++7( a person 4ho raised a !o#o as if to stri@e or sta! a ni ht 4atchman( 4ho thereupon ran a4ay( 4as he#d ui#ty under artic#e 0+, of threatenin another 4ith 4eapons. In $nite( "tates vs. CastaFares 6+ Phi# "ep.( 1/07( the defendant ha$in ta@en offense at some remar@( dre4 a re$o#$er and threatened to @i## one Yap )ea( 4ho thereupon f#ed. 'he tria# court he#d the defendant ui#ty of amena=a under artic#e 2,2( !ut this court 4as the opinion that the defendant 4as ui#ty on#y of the offense dec#ared !y section 2 of artic#e 0+, of the Pena# Code. In $nite( "tates vs. Algurra 6, Phi#. "ep.( -227( it 4as he#d that threats made a ainst another( and in the heat of an er( constituted a misdeamenor on#y under section / of artic#e 0+, of the Pena# Code. 'he court there remar@ed that Iit has not !een sho4n . . . that he threatened them in earnest 4ith the apparent intent to carry the threat into effect.I lawphil.net 5nder the authority of these decisions the defendant shou#d ha$e !een con$icted and punished for a misdemeanor. 'he sentence is therefore re$ersed( and the defendant is here!y sentenced to pay a fine of 120 pesetas( and in case of inso#$ency( to suffer su!sidiary imprisonment in the pro$incia# 8ai# of La 5nion( at the rate of 10 pesetas or P/ a day( said su!sidiary imprisonment not to eEceed ten days( and to pay the costs of this prosecution. So ordered. A.M. No. RTJ#9$#9%6 Se;,e31e' 2&, 199% PANFILO S. AMATAN, comp#ainant( $s. JU*GE VICENTE AUJERIO, respondent. 8APUNAN, J.: A crimina# comp#aint accusin "odri o 5mpad( a#ias I;eonI of the crime of murder under Artic#e 22+ of the "e$ised Pena# Code 4as fi#ed !y the Phi#ippine *ationa# Po#ice Station Commander in :ato( Leyte for the fata# shootin of )enaro 'a sip in the afternoon of Septem!er 12( 1,+1. 1 After pre#iminary in$esti ation !y the office of the pro$incia# fisca#( an information char ed 5mpad 4ith the crime of %omicide as fo##o4sF 'he undersi ned Assistant Pro$incia# ?isca# of Leyte accused "odri o 5mpad a#ias I;eonI of the crime of %omicide committed as fo##o4sF 'hat on or a!out the 12th day of Septem!er 1,+1( in the Is#and of Da4ahon( ;unicipa#ity of :ato( Pro$ince of Leyte( Phi#ippines and 4ithin the pre#iminary 8urisdiction of this %onora!#e Court( the a!o$e-named accused( 4ith de#i!erate intent( 4ith intent to @i## did then and there 4i##fu##y( un#a4fu##y and fe#onious#y shot one )&*A"> 'A)SIP( 4ith a re$o#$er ./+ Ca#. Snu! *ose Smith and 3esson 6Pa#ti@7 4hich the accused had pro$ided himse#f for the purpose( there!y causin and inf#ictin upon the $ictim fata# unshot 4ound on his head 4hich 4as the direct and immediate cause of the death of )enaro 'a sip. C>*'"A"Y '> LA3. %i#on os( Leyte( >cto!er 20( 1,+1.

5pon arrai nment( ho4e$er( the parties( 4ith the acCuiescence of the Pu!#ic Prosecutor and the consent of the offended party( entered into p#ea !ar ainin 4here it 4as a reed that the accused 4ou#d p#ead ui#ty to the #esser offense of Attempte( Homici(e instead of homicide as ori ina##y char ed in the information( and 4ou#d incur the pena#ty of Ifour 627 years( t4o 627 months and one 617 day of prision correccional as minimum to siE 6-7 year ofprision correccional maEimum as maEimum.I 2 ConseCuent#y( in his decision promu# ated on the 21th of .une 1,,0( respondent 8ud e found the accused( "odri o 5mpad( ui#ty !eyond reasona!#e dou!t of the #esser crime of Attempted %omicide and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of four years( t4o months and one day of prision correccional maEimum( as minimum to siE years of prision correccional maEimum( as the maEimum period( eEact#y in accordance 4ith the p#ea !ar ainin a reement. $ >n >cto!er 1-( 1,,2( a #etter-comp#aint addressed to the Chief .ustice and si ned !y Pedro S. Amatan( a !rother-in-#a4 of the deceased( accused .ud e Vicente Au8ero of ross incompetence( ross i norance of the #a4 and ross misconduct( re#ati$e to his disposition of Crim. Case *o. %-22/ entit#ed Peop#e $. "odri o 5mpad a#ias I;eon.I In said #etter-comp#aint( comp#ainant contends that the sentence of respondent 8ud e findin the accused ui#ty !eyond reasona!#e dou!t of the #esser offense of Attempted %omicide and not %omicide as char ed is proof indicati$e( Ion its face( of ross incompetence( ross i norance of the #a4 or ross misconduct. "espondin to the comp#aint( respondent .ud e asserts that he re#ied on Sec. 2( "u#e 11- of the 1,+0 "e$ised "u#es of Crimina# Procedure( as amended( 4hich a##o4s an accused indi$idua# H 4ith the consent of the offended party H to p#ead ui#ty to a #esser offense( re ard#ess of 4hether or not such offense is necessari#y inc#uded in the crime char ed( or is co ni9a!#e !y a court of #esser 8urisdiction. %e eEp#ains that durin the ;ay /( 1,,0 hearin ( accused and his counse#( 4ith the acCuiescence and in the presence of the prosecutor( informed the Court of the defendantGs desire to p#ea !ar ain pursuant to the aforestated ru#e. ;oreo$er( he a$ers that in a conference on .une 21( 1,,0( the 4ife of the $ictim herse#f a reed to the accusedGs p#ea of ui#ty to attempted homicide( instead of homicide as she needed the monetary indemnity to raise her t4o orphaned chi#dren. In a ;emorandum dated ?e!ruary 0( 1,,/( the Deputy Court Administrator recommended that the comp#aint !e dismissed( eEp#ainin thatF Section 2 11- is more #i!era#i9ed as it a##o4s the accused to p#ead ui#ty to a #esser offense 4hether or not it is inc#uded in the offense char ed in the comp#aint or information( 4ith the consent of the offended party and the fisca#. In this re ard( it is inferred that the fisca# consented to a!!re$iate the proceedin s and in order not to run the ris@ of the accused !ein acCuitted( !ecause there 4as no conc#usi$e e$idence to o!tain the con$iction of the accused to the offense char ed in the comp#aint of information. It may !e stated in this connection that un#i@e in the crime of murder 4here the accused may p#ead to the #esser offense of homicide( in homicide a misinterpretation may arise( as in this case( 4hen the accused p#eads ui#ty to attempted homicide( !ecause here the fact of the death of the $ictim( 4hich is the principa# e#ement of the crime is o!#iterated. 'his is specia##y so !ecause the decision<sentence does not contain findin s of fact and conc#usions of #a4 !ut mere#y an account that the accused p#eaded ui#ty to a #esser offense and the pena#ty imposed. ) Section 2( "u#e( 11- of the 1,+0 "e$ised "u#es of Crimina# Procedure( as amended( a##o4s the accused in crimina# case to p#ead ui#ty Ito #esser offense re ard#ess of 4hether or not it is necessari#y inc#uded in the crime char ed.I 'he fact of death of the $ictim for 4hich the accused "odri o 5mpad 4as crimina##y #ia!#e( cannot !y simp#e #o ic and p#ain common sense !e reconci#ed 4ith the p#ea of ui#ty to the #o4er offense of attempted homicide. 'he crime of homicide as defined in Artic#e 22, of the "e$ised Pena# Code necessari#y produces deathD attempted homicide does not. Conceded#y( hiatus in the #a4 eEists in the case !efore us( 4hich cou#d either #ead to a misapprehension of Section 2 of "u#e 11- or to outri ht confusion. Such a resu#t 4as itse#f reco ni9ed !y the Deputy Court Administrator 4hen he recommended an amendment to the pro$ision in his ;emorandum. %o4e$er( the #a4 is not entire#y !ereft of so#utions in such cases. In instances 4here a #itera# app#ication of a pro$ision of #a4 4ou#d #ead to in8ustice or to a resu#t so direct#y in opposition 4ith the dictates of #o ic and e$eryday common sense as to !e unconsciona!#e( the Ci$i# Code % admonishes 8ud es to ta@e princip#es of ri ht and 8ustice at heart. In case of dou!t the intent is to promote ri ht and 8ustice. ;iat .ustice ruat coelum. Stated different#y( 4hen a pro$ision of #a4 is si#ent or am!i uous( 8ud es ou ht to in$o@e a so#ution responsi$e to the $ehement ur e of conscience.

'hese are fundamenta# tenets of #a4. In the case at !ench( the fact of the $ictimGs death( a c#ear ne ation of frustrated or attempted homicide( ou ht to ha$e a#erted the 8ud e not on#y to a possi!#y inconsistent resu#t !ut to an in8ustice. 'he fai#ure to reco ni9e such princip#es so cardina# to our !ody of #a4s amounts to i norance of the #a4 and ref#ects respondent 8ud eGs #ac@ of prudence( if not competence( in the performance of his duties. 3hi#e it is true( as respondent 8ud e contends( that he mere#y app#ied the ru#e to the #etter( the pa#pa!#y incon ruous resu#t ou ht to ha$e !een a Ired f#a I a#ertin him of the possi!i#ity of in8ustice. 'he death of an identified indi$idua#( the ra$amen of the char e a ainst the defendant in the crimina# case( cannot and shou#d not !e i nored in fa$or of a more eEpedient p#ea of either attempted or frustrated homicide. 3e ha$e he#d !efore that if the #a4 is so e#ementary( not to @no4 it or to act as if one does not @no4 it( constitutes ross i norance of the #a4. 6 ?ina##y( e$ery 8ud e must !e the em!odiment of competence( inte rity and independence. & A 8ud e shou#d not on#y !e a4are of the !are out#ines of the #a4 !ut a#so its nuances and ramifications( other4ise( he 4ou#d not !e a!#e to come up 4ith decisions 4hich are intrinsica##y fair. In fai#in to eEercise e$en ordinary common sense( a 8ud e cou#d !e he#d administrati$e#y #ia!#e for a $erdict that cou#d in no 4ay !e #e a##y or factua##y sustained or 8ustified. 3e note( ho4e$er( that under the circumstances of the case( respondent 8ud eGs erroneous eEercise of his 8udicia# prero ati$e 4as neither tainted 4ith ma#ice nor !ad faith. 'he phraseo#o y of Sec. 2( "u#e 11- is not crafted 4ith such precision as to entire#y e#iminate possi!#e misinterpretation. 'his o!ser$ation is !o#stered !y the fact that the same pro$ision prompted the Department of .ustice( on .u#y /1( 1,,0( or three months after respondent 8ud e too@ co ni9ance of the case on Apri# 11( 1,,0( to issue Circu#ar *o. /0( 8 #ater amended !y Circu#ar *o. 00 dated Decem!er 11( 1,,0( c#arifyin and settin #imitations on the app#ication of Sec. 2( "u#e 11-. 'he fact a#so that respondent reached compu#sory retirement a e on Apri# 0( 1,,0 after a #on period of ser$ice in the 8udiciary entit#es him to a certain measure of #eniency. *onethe#ess( the case at !ench stands uniCue !ecause of the potent#y a!surd resu#t of respondentGs app#ication of the #a4. ACC>"DI*)LY( 4e are constrained to find the respondent 8ud e )5IL'Y of ross i norance of the #a4 for 4hich he is here!y "&P"I;A*D&D na ?I*&D >*& '%>5SA*D 6P1(000.007 P&S>S. Let this decision appear in respondentGs record of ser$ice. S> >"D&"&D THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner( $s. HONORA LE JU*GE AMANTE P. PURISIMA, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, RANCH VII, !n" PORFIRIO CAN*ELOSAS, NESTOR AES, ELIAS L. GARCIA, SIMEON UN*ALIAN, JR., JOSEPH C. MAISO, E*UAR*O A. LI OR*O, ROMEO L. SUGA+, FE*ERICO T. *I4ON, GEORGE M. AL INO, MARIANO COTIA, JR., ARMAN*O L. *I4ON, ROGELIO . PARENO, RO*RIGO V. ESTRA*A, ALFRE*O A. RE+ES, JOSE A. ACARRA, RE+NAL*O OGTONG, !n" E*GAR*O M. MEN*O4A, respondents. G.R. No. L#)6229#$2 No=e31e' 20, 19&8 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner( $s. JU*GE MABIMO A. MACEREN, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, RANCH BVIII, !n" RE+NAL*O LACUI + ACUINO, ELPI*IO ARPON, VICTOR EUGENIO + ROCUE !n" ALFRE*O VERSO4A, respondents. G.R. No. L#)6$1$#16 No=e31e' 20, 19&8 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner( $s. JU*GE MABIMO A. MACEREN, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF MANILA, RANCH BVIII, !n" JUANITO *E LA CRU4 + NUNE4, SA INO UENO + CACAL, TIRSO ISAGAN + FRANCISCO !n" EN CASTILLO + U AL*O, respondents.

G.R. No. L#)699& No=e31e' 20, 19&8 THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner( $s. THE HONORA LE AENCESLAO M. POLO, Ju"9e o2 ,-e Cou', o2 F/'0, In0,!n5e o2 S!3!', !n" PANCHITO REFUNCION, respondents. MUDO4 PALMA, J.: 'hese t4enty-siE 62-7 Petitions for "e$ie4 fi#ed !y the Peop#e of the Phi#ippines represented( respecti$e#y( !y the >ffice of the City ?isca# of ;ani#a( the >ffice of the Pro$incia# ?isca# of Samar( and 8oined !y the So#icitor )enera#( are conso#idated in this one Decision as they in$o#$e one !asic Cuestion of #a4. 'hese Petitions or appea#s in$o#$e three Courts of ?irst Instance( name#yF the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a( :ranch VII( presided !y %on. Amante P. Purisima 611 Petitions7( the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a( :ranch LVIII( presided !y %on. ;aEimo A. ;aceren 6+ Petitions7 and( the Court of ?irst Instance of Samar( 4ith %on. 3ences#ao ;. Po#o( presidin ( 61 Petition7. :efore those courts( Informations 4ere fi#ed char in the respecti$e accused 4ith Ii##e a# possession of dead#y 4eaponI in $io#ation of Presidentia# Decree *o. ,. >n a motion to Cuash fi#ed !y the accused( the three .ud es mentioned a!o$e issued in the respecti$e cases fi#ed !efore them H the detai#s of 4hich 4i## !e recounted !e#o4 H an >rder Cuashin or dismissin the Informations( on a common groun(, vi=( that the Information did not a##e e facts 4hich constitute the offense pena#i9ed !y Presidentia# Decree *o. , !ecause it fai#ed to state one essentia# e#ement of the crime. 'hus( are the Informations fi#ed !y the Peop#e sufficient in form and su!stance to constitute the offense of Ii##e a# possession of dead#y 4eaponI pena#i9ed under Presidentia# Decree 6PD for short7 *o. ,M 'his is the centra# issue 4hich 4e sha## reso#$e and dispose of( a## other coro##ary matters not !ein indispensa!#e for the moment. A H %he &nformation file( -y the People H 1. In L-22000---( one typica# Information fi#ed 4ith the Court presided !y .ud e Purisima fo##o4sF %H P #PL #; %H PH&L&PP&N ", plaintiff, versus P#R;&R&# CAN2 L#"A" G 2$RAN, accuse(. Crim. Case *o. 1,-/, VI>LA'I>* >? PA". /( P"&S. D&C"&& *o. , >? P">CLA;A'I>* 10+1 I*?>";A'I>* 'he undersi ned accuses P>"?I"I> CA*D&L>SAS Y D5"A* of a $io#ation of para raph /( Presidentia# Decree *o. , of Proc#amation 10+1( committed as fo##o4sF 'hat on or a!out the 12 th day of Decem!er( 1,12( in the City of ;ani#a( Phi#ippines( the said accused did then and there 4i#fu##y( un#a4fu##y( fe#onious#y and @no4in #y ha$e in his possession and under his custody and contro# one 617 car$in @nife 4ith a !#ade of --R inches and a 4ooden hand#e of 0-1<2 inches( or an o$era## #en th of 11-S inches( 4hich the said accused carried outside of his residence( the said 4eapon not !ein used as a too# or imp#ement necessary to earn his #i$e#ihood nor !ein used in connection there4ith.

Contrary to #a4. 6p. /2( ro##o of L-22000---7 'he other Informations are simi#ar#y 4orded eEcept for the name of the accused( the date and p#ace of the commission of the crime( and the @ind of 4eapon in$o#$ed. 2. In L-2-22,-/2 and L-2-/1/-1-( the Information fi#ed 4ith the Court presided !y .ud e ;aceren fo##o4sF '%& P&>PL& >? '%& P%ILIPPI*&S( p#aintiff( $ersus "&Y*ALD> LAB5I Y AB5I*>( accused. C"I;. CAS& *>. 2,-11 VI>L. >? PA". /( PD , I* "&L. '> L>I *o. 2-- of the Chief &Eecuti$e dated Apri# 1( 1,10 I*?>";A'I>* 'he undersi ned accuses "&Y*ALD> LAB5I Y AB5I*> of a VI>LA'I>* >? PA"A)"AP% /( P"&SID&*'IAL D&C"&& *>. , in re#ation to Letter of Instruction *o. 2-- of the Chief &Eecuti$e dated Apri# 1( 1,10( committed as fo##o4sF 'hat on or a!out the 2+ th day of .anuary( 1,11( in the City of ;ani#a( Phi#ippines( the said accused did then and there 4i#fu##y( un#a4fu##y and @no4in #y carry outside of his residence a !#aded and pointed 4eapon( to 4itF an ice pic@ 4ith an o$era## #en th of a!out +R inches( the same not !ein used as a necessary too# or imp#ement to earn his #i$e#ihood nor !ein used in connection there4ith. Contrary to #a4. 6p. 12( ro##o of L-2-22,-/27 'he other Informations are #i@e4ise simi#ar#y 4orded eEcept for the name of the accused( the date and p#ace of the commission of the crime( and the @ind of 4eapon in$o#$ed. /. In L-2-,,1( the Information !efore the Court of ?irst Instance of Samar is Cuoted hereunderF P #PL #; %H PH&L&PP&N ", complainant, versus PANCH&%# R ;$NC&#N, accuse(. CR&+. CA" N#. 3'' ;orH &LL *AL P#"" ""&#N #; 2 A2LG < AP#N

BI&#LA%&#N #; P2 N#. 3C &N;#R+A%&#N %he un(ersigne( ;irst Assistant Provincial ;iscal of "amar, accuses PANCH&%# R ;$NC&#N of the crime of &LL *AL P#"" ""&#N #; 2 A2LG < AP#N or I&#LA%&#N #; P2 N#. 3 issue( -y the Presi(ent of the Philippines on #ct. /, !3J/, pursuant to Proclamation No. !K>! (ate( "ept. /! an( /', !3J/, committe( as followsH %hat on or a-out the 4th (ay of #cto-er, !3J4, in the evening at 1arangay 1arru=, +unicipality of +atuginao, Province of "amar Philippines, an( within the .uris(iction of this Honora-e Court, the a-ovename( accuse(, 5nowingly, wilfully, unlawfully an( feloniously carrie( with him outsi(e of his resi(ence a (ea(ly weapon calle( socyatan, an instrument which from its very nature is no such as coul( -e use( as a necessary tool or instrument to earn a livelihoo(, which act committe( -y the accuse( is a Iiolation of Presi(ential 2ecree No. 3. C#N%RARG %# LA<. Bp. >, rollo of L-0433JC 1. L %he #r(ers of (ismissal L &n (ismissing or 9uashing the &nformations the trial courts concurre( with the su-mittal of the (efense that one essential element of the offense charge( is missing from the &nformation, vi=H that the carrying outsi(e of the accuse(Ms resi(ence of a -la(e(, pointe( or -lunt weapon is in furtherance or on the occasion of, connecte( with or relate( to su-version, insurrection, or re-ellion, organi=e( lawlessness or pu-lic (isor(er. !. 8u(ge Purisima reasone( out, inter alia, in this mannerH ... the Court is of the opinion that in or(er that possession of -la(e( weapon or the li5e outsi(e resi(ence may -e prosecute( an( trie( un(er P.2. No. 3, the information must specifically allege that the possession of -la(e( weapon charge( was for the purpose of a-etting, or in furtherance of the con(itions of rampant criminality, organi=e( lawlessness, pu-lic (isor(er, etc. as are contemplate( an( recite( in Proclamation No. !K>!, as .ustification therefor. 2evoi( of this specific allegation, not necessarily in the same wor(s, the information is not complete, as it (oes not allege sufficient facts to constitute the offense contemplate( in P.2. No. 3. %he information in these cases un(er consi(eration suffer from this (efect. ))) ))) ))) An( while there is no proof of it -efore the Court, it is not (ifficult to -elieve the murmurings of (etaine( persons -rought to Court upon a charge of possession of -la(e( weapons un(er P.2. No. 3, that more than ever -efore, policemen - of course not all can -e so heartless L now have in their han(s P.2. No. 3 as a most convenient tool for e)tortion, what with the terrifying ris5 of -eing sentence( to imprisonment of five to ten years for a ruste( 5itchen 5nife or a pair of scissors, which only *o( 5nows where it came from. <hereas -efore martial law an e)tortion-min(e( peace officer ha( to have a stoc5 of the cheapest palti5, an( even that coul( only convey the coercive message of one year in .ail, now anything that has the sem-lance of a sharp e(ge or pointe( o-.ect, availa-le even in trash cans, may alrea(y serve the same purpose, an( yet five to ten times more incriminating than the infamous palti5. ;or sure, P.2. No. 3 was conceive( with the -est of intentions an( wisely applie(, its necessity can never -e assaile(. 1ut it seems it is -ac5-firing, -ecause it is too hot in the han(s of policemen who are incline( to -ac5sli(ing. %he chec5valves against a-use of P.2. No. 3 are to -e foun( in the heart of the ;iscal an( the conscience of the Court, an( hence this resolution, let alone technical legal -asis, is prompte( -y the (esire of this Court to apply sai( chec5valves. Bpp. ??-?J, rollo of L-0/K?K-44C

/. 8u(ge +aceren in turn gave his groun(s for (ismissing the charges as followsH ))) ))) ))) As earlier note( the E(esire( resultE sought to -e attaine( -y Proclamation No. !K>! is the maintenance of law an( or(er throughout the Philippines an( the prevention an( suppression of all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or re-ellion. &t is therefore reasona-le to conclu(e from the foregoing premises that the carrying of -la(e(, pointe( or -lunt weapons outsi(e of oneMs resi(ence which is ma(e unlawful an( punisha-le -y sai( par. ' of P.2. No. 3 is one thata-ets su-version, insurrection or re-ellion, lawless violence, criminality, chaos an( pu-lic (isor(er or is inten(e( to -ring a-out these con(itions. %his conclusion is further strengthene( -y the fact that all previously e)isting laws that also ma(e the carrying of similar weapons punisha-le have not -een repeale(, whether e)pressly or implie(ly. &t is noteworthy that Presi(ential 2ecree No. 3 (oes not contain any repealing clause or provisions. ))) ))) ))) %he mere carrying outsi(e of oneMs resi(ence of these (ea(ly weapons if not conceale( in oneMs person an( if not carrie( in any of the aforesai( specifie( places, woul( appear to -e not unlawful an( punisha-le -y law. <ith the promulgation of Presi(ential 2ecree No. 3, however, the prosecution, through Assistant ;iscal Hilario H. La9ui, conten(s in his opposition to the motion to 9uash, that this act is now ma(e unlawful an( punisha-le, particularly -y paragraph ' thereof, regar(less of the intention of the person carrying such weapon -ecause the law ma5es it Emala prohi-itaE. &f the contention of the prosecution is correct, then if a person happens to -e caught while on his way home -y law enforcement officers carrying a 5itchen 5nife that sai( person ha( .ust -ought from a store in or(er that the same may -e use( -y oneMs coo5 for preparing the meals in oneMs home, such person will -e lia-le for punishment with such a severe penalty as imprisonment from five to ten years un(er the (ecree. "uch person cannot claim that sai( 5nife is going to -e use( -y him to earn a livelihoo( -ecause he inten(e( it merely for use -y his coo5 in preparing his meals. %his possi-ility cannot -e (iscounte( if Presi(ential 2ecree No. 3 were to -e interprete( an( applie( in the manner that that the prosecution wants it to -e (one. %he goo( intentions of the Presi(ent in promulgating this (ecree may thus -e perverte( -y some unscrupulous law enforcement officers. &t may -e use( as a tool of oppression an( tyranny or of e)tortion. ))) ))) ))) &t is therefore the consi(ere( an( hum-le view of this Court that the act which the Presi(ent inten(e( to ma5e unlawful an( punisha-le -y Presi(ential 2ecree No. 3, particularly -y paragraph ' thereof, is one that a-ets or is inten(e( to a-et su-version, re-ellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos an( pu-lic (isor(er. Bpp. />-'K, rollo of L-04//3-'/C '. 8u(ge Polo of the Court of ;irst &nstance of "amar e)poun(e( his or(er (ismissing the &nformation file( -efore him, thusH ... <e -elieve that to constitute an offense un(er the aforcite( Presi(ential (ecree, the same shoul( -e or there shoul( -e an allegation that a felony was committe( in connection or in furtherance of su-version, re-ellion, insurrection, lawless violence an( pu-lic (isor(er. Precisely Proclamation No. !K>! (eclaring a state of martial law throughout the country was issue( -ecause of wanton (estruction to lives an( properties wi(esprea( lawlessness an( anarchy. An( in or(er to restore the tran9uility an( sta-ility of the country an( to secure the people from violence anti loss of lives in the 9uic5est possi-le manner an( time, carrying firearms, e)plosives an( (ea(ly weapons without a permit unless the same woul( fall un(er the e)ception is prohi-ite(. %his conclusion -ecomes more compelling when we consi(er the penalty imposa-le, which is from five years to ten years. A strict enforcement of the provision of the sai( law woul( mean the imposition of the 2raconian penalty upon the accuse(.

))) ))) ))) &t is pu-lic 5nowle(ge that in rural areas, even -efore an( (uring martial law, as a matter of status sym-ol, carrying (ea(ly weapons is very common, not necessarily for committing a crime nor as their farm implement -ut for self-preservation or self(efense if necessity woul( arise specially in going to an( from their farm. Bpp. !>-!3, rollo of L-0433JC &n most if not all of the cases, the or(ers of (ismissal were given -efore arraignment of the accuse(. &n the criminal case -efore the Court of B;irst &nstance of "amar the accuse( was arraigne( -ut at the same time move( to 9uash the &nformation. &n all the cases where the accuse( were un(er arrest, the three 8u(ges or(ere( their imme(iate release unless hel( on other charges. C. L %he law un(er which the &nformations in 9uestion were file( -y the People. As seen from the &nformations 9uote( a-ove, the accuse( are charge( with illegal possession of (ea(ly weapon in violation of Presi(ential 2ecree No. 3, Paragraph '. <e 9uote in full Presi(ential 2ecree No. 3, to witH PR "&2 N%&AL 2 CR N#. 3

BcC %he penalty provi(e( for in the prece(ing paragraphs shall -e impose( upon the owner, presi(ent, manager, mem-ers of the -oar( of (irectors or other responsi-le officers of any pu-lic or private firms, companies, corporations or entities who shall willfully or 5nowingly allow any of the firearms owne( -y such firm, company, corporation or entity concerne( to -e use( in violation of sai( *eneral #r(ers Nos. 4 an( J. /. &t is unlawful to posses (ea(ly weapons, inclu(ing han( grena(es, rifle grena(es an( other e)plosives, inclu(ing, -ut not limite( to, Epill -o) -om-s,E Emolotov coc5tail -om-s,E Efire -om-s,E or other incen(iary (evice consisting of any chemical, chemical compoun(, or (etonating agents containing com-usti-le units or other ingre(ients in such proportion, 9uantity, pac5ing, or -ottling that ignites -y fire, -y friction, -y concussion, -y percussion, or -y (etonation of all or part of the compoun( or mi)ture which may cause such a su((en generation of highly heate( gases that the resultant gaseous pressures are capa-le of pro(ucing (estructive effects on continguous o-.ects or of causing in.ury or (eath of a person; an( any person convicte( thereof shall -e punishe( -y imprisonment ranging from ten to fifteen years as a +ilitary CourtN%ri-unalNCommission may (irect. '. &t is unlawful to carry outsi(e of resi(ence any -la(e(, pointe( or -lunt weapon such as Efan 5nife,E Espear,E E(agger,E E-olo,E E-alisong,E E-arong,E E5ris,E or clu-, e)cept where such articles are -eing use( as necessary tools or implements to earn a livelihoo( an( while -eing use( in connection therewith; an( any person foun( guilty thereof shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from five to ten years as a +ilitary CourtN%ri-unalNCommission may (irect. 0. <hen the violation penali=e( in the prece(ing paragraphs / an( ' is committe( (uring the commission of or for the purpose of committing, any other crime, the penalty shall -e impose( upon the offen(er in its ma)imum e)tent, in a((ition to the penalty provi(e( for the particular offenses committe( or inten(e( to -e committe(. 2one in the City of +anila, this /n( (ay of #cto-er in the year of #ur Lor(, nineteen hun(re( an( seventy-two. B"*2C ; R2&NAN2 . +ARC#" Presi(ent Repu-lic of the Philippines

2 CLAR&N* I&#LA%&#N" #; * N RAL #R2 R" N#. 4 an( N#. J 2A% 2 " P% +1 R //, !3J/, AN2 " P% +1 R /', !3J/, R "P C%&I LG, %# 1 $NLA<;$L AN2 PR#I&2&N* P NAL%& " %H R ;#R . <H R A", pursuant to Proclamation No. !K>! (ate( "eptem-er /!, !3J/, the Philippines has -een place( un(er a state of martial law; <H R A", -y virtue of sai( Proclamation No. !K>!, *eneral #r(er No. 4 (ate( "eptem-er //, !3J/ an( *eneral #r(er No. J (ate( "eptem-er /', !3J/, have -een promulgate( -y me; <H R A", su-version, re-ellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos an( pu-lic (isor(er mentione( in the aforesai( Proclamation No. !K>! are committe( an( a-ette( -y the use of firearms, e)plosives an( other (ea(ly weapons; N#<, %H R ;#R , &, ; R2&NAN2 . +ARC#", Comman(er-in-Chief of all the Arme( ;orces of the Philippines, in ol(er to attain the (esire( result of the aforesai( Proclamation No. !K>! an( *eneral #r(ers Nos. 4 an( J, (o here-y or(er an( (ecree thatH !. Any violation of the aforesai( *eneral #r(ers Nos. 4 an( J is unlawful an( the violator shall, upon conviction sufferH BaC %he man(atory penalty of (eath -y a firing s9ua( or electrocution as a +ilitary, CourtN%ri-unalNCommission may (irect, it the firearm involve( in the violation is unlicense( an( is atten(e( -y assault upon, or resistance to persons in authority or their agents in the performance of their official functions resulting in (eath to sai( persons in authority or their agent; or if such unlicense( firearm is use( in the commission of crimes against persons, property or chastity causing the (eath of the victim use( in violation of any other *eneral #r(ers an(Nor Letters of &nstructions promulgate( un(er sai( Proclamation No. !K>!H B-C %he penalty of imprisonment ranging from twenty years to life imprisonment as a +ilitary CourtN%ri-unalNcommission may (irect, when the violation is not atten(e( -y any of the circumstances enumerate( un(er the prece(ing paragraph;

2. L %he arguments of the People L &n the Comment file( in these cases -y the "olicitor *eneral who as state( earlier .oins the City ;iscal of +anila an( the Provincial ;iscal of "amar in see5ing the setting asi(e of the 9uestione( or(ers of (ismissal, the main argument a(vance( on the issue now un(er consi(eration is that a perusal of paragraph ' of P.2. 3 Mshows that the prohi-ite( acts nee( not -e relate( to su-versive activities; that the act proscri-e( is essentially a malum prohi-itum penali=e( for reasons of pu-lic policy. 1 %he City ;iscal of +anila in his -rief a((s further that in statutory offenses the intention of the accuse( who commits the act is immaterial; that it is enough if the prohi-ite( act is voluntarily perpetuate(; that P.2. 3 provi(es an( con(emns not only the carrying of sai( weapon in connection with the commission of the crime of su-version or the li5e, -ut also that of criminality in general, that is, to era(icate lawless violence which characteri=e( pre-martial law (ays. &t is also argue( that the real nature of the criminal charge is (etermine( not from the caption or pream-le of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law allege( to have -een violate( -ut -y the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information. 2 . L #ur Ruling on the matter L !. &t is a constitutional right of any person who stan(s charge( in a criminal prosecution to -e informe( of the nature an( cause of the accusation against him. 3

Pursuant to the a-ove, "ection ?, Rule !!K of the Rules of Court, e)pressly re9uires that for a complaint or information to -e sufficient it must, inter alia state the (esignation of the offense -y the statute, an( the acts or omissions complaine( of as constituting the offense. %his is essential to avoi( surprise on the accuse( an( to affor( him the opportunity to prepare his (efense accor(ingly. 4 %o comply with these fun(amental re9uirements of the Constitution an( the Rules on Criminal Proce(ure, it is imperative for the specific statute violate( to -e (esignate( or mentione( 0 in the charge. &n fact, another compelling reason e)ists why a specification of the statute violate( is essential in these cases. As state( in the or(er of respon(ent 8u(ge +aceren the carrying of so-calle( E(ea(ly weaponsE is the su-.ect of another penal statute an( a +anila city or(inance. %hus, "ection /4 of Act No. !J>K provi(esH "ection /4. &t shoul( -e unlawful for any person to carry conceale( a-out his person any -owie 5nife, (ir5 (agger, 5ris, or other (ea(ly weaponH ... Any person violating the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction in a court of competent .uris(iction, -e punishe( -y a fine not e)cee(ing five hun(re( pesos, or -y imprisonment for a perio( not e)cee(ing si) months, or -oth such fine an( imprisonment, in the (iscretion of the court. #r(inance No. '>/K of the City of +anila as amen(e( -y #r(inance No. '3/> which too5 effect on 2ecem-er 0, !3?J, in turn penali=es with a fine of not more than P/KK.KK or imprisonment for not more than one months, or -oth, at the (iscretion of the court, anyone who shall carry conceale( in his person in any manner that woul( (isguise its (ea(ly character any 5in( of firearm, -owie 5nife, or other (ea(ly weapon ... in any pu-lic place.Conse9uently, it is necessary that the particular law violate( -e specifie( as there e)ists a su-stantial (ifference -etween the statute an( city or(inance on the one han( an( P.2. 3 B'C on the other regar(ing the circumstances of the commission of the crime an( the penalty impose( for the offense. <e (o not agree with petitioner that the a-ove-mentione( statute an( the city or(inance are (eeme( repeale( -y P.2. 3 B'C. 5 P. 2. 3B'C (oes not contain any repealing clause or provision, an( repeal -y implication is not favore(. 6 %his principle hol(s true with greater force with regar(s to penal statutes which as a rule are to -e construe( strictly against the state an( li-erally in favor of the accuse(. 7 &n fact, Article J of the New Civil Co(e provi(es that laws are repeale( only -y su-se9uent ones an( their violation or non- o-servance shall not -e e)cuse( -y (isuse, or custom or practice to the contrary. %hus we are face( with the situation where a particular act may -e ma(e to fall, at the (iscretion of a police officer or a prosecuting fiscal, un(er the statute, or the city or(inance, or the presi(ential (ecree. %hat -eing the case, the right -ecomes more compelling for an accuse( to -e confronte( with the facts constituting the essential elements of the offense charge( against him, if he is not to -ecome an easy pawn of oppression an( harassment, or of negligent or misgui(e( official action L a fear un(erstan(a-ly share( -y respon(ent 8u(ges who -y the nature of their .u(icial functions are (aily e)pose( to such (angers. /. &n all the &nformations file( -y petitioner the accuse( are charge( in the caption as well as in the -o(y of the &nformation with a violation of paragraph ', P.2. 3. <hat then are the elements of the offense treate( in the presi(ential (ecree in 9uestionO <e hol( that the offense carries two elementsH first, the carrying outsi(e oneMs resi(ence of any -la(e(, -lunt, or pointe( weapon, etc. not use( as a necessary tool or implement for a livelihoo(; an( secon(, that the act of carrying the weapon was either in furtherance of, or to a-et, or in connection with su-version, re-ellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or pu-lic (isor(er. &t is the secon( element which removes the act of carrying a (ea(ly weapon, if conceale(, outsi(e of the scope of the statute or the city or(inance mentione( a-ove. &n other wor(s, a simple act of carrying any of the weapons (escri-e( in the presi(ential (ecree is not a criminal offense in itself. <hat ma5es the act criminal or punisha-le un(er the (ecree is the motivation -ehin( it. <ithout that motivation, the act falls within the purview of the city or(inance or some statute when the circumstances so warrant. Respon(ent 8u(ges correctly rule( that this can -e the only reasona-ly, logical, an( vali( construction given to P.2. 3B'C.

'. %he position ta5en -y petitioner that P.2. 3B'C covers one an( all situations where a person carries outsi(e his resi(ence any of the weapons mentione( or (escri-e( in the (ecree irrespective of motivation, intent, or purpose, converts these cases into one of Estatutory construction.E %hat there is am-iguity in the presi(ential (ecree is manifest from the conflicting views which arise from its implementation. <hen am-iguity e)ists, it -ecomes a .u(icial tas5 to construe an( interpret the true meaning an( scope of the measure, gui(e( -y the -asic principle that penal statutes are to -e construe( an( applie( li-erally in favor of the accuse( an( strictly against the state. 0. &n the construction or interpretation of a legislative measure L a presi(ential (ecree in these cases L the primary rule is to search for an( (etermine the intent an( spirit of the law. Legislative intent is the controlling factor, for in the wor(s of this Court in Hi(algo v. Hi(algo, per +r. 8ustice Clau(io %eehan5ee, whatever is within the spirit of a statute is within the statute, an( this has to -e so if strict a(herence to the letter woul( result in a-sur(ity, in.ustice an( contra(ictions. 8 %here are certain ai(s availa-le to $s to ascertain the intent or reason for P.2. 3B'C. ;irst, the presence of events which le( to or precipitate( the enactment of P.2. 3. %hese events are clearly spelle( out in the E<hereasE clauses of the presi(ential (ecree, thusH B!C the state of martial law in the country pursuant to Proclamation !K>! (ate( "eptem-er /!, !3J/; B/C the (esire( result of Proclamation !K>! as well as *eneral #r(ers Nos. 4 an( J which are particularly mentione( in P.2. 3; an( B'C the allege( fact that su-version, re-ellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, ai( pu-lic (isor(er mentione( in Proclamation !K>! are committe( an( a-ette( -y the use of firearms an( e)plosives an( other (ea(ly weapons. %he "olicitor *eneral however conten(s that a pream-le of a statute usually intro(uce( -y the wor( EwhereasE, is not an essential part of an act an( cannot enlarge or confer powers, or cure inherent (efects in the statute Bp. !/K, rollo of L-0/K?K-44C; that the e)planatory note or enacting clause of the (ecree, if it in(ee( limits the violation of the (ecree, cannot prevail over the te)t itself inasmuch as such e)planatory note merely states or e)plains the reason which prompte( the issuance of the (ecree. Bpp. !!0-!!?, rollo of 0433JC <e (isagree with these contentions. 1ecause of the pro-lem of (etermining what acts fall within the purview of P.2. 3, it -ecomes necessary to in9uire into the intent an( spirit of the (ecree an( this can -e foun( among others in the pream-le or, whereasE clauses which enumerate the facts or events which .ustify the promulgation of the (ecree an( the stiff sanctions state( therein. A Epream-leE is the 5ey of the statute, to open the min(s of the ma5ers as to the mischiefs which are to -e reme(ie(, an( o-.ects which are to -e accomplishe(, -y the provisions of the statute.E B<est Norman %im-er v. "tate, //0 P. /( 4'?, 4'3, cite( in <or(s an( Phrases, EPream-leE; emphasis supplie(C <hile the pream-le of a statute is not strictly a part thereof, it may, when the statute is in itself am-iguous an( (ifficult of interpretation, -e resorte( to, -ut not to create a (ou-t or uncertainty which otherwise (oes not e)ist.E B8ames v. 2u 1ois, !4 N.8.L. B! Har.C />?, /30, cite( in <or(s an( Phrases, EPream-leEC &n A-oiti= "hipping Corporation, et al. v. %he City of Ce-u, et al. this Court ha( occasion to state that MBLCegislative intent must -e ascertaine( from a consi(eration of the statute as a whole, an( not of an isolate( part or a particular provision alone. %his is a car(inal rule of statutory construction. ;or ta5en in the a-stract, a wor( or phrase might easily convey a meaning 9uite (ifferent from the one actually inten(e( an( evi(ent when the wor( or phrase is consi(ere( with those with which it is associate(. %hus, an apparently general provision may have a limite( application if rea( together with other provisions. 9 "econ(, the result or effects of the presi(ential (ecree must -e within its reason or intent. &n the paragraph imme(iately following the last E<hereasE clause, the presi(ential (ecree statesH

N#<, %H R ;#R , & , ; R2&NAN2 . +ARC#", Comman(er-in-Chief of an the Arme( ;orces of the Philippines, in or(er to attain the (esire( result of the aforesai( Proclamation No. !K>! an( *eneral #r(ers Nos. 4 an( J, (o here-y or(er an( (ecree thatH ))) ))) ))) ;rom the a-ove it is clear that the acts penali=e( in P.2. 3 are those relate( to the (esire( result of Proclamation !K>! an( *eneral #r(ers Nos. 4 an( J. *eneral #r(ers Nos. 4 an( J refer to firearms an( therefore have no relevance to P.2. 3B'C which refers to -lunt or -la(e( weapons. <ith respect to Proclamation !K>! some of the un(erlying reasons for its issuance are 9uote( hereun(erH <H R A", these lawless elements having ta5en up arms against our (uly constitute( government an( against our people, an( having committe( an( are still committing acts of arme( insurrection an( re-ellion consisting of arme( rai(s, forays, sorties, am-ushes, wanton acts of mur(ers, spoilage, plun(er, looting, arsons, (estruction of pu-lic an( private -uil(ings, an( attac5s against innocent an( (efenseless civilian lives an( property, all of which activities have seriously en(angere( an( continue to en(anger pu-lic or(er an( safety an( the security of the nation, ... ))) ))) ))) <H R A", it is evi(ent that there is throughout the lan( a state of anarchy an( lawlessness, chaos an( (isor(er, turmoil an( (estruction of a magnitu(e e9uivalent to an actual war -etween the forces of our (uly constitute( government an( the New PeopleMs Army an( their satellite organi=ations -ecause of the unmitigate( forays, rai(s, am-usca(es, assaults, violence, mur(ers, assassinations, acts of terror, (eceits, coercions, threats, intimi(ations, treachery, machinations, arsons, plun(ers an( (epre(ations committe( an( -eing committe( -y the aforesai( lawless elements who have ple(ge( to the whole nation that they will not stop their (astar(ly effort an( scheme until an( unless they have fully attaine( their primary an( ultimate purpose of forci-ly sei=ing political an( state power in this country -y overthrowing our present (uly constitute( government, ... B"ee 1oo5 &, Iital 2ocuments on the 2eclaration of +artial Law in the Philippines -y the "upreme Court of the Philippines, pp. !'-'3C &t follows that it is only that act of carrying a -lunt or -la(e( weapon with a motivation connecte( with or relate( to the afore9uote( (esire( result of Proclamation !K>! that is within the intent of P.2. 3B'C, an( nothing else. "tatutes are to -e construe( in the light of purposes to -e achieve( an( the evils sought to -e reme(ie(. B$.". v. American %rac5ing Association, '!K $.". ?'0, cite( in LIN Pictures v. Philippine +usicians *uil(, !!K Phil. J/?, J'!; emphasis supplie(C <hen construing a statute, the reason for its enactment shoul( -e 5ept in min(, an( the statute shoul( -e construe( with reference to its inten(e( scope an( purpose. B"tatutory Construction -y .%. Crawfor(, pp. 4K0-4K?, cite( in Commissioner of &nternal Revenue v. ;ilipinas Compania (e "eguros, !KJ Phil. !K??, !K4K; emphasis supplie(C ?. &n the construction of P.2. 3B'C it -ecomes relevant to in9uire into the conse9uences of the measure if a strict a(herence to the letter of the paragraph is followe(. &t is a salutary principle in statutory construction that there e)ists a vali( presumption that un(esira-le conse9uences were never inten(e( -y a legislative measure, an( that a construction of which the statute is fairly suscepti-le is favore(, which will avoi( all o-.ectiona-le, mischievous, in(efensi-le, wrongful, evil, an( in.urious conse9uences. 9 ! &t is to -e presume( that when P.2. 3 was promulgate( -y the Presi(ent of the Repu-lic there was no intent to wor5 a har(ship or an oppressive result, a possi-le a-use of authority or act of oppression, arming one person with a weapon to impose har(ship on another, an( so on. 1"

At this instance <e 9uote from the or(er of 8u(ge Purisima the followingH An( while there is no proof of it -efore the Court, it is not (ifficult to -elieve the murmurings of (etaine( persons -rought to Court upon a charge of possession of -la(e( weapons un(er P.2. No. 3, that more than ever -efore, policemen - of course not all can -e so heartless L now have in their han(s P.2. No. 3 as a most convenient tool for e)tortion, what with the terrifying ris5 of -eing sentence( to imprisonment of five to ten years for a ruste( 5itchen 5nife or a pair of scissors, which only *o( 5nows where it came from. <hereas -efore martial law an e)tortion-min(e( peace officer ha( to have a stoc5 of the cheapest palti5, an( even that coul( only convey the coercive message of one year in .ail, now anything that has the sem-lance of a sharp e(ge or pointe( o-.ect, availa-le even in trash cans, may alrea(y serve the same purpose, an( yet five to ten times more incriminating than the infamous palti5. Bpp. J/-J', rollo L-0/K?K-44C An( as respon(ent 8u(ge +aceren points out, the peopleMs interpretation of P.2. 3B'C results in a-sur(ity at times. %o his e)ample <e may a(( a situation where a law-a-i(ing citi=en, a lawyer -y profession, after gar(ening in his house remem-ers to return the -olo use( -y him to his neigh-or who lives a-out 'K meters or so away an( while crossing the street meets a policeman. %he latter upon seeing the -olo -eing carrie( -y that citi=en places him un(er arrest an( -oo5s him for a violation of P.2. 3B'C. Coul( the presi(ential (ecree have -een conceive( to pro(uce such a-sur(, unreasona-le, an( insensi-le resultsO 4. Penal statutes are to -e construe( strictly against the state an( li-erally in favor of an accuse(. American .urispru(ence sets (own the reason for this rule to -e Ethe ten(erness of the law of the rights of in(ivi(uals; the o-.ect is to esta-lish a certain rule -y conformity to which man5in( woul( -e safe, an( the (iscretion of the court limite(.E 11 %he purpose is not to ena-le a guilty person to escape punishment through a technicality -ut to provi(e a precise (efinition of for-i((en acts. 12 #ur own (ecisions have set (own the same gui(elines in this manner, vi=H Criminal statutes are to -e construe( strictly. No person shoul( -e -rought within their terms who is not clearly within them, nor shoul( any act -e pronounce( criminal which is not ma(e clearly so -y the statute. B$.". v. A-a( "antos, '4 Phil. /0', /04C %he rule that penal statutes are given a strict construction is not the only factor controlling the interpretation of such laws, instea(, the rule merely serves as an a((itional, single factor to -e consi(ere( as an ai( in (etermining the meaning of penal laws. BPeople v. +anantan, ? "CRA 4>0, 43/C ;. %he &nformations file( -y petitioner are fatally (efective. %he two elements of the offense covere( -y P.2. 3B'C must -e allege( in the &nformation in or(er that the latter may constitute a sufficiently vali( charge(. %he sufficiency of an &nformation is (etermine( solely -y the facts allege( therein. 13 <here the facts are incomplete an( (o not convey the elements of the crime, the 9uashing of the accusation is in or(er. "ection /BaC, Rule !!J of the Rules of Court provi(es that the (efen(ant may move to 9uash the complaint or information when the facts charge( (o not constitute an offense. &n $.".$. *acutan, !3!0, it was hel( that where an accuse( is charge( with 5nowingly ren(ering an un.ust .u(gment un(er Article /K0 of the Revise( Penal Co(e, failure to allege in the &nformation that the .u(gment was ren(ere( 5nowing it to -e un.ust, is fatal. 14 &n People v. Ga(ao, !3?0, this Court through then 8ustice Cesar 1eng=on who later -ecame Chief 8ustice of the Court affirme( an or(er of the trial court which 9uashe( an &nformation wherein the facts recite( (i( not constitute a pu-lic offense as (efine( in "ection !, Repu-lic Act !0?. 15

*. %he filing of these Petitions was unnecessary -ecause the People coul( have availe( itself of other availa-le reme(ies -elow. Pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court followH Rule !!J, "ection J. ffect of sustaining the motion to 9uash. L &f the motion to 9uash is sustaine( the court may or(er that another information -e file(. &f such or(er is ma(e the (efen(ant, if in custo(y, shall remain so unless he shall -e a(mitte( to -ail. &f such or(er is not ma(e or if having -een ma(e another information is not file( withuntime to -e specifie( in the or(er, or within such further time as the court may allow for goo( cause shown, the (efen(ant, if in custo(y, shall -e (ischarge( therefrom, unless he is in custo(y on some other charge. Rule !!K, "ection !'. Amen(ment. L %he information or complaint may -e amen(e(, in su-stance or form, without leave of court, at any time -efore the (efen(ant plea(s; an( thereafter an( (uring the trial as to all matters of form, -y leave an( at the (iscretion of the court, when the same can -e (one without pre.u(ice to the rights of the (efen(ant. ))) ))) ))) %wo courses of action were open to Petitioner upon the 9uashing of the &nformations in these cases, vi=H ;irst, if the evi(ence on han( so warrante(, the People coul( have file( an amen(e( &nformation to inclu(e the secon( element of the offense as (efine( in the (ispute( or(ers of respon(ent 8u(ges. <e have rule( that if the facts allege( in the &nformation (o not constitute a punisha-le offense, the case shoul( not -e (ismisse( -ut the prosecution shoul( -e given an opportunity to amen( the &nformation. 16 "econ(, if the facts so .ustifie(, the People coul( have file( a complaint either un(er "ection /4 of Act No. !J>K, 9uote( earlier, or +anila City #r(inance No. '>/K, as amen(e( -y #r(inance No. '3/>, especially since in most if not all of the cases, the (ismissal was ma(e prior to arraignment of the accuse( an( on a motion to 9uash. "ection >. Rule !!J states thatH An or(er sustaining the motion to 9uash is not a -ar to another prosecution for the same offense unless the motion was -ase( on the groun(s specifie( in section /, su-sections BfC an( BhC of this rule. $n(er the foregoing, the filing of another complaint or &nformation is -arre( only when the criminal action or lia-ility ha( -een e)tinguishe( B"ection /6f7C or when the motion to 9uash was grante( for reasons of (ou-le .eopar(y. Bi-i(., 6h7C As to whether or not a plea of (ou-le .eopar(y may -e successfully invo5e( -y the accuse( in all these cases shoul( new complaints -e file( against them, is a matter <e nee( not resolve for the present. H. L <e conclu(e with high e)pectations that police authorities an( the prosecuting arm of the government true to the oath of office they have ta5en will e)ercise utmost circumspection an( goo( faith in evaluating the particular circumstances of a case so as to reach a fair an( .ust conclusion if a situation falls within the purview of P.2. 3B'C an( the prosecution un(er sai( (ecree is warrante( an( .ustifie(. %his o-ligation -ecomes a sacre( (uty in the face of the severe penalty impose( for the offense. #n this point, <e commen( the Chief "tate Prosecutor Ro(olfo A. Nocon on his letter to the City ;iscal of +anila on #cto-er !?, !3J?, written for the "ecretary, now +inister of 8ustice, where he state( the followingH

&n any case, please stu(y well each an( every case of this nature so that persons accuse( of carrying -la(e( weapons, specially those whose purpose is not to su-vert the (uly constitute( authorities, may not -e un(uly in(icte( for the serious offenses falling un(er P.2. No. 3. 17 Ges, while it is not within the power of courts of .ustice to in9uire into the wis(om of a law, it is however a .u(icial tas5 an( prerogative to (etermine if official action is within the spirit an( letter of the law an( if -asic fun(amental rights of an in(ivi(ual guarantee( -y the Constitution are not violate( in the process of its implementation. <e have to face the fact that it is an unwise an( un.ust application of a law, necessary an( .ustifie( un(er prevailing circumstances, which ren(ers the measure an instrument of oppression an( evil an( lea(s the citi=enry to lose their faith in their government. <H R ;#R , <e 2 NG these /4 Petitions for Review an( <e A;;&R+ the #r(ers of respon(ent 8u(ges (ismissing or 9uashing the &nformation concerne(, su-.ect however to #ur o-servations ma(e in the prece(ing pages /' to /? of this 2ecision regar(ing the right of the "tate or Petitioner herein to file either an amen(e( &nformation un(er Presi(ential 2ecree No. 3, paragraph ', or a new one un(er other e)isting statute or city or(inance as the facts may warrant. <ithout costs. "# #R2 R 2. ).". *o. L-1111, JUANA RIVERA( petitioner( $s. RICHAR* CAMP ELL, ?u"9e o2 ,-e Cou', o2 F/'0, In0,!n5e o2 ,-e 5/,( o2 M!n/.! ( respondent. JOHNSON, J.: 'he petition in the present case 4as presented for the purpose of o!tainin the 4rit of certiorari. 'he record sho4s that the petitioner had !een con$icted of a $io#ation of su!section 6f7 of section 2 of >rdinance *o. 12,( first !y the municipa# court of the city of ;ani#a and a ain !y the Court of ?irst Instance of the city of ;ani#a. She a##e ed in each court that the same 4as 4ithout 8urisdiction to try her for the crime committed. She admitted that she had committed the acts char ed in the comp#aint( !ut denied that the courts of the city of ;ani#a had 8urisdiction to try her for the same. &ach of said courts o$erru#ed her o!8ection to the 8urisdiction( each found her ui#ty of the crime char ed( and each sentenced her to pay a fine. 5pon the presentation of the petition in this court the respondent 4as ordered to appear and sho4 cause 4hy the 4rit shou#d not issue. In response to said order a demurrer 4as presented. 'he facts upon 4hich the present proceedin are !ased seem to !e as fo##o4sF 'hat the said .uana "i$era 4as char ed 4ith ha$in 4i##fu##y and un#a4fu##y 4ashed arments( artic#es of c#othin ( and fa!rics in the 4aters of that part of the ;ariCuina "i$er #yin !et4een the Santo#an pumpin station and the :oso-:oso dam( in the Pro$ince of "i9a#( a p#ace then occupied !y du#y authori9ed representati$es and emp#oyees of the city of ;ani#a( on or a!out ;ay 11th( 1,10( in $io#ation of su!section 6f7 of section 2 of >rdinance *o. 12, of the city of ;ani#a( in re#ation 4ith the pro$isions of sections - and 1 of the same >rdinance. 5pon said comp#aint the municipa# court found the p#aintiff ui#ty. She appea#ed to the Court of ?irst Instance 4here she 4as a ain found ui#ty of a $io#ation of said >rdinance. 'he simp#e Cuestion presented in the present case is 4hether or not the courts of the city of ;ani#a ha$e 8urisdiction o$er the crime committed !y the petitioner at the p#ace it 4as committed. Said section 2 of para raph 6f7 of said >rdinance pro$ides as fo##o4sF S&C'I>* 2. 'he fo##o4in re u#ations sha## !e o!ser$ed upon a## #ands occupied !y any du#y authori9ed representati$e( officer( or emp#oyee of the city of ;ani#aF

EEE EEE EEE 6f7 :athin in 4ater courses. H A## persons are prohi!ited from !athin in the ri$er and 4ater courses. 'he 4ashin of arments( artic#es of c#othin ( and fa!rics in the 4aters of any ri$er or 4ater course is prohi!ited. Said section of said >rdinance 4as adopted !y the municipa# !oard of the city of ;ani#a in pursuance of the po4er conferred upon it !y authority of the pro$isions of para raphs 647 and 6cc7 of section 11 of Act *o. 1+/( and para raph 6i7 of section / of Act *o. 1100 of the Phi#ippine Commission. Section 11 and para raph 647 and 6cc7 pro$ideF S&C. 11 . . . . In addition to the fore oin the !oard 6municipa#7 sha## ha$e the fo##o4in EEE EEE EEE 647 'o maintain 4ater4or@s for the purpose of supp#yin 4ater to the inha!itants of the city 6of ;ani#a7( to purify the source of supp#y( and re u#ate the contro# and use of the 4ater( and to fiE and co##ect rents thereforD to re u#ate the construction( repair( and use of hydrants( pumps( cisterns( and reser$oirs( and to pre$ent the 4aste of 4ater. EEE EEE EEE 6cc7 'o eEtend and enforce a## its ordinances o$er a## 4aters 4ithin the city( . . . and for the purpose of protectin and insurin the purity of the 4ater supp#y of the city( to eEtend and enforce ordinances to that end o$er a## territory 4ithin the draina e area of such 4ater supp#y( or 4ithin one hundred meters of any reser$oir( conduit( cana#( aCueduct( or pumpin station used in connection 4ith the city 4ater ser$ice. 'he municipa# !oard 4as further authori9ed to protect the purity of the 4ater supp#y of the city of ;ani#a( !y Act *o. 1100 of the Phi#ippine Commission. Section / of said Act pro$idesF S&C. / 6Act *o. 1100.7 'he ordinances drafted !y the :oard of %ea#th may pro$ide forF EEE EEE EEE 6i7 Protection from infection of a## pu!#ic and pri$ate 4ater supp#ies and sources( and prohi!ition of the use of 4ater of dan erous character of domestic purposes. >rdinances enacted for the purpose of protectin the purity of the 4ater supp#y of ;ani#a sha## app#y to and !e enforced o$er a## territory 4ithin the draina e area of such 4ater supp#y or 4ithin one hundred meters of any reser$oir( conduit( cana#( aCueduct( or pumpin station used in connection 4ith the city 4ater ser$ice.I It is admitted that durin the dry season( the city of ;ani#a 4as o!#i ed to use( in addition to the natura# 4ater supp#y from :oso:oso dam( the 4ater from ;ariCuina "i$erD that the 4ater 4as ta@en out of the ;ariCuina "i$era !y means of a pumpin station #ocated some distance !e#o4 :oso-:oso dam( and that the petitioner 4as found 4ashin her c#othin !et4een the said pumpin station and :oso-:oso dam. It is c#ear( therefore( that she 4as ui#ty of interferin 4ith the purity of the 4ater 4hich 4as supp#ied to the city of ;ani#a !y said pumpin station. 3ith reference to the 8urisdiction of the courts of the city of ;ani#a o$er said territory( it may !e noted that section - of said >rdinance *o. 12,( eEpress#y confers upon the municipa# court of the city of ;ani#a po4er to try any $io#ation of any of its pro$isions. Section 1 of said ordinance pro$ides the pena#ty for its $io#ation. 3hen the Cuestion of the 8urisdiction of the Court of ?irst Instance of the city of ;ani#a 4as presented to the #o4er court( .ud e Camp!e##( the respondent herein( in a $ery 4e##-reasoned opinion( reached the conc#usion that the court had 8urisdiction o$er the petitioner and the offense committed( and sentenced her to pay a fine of P00 and costs( and in case of inso#$ency to suffer su!sidiary imprisonment. In the course of his opinion( .ud e Camp!e## saidF enera# po4ersF

It is !eyond Cuestion that !y 4ashin arments( artic#es of c#othin ( and fa!rics in the ;ariCuina "i$er( as sho4n a!o$e( the defendant committed a $io#ation of para raph 6f7 of section 2 of >rdinance *o. 12, of the city of ;ani#a( in connection 4ith sections - and 1 thereof. 'he Santo#an pumpin station is a part of the pu!#ic 4ater supp#y of the city of ;ani#a 4hich is used in supp#yin the inha!itants of the city 4ith 4ater ta@en from that part of the ;ariCuina "i$er durin the dry reason( in the 4aters of 4hich the defendant 4ashed artic#es of c#othin . Accordin to American authorities( the true meanin of the phrase pu!#ic 4ater supp#y is as fo##o4sF GPu!#ic 4as supp#y is not #imited to 4ater supp#y o4ned and contro##ed !y a municipa# corporation( !ut shou#d !e construed as meanin a supp#y of 4ater for pu!#ic and domestic use( furnished or to !e furnished from 4ater4or@s.G 6State $s. 'o4nship etc.( 02 *. .. La4( 2,-D 1, At#. "ep.( ,10.7 'he pro$isions of >rdinance *o. 12, of the city of ;ani#a and the Acts of the Phi#ippine Commission upon 4hich it is !ased 4ou#d !e meanin #ess and a#most a!surd if made app#ica!#e on#y to the Santo#an pumpin station and not to that part of the ;ariCuina "i$er immediate#y a!o$e it and from 4hich the said pumpin station dra4s 4ater for the use of the inha!itants of the city of ;ani#a durin the dry season( considerin that the po#icy and purpose of said ordinance is the protection of the pu!#ic hea#th in the said city. Accordin to American decisions on the construction of statutesF G&$ery statute must !e construed 4ith reference to the o!8ect intended to !e accomp#ished !y it. In order to ascertain this o!8ect it is proper to consider the occasion and necessity of its enactment( . . . . and the statute shou#d !e i$en that construction 4hich is !est ca#cu#ated to ad$ance its o!8ect( !y suppressin the mischief and securin the !enefits intended.G 6/- Cyc.( 1110( 1111.7 'hat the Court of ?irst Instance of the city of ;ani#a has 8urisdiction to try the offense under consideration( a#thou h committed in the Pro$ince of "i9a#( !y $irtue of the pro$isions of said ordinance 612,7( !ased upon para raphs 647 and 6cc7( of section 11 of Act *o. 1+/( and para raph 6i7 f section / of Act *o. 1100 of the Phi#ippine Commission can not !e disputed( if 4e simp#y ta@e into consideration the fo##o4in ru#e( 4hich has !een pronounced on many occasions( in re#ation to the same Cuestion( !y many courtsF G'he corporation !oundaries usua##y mar@ the #imit for the eEercise of the po#ice po4er !y the municipa#ityD !ut in many instances !ecause essentia# to the statutory performance of po#ice functions( and especia##y for the preser$ation of the pu!#ic hea#th( the municipa#ity is ranted po#ice po4er !eyond its !oundaries. 'hus it has !een he#d that the rant of po4er to acCuire territory for 4ater supp#y !eyond the #imits of the municipa#ity is 4ithin the competency of the #e is#ature( and that the municipa#ity may eEercise po#ice po4er in the protection of the territory thus acCuired to insure c#ean#iness( and pre$ent any !usiness and conduct #i@e#y to corrupt the fountain of 4ater supp#y for the city.G 62+ Cyc.( 10/( 102.7 After a consideration of the facts and the #a4 app#ica!#e thereto and the enera# po4er conferred upon the city of ;ani#a( 4e are fu##y persuaded that the municipa# court of the city of ;ani#a( as 4e## as the Court of ?irst Instance of the city of ;ani#a( has 8urisdiction to hear and determine the Cuestion presented !y the comp#aint ori ina##y presented a ainst the petitioner. 'herefore the petition for the 4rit of certiorari is here!y denied( 4ith costs. So ordered. G.R. No. 1)9)%$ M!( 28, 2002

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL., $s. PANFILO M. LACSON RESOLUTION :efore us is a petition for re$ie4 on certiorari see@in to re$erse and set aside the Decision 1 of the Court of Appea#s dated Au ust 22( 2001 in CA-).". SP *o. -00/2.2 'he said Decision of the appe##ate court ranted respondent LacsonGs Second Amended Petition for Prohi!ition 4ith app#ication for the issuance of a 'emporary "estrainin >rder( 617 assai#in the >rder issued !y .ud e %erminia Pasam!a of the "e iona# 'ria# Court 6"'C7 of ;ani#a( :ranch 20( that a##o4ed the continuation of the

re-in$esti ation of Crimina# Cases *os. B-,,-+1-1, to B-,,-+1-+, or the =uraton :a#e#en casesD and 627 prayin for the dismissa# of Crimina# Cases *os. B-01-101102 to B-01-101112 entit#ed IPeop#e of the Phi#ippines $. Panfi#o Lacson( et a#.I pendin !efore :ranch +1 of the "'C of Bue9on City. 'he fo##o4in appear in the records of this caseF 617 >n ;ay 1+( 1,,0( then P*P Director-)enera# "ecaredo Sarmiento II announced( in a press conference( the @i##in of e#e$en 6117 mem!ers of the :uratong 1aleleng )an 6=:)7 in a shootout 4ith po#ice e#ements near the f#y-o$er a#on Common4ea#th A$enue( Bue9on City at a!out 2F00 A.;. that day./ 627 >n ;ay 22( 1,,0( mornin papers carried the ne4s that SP>2 &duardo de#os "eyes had c#aimed that the @i##in of the e#e$en 6117 an mem!ers 4as a Iru!-outI or summary eEecution and not a shootout. 2 6/7 In an affida$it he eEecuted the fo##o4in day( de#os "eyes stated( amon others( that he 4as part of a composite po#ice team ca##ed the Anti-:an@ "o!!ery and Inte##i ence 'as@ ?orce )roup 6A:"I'?)7 composed of e#ements of the *ationa# Capita# "e ion Command 6*C"C7 and headed !y Chief Superintendent .e4e# CansonD 'raffic ;ana ement Command( headed !y Senior Superintendent ?rancisco Su!ia( .r.D Presidentia# Anti-Crime Commission 6PACC7( headed !y Chief Superintendent Panfi#o ;. LacsonD Centra# Po#ice District Command( headed !y Chief Superintendent "icardo de LeonD and Crimina# In$esti ation Command 6CIC7( headed !y Chief Superintendent "omeo Acop. De#os "eyes c#aimed that the po#ice team arrested the e#e$en 6117 an mem!ers in ear#y mornin of ;ay 1+( 1,,0 at the an Gs safe house in Super$i##e Su!di$ision( ParaTaCueD that after their arrest( the an mem!ers 4ere made to !oard t4o $ans( their hands tied !ehind their !ac@s( and !rou ht initia##y to Camp Crame 4here a decision to summari#y eEecute them 4as made( and #ater to Common4ea#th A$enue 4here they 4ere shot to death !y e#ements of A:"I'?). 0 627 >n ;ay 2-( 1,,0( SP>2 Cora9on de#a Cru9( another CIC in$esti ator( eEecuted an affida$it corro!oratin the materia# a##e ations of de#os "eyes. De#a Cru9 c#aimed that she 4as 4ith de#os "eyes from the time the e#e$en 6117 =:) mem!ers 4ere arrested up to the time they 4ere @i##ed in Common4ea#th A$enue. 607 >n ;ay /1( 1,,0( Armando Capi#i( a reporter of Remate, eEecuted an affida$it statin that he 4as present 4hen the =:) mem!ers 4ere arrested in Super$i##e Su!di$ision.1 6-7 >n .une 1( 1,,0( Chief Superintendent .o! A. ;ayo( P*P Director for In$esti ation( fi#ed murder char es 4ith the >ffice of the >m!udsman a ainst ninety-se$en 6,17 officers and personne# of A:"I'?). 'he neEt-of-@in of the s#ain =:) mem!ers a#so fi#ed murder char es a ainst the same officers and personne#. + 617 >m!udsman Aniano Desierto then created a pane# of in$esti ators to conduct a pre#iminary in$esti ation of the murder char es. 'he pane# 4as headed !y Deputy >m!udsman for ;i#itary Affairs :ien$enido :#ancaf#or. >n >cto!er 20( 1,,0( the pane# issued a reso#ution recommendin the dismissa# of the char es for #ac@ of pro!a!#e cause. 6+7 >m!udsman Desierto referred the reso#ution for re$ie4 !y a pane# composed of >$er-a## Deputy >m!udsman ?rancisco Vi##a as head( and Specia# Prosecutor Leonardo 'amayo and Assistant >m!udsman A!e#ardo Aportadera as mem!ers. >n *o$em!er 20( 1,,0( the re$ie4 pane# re$ersed the :#ancaf#or reso#ution and found pro!a!#e cause for the prosecution of mu#tip#e murder char es a ainst t4enty-siE 62-7 officers and personne# of A:"I'?). , 6,7 >n *o$em!er 2( 1,,0( the >m!udsman fi#ed !efore the "an(igan-ayan e#e$en 6117 Informations for ;5"D&"( doc@eted as Crimina# Cases *os. 2/021 to 2/001( a ainst respondent Panfi#o ;. Lacson and t4enty-fi$e 6207 other accused. A## t4enty-siE 62-7 of them 4ere char ed as principa#s.10 'he fo##o4in appear to !e the $ictimsF ;e#eu!ren Sorronda in Crim. Case *o. 2/021D 3e#!or &#came# in Crim. Case *o. 2/02+D Car#ito A#ap-ap in Crim. Case *o. 2/02,D .e$y "edi##as in Crim. Case *o. 2/000D "ay A!a#ora in Crim. Case *o. 2/001D .oe# Amora in Crim. Case *o. 2/002D A#eE *eri in Crim. Case *o. 2/00/D "o#ando Sip#on in

Crim. Case *o. 2/002D ;anue# ;ontero in Crim. Case *o. 2/000D Sher4in A!a#ora in Crim. Case *o. 2/00-D and Pacifico ;ontero in Crim. Case *o. 2/001. 6107 5pon motion of the respondent( the crimina# cases 4ere remanded to the >m!udsman for rein$esti ation. >n ;arch 1( 1,,-( Amended Informations 4ere fi#ed a ainst the same t4enty-siE 62-7 suspects !ut the participation of respondent Lacson 4as do4n raded from principa# to accessory. Arrai nment then fo##o4ed and respondent entered a p#ea of not ui#ty. 11 6117 3ith the do4n radin of char es a ainst him( respondent Lacson Cuestioned the 8urisdiction of the "an(igan-ayan to hear the crimina# cases as none of the Iprincipa#I accused in the Amended Informations 4as a o$ernment officia# 4ith a Sa#ary )rade 6S)7 21 or hi her( citin Section 2 of ". A. *o. 1,10 then pre$ai#in . Accordin #y( the "an(igan-ayan ordered the cases transferred to the "e iona# 'ria# Court.12 6127 'he >ffice of the Specia# Prosecutor fi#ed a motion for reconsideration of the transfer. Pendin reso#ution of the motion( ". A. *o. +22, too@ effect on ?e!ruary 2/( 1,,1( amendin ". A. *o. 1,10. In particu#ar( the amendatory #a4 de#eted the 4ord Iprincipa#I in Section 2 of ". A. *o. 1,10( there!y eEpandin the 8urisdiction of the "an(igan-ayan to inc#ude a## cases 4here at #east one of the accused( 4hether principa#( accomp#ice or accessory( is a o$ernment officia# of Sa#ary )rade 6S)7 21 or hi her. 'he amendment is made app#ica!#e to a## cases pendin in any court in 4hich tria# has not yet !e un as of the date of its appro$a#.1/ 61/7 In Lacson $. &Eecuti$e Secretary(12 respondent Lacson cha##en ed the constitutiona#ity of the amendment and contended that the "an(igan-ayan had no 8urisdiction o$er the crimina# cases. 'his Court( 4hi#e dismissin the constitutiona# cha##en e( nonethe#ess ordered the transfer of the crimina# cases to the "e iona# 'ria# Court on the round that the Amended Informations for murder fai#ed to indicate that the offenses char ed therein 4ere committed in re#ation to( or in dischar e of( the officia# functions of the respondent( as reCuired !y ". A. *o. +22,. 6127 Crimina# Cases *os. 2/021 to 2/001 4ere raff#ed off to :ranch +1 of the "e iona# 'ria# Court of Bue9on City( then presided !y .ud e( no4 Associate .ustice of the Court of Appea#s( 3ences#ao A nir( .r.( and re-doc@eted as Crimina# Cases *os. B-,,+1-1, to B-,,-+1-+,. 6107 :efore the accused cou#d !e arrai ned( prosecution 4itnesses &duardo de #os "eyes( Cora9on de #a Cru9( Armando Capi#i and .ane )ome9 recanted their affida$its 4hich imp#icated respondent Lacson in the murder of the =:) mem!ers. >n the other hand( pri$ate comp#ainants ;yrna A!a#ora(10 Leonora Amora(1- *enita A#ap-ap(11 Ime#da ;ontero(1+ ;ar arita "edi##as(1, Carme#ita &#came#20 and "o#ando Sip#on21 a#so eEecuted their respecti$e affida$its of desistance dec#arin that they 4ere no #on er interested to prosecute these cases. 22 61-7 Due to these de$e#opments( the t4enty-siE 62-7 accused( inc#udin respondent Lacson( fi#ed fi$e separate !ut identica# motions to 617 ma@e a 8udicia# determination of the eEistence of pro!a!#e cause for the issuance of 4arrants of arrestD 627 ho#d in a!eyance the issuance of the 4arrants( and 6/7 dismiss the cases shou#d the tria# court find #ac@ of pro!a!#e cause. 6117 'he records of the case !efore us are not c#ear 4hether the pri$ate offended parties 4ere notified of the hearin on ;arch 22( 1,,,2/ he#d !y .ud e A nir to reso#$e the motions fi#ed !y respondent Lacson and the other accused. 61+7 Durin the said hearin ( the pri$ate offended parties 4ho desisted do not appear to ha$e !een presented on the 4itness stand. In their stead( Atty. )od4in Va#de9 testified that he assisted them in preparin their affida$its of desistance and that he si ned said affida$its as 4itness. >n the other hand( Atty. Aurora :autista of the Phi#ippine La4yerGs Lea ue presented the affida$its of recantation of prosecution 4itnesses &duardo de #os "eyes( Armando Capi#i and .ane )ome9. >n#y prosecution 4itness Cora9on de #a Cru9 testified to affirm her affida$it.22

61,7 >n ;arch 2,( 1,,,( .ud e A nir issued a "eso#ution 20 dismissin Crimina# Cases *os. B-,,-+1-1, to B-,,-+1-+,( as fo##o4sF IAs a#ready seen( the documents attached to the Informations in support thereof ha$e !een rendered meanin #ess( if not a!surd( 4ith the recantation of the principa# prosecution 4itnesses and the desistance of the pri$ate comp#ainants. 'here is no more e$idence to sho4 that a crime has !een committed and that the accused are pro!a!#y ui#ty thereof. ?o##o4in the doctrine a!o$ecited( there is no more reason to ho#d the accused for tria# and further eEpose them to an open and pu!#ic accusation. It is time to 4rite finis to these cases and #ay to rest the host of the incident of ;ay 1+( 1,,0 so that a## those in$o#$ed--- the accused( the prosecution 4itnesses and the pri$ate comp#ainants a#i@e--- may et on 4ith their #i$es. 'he Court is not unmindfu# of the admonition in the recent case of Peop#e $s. Court of Appea#s 6).". *o. 12-000( .anuary 21( 1,,,7 4here the Supreme Court said that the enera# ru#e is that Gif the Information is $a#id on its face and there is no sho4in of manifest error( ra$e a!use of discretion or pre8udice on the part of the pu!#ic prosecutor( courts shou#d not dismiss it for 4ant of e$idence( !ecause e$identiary matters shou#d !e presented and heard durin the tria#G( and that the ru#in in A##ado $s. Dio@no Gis an eEception to the enera# ru#e and may !e in$o@ed on#y if simi#ar circumstances are c#ear#y sho4n to eEist.G 'his Court ho#ds that the circumstances in the case at !ench c#ear#y ma@e an eEception to the enera# ru#e. 3%&"&?>"&( in $ie4 of the fore oin ( the Court finds no pro!a!#e cause for the issuance of the 4arrants of arrest a ainst the accused or to ho#d them for tria#. Accordin #y( the Informations in the a!o$e-num!ered cases are here!y ordered dismissed.I S> >"D&"&D.I26207 >n ;arch 21( 2001( P*P Director Leandro ". ;endo9a indorsed to the Department of .ustice the ne4 affida$its of P<Insp. Ysmae# S. Yu and P<S Insp. A!e#ardo "amos re ardin the :uratong 1aleleng incident for pre#iminary in$esti ation. >n the stren th of this indorsement( Secretary of .ustice %ernando :. Pere9 formed a pane# to in$esti ate the matter. >n Apri# 11( 2001( the respondent 4as su!poenaed to attend the in$esti ation of Crimina# Cases *os. B-,,-+1-1, to B-,,-+1-+,. 21 6217 >n ;ay 2+( 2001( respondent Lacson( et a#.( in$o@in ( amon others( their constitutiona# ri ht a ainst dou!#e 8eopardy( fi#ed a petition for prohi!ition 4ith app#ication for temporary restrainin order and<or 4rit of pre#iminary in8unction 4ith the "e iona# 'ria# Court of ;ani#a( primari#y to en8oin the State prosecutors from conductin the pre#iminary in$esti ation. 'he petition 4as doc@eted as Ci$i# Case *o. 01-100,// and raff#ed to :ranch 20( presided !y .ud e %erminia V. Pasam!a. 2+ 6227 'he p#ea for temporary restrainin order 4as denied !y .ud e Pasam!a in an >rder 2, dated .une 0( 2001(vi=F IAfter a study( this Court su!mits that the dismissa# of Crimina# Cases *os. B-,,-+1-1, to B-,,-+1-+, is not one on the merits and 4ithout any recorded arrai nment and entered p#ea on the part of the herein petitioners. 'he dismissa# 4as a direct conseCuence of the findin of the Bue9on City "'C that no pro!a!#e cause eEists for the issuance of 4arrants of arrest a ainst petitioners herein and to ho#d them for tria#. 'he arrai nment had 4ith the "an(igan-ayan does not put the case in a different perspecti$e since the"an(igan-ayan 4as ad8ud ed to !e 4ithout any 8urisdiction to try the cases. It is the Peop#e of the Phi#ippines 4ho is the comp#ainant in the =uraton :a#e#en case and remains to !e the comp#ainant in the present in$esti ation initiated thru a #etter of P*P Chief ;endo9a dated ;arch 21( 2001 6&Ehi!it I:I7 to ether 4ith the s4orn statements of 4itnesses "amos and Yu 6&Ehi!its I2I and I/I - supporti$e of the refi#in of the case 6&Ehi!it I,I7. EEE EEE EEE

3%&"&?>"&( the prayer for temporary restrainin order is here!y D&*I&D. S> >"D&"&D.I/0 62/7 >n .une -( 2001( e#e$en 6117 Informations for murder in$o#$in the @i##in of the same mem!ers of the :uratong 1aleleng an 4ere fi#ed !efore the "e iona# 'ria# Court of Bue9on City and 4ere doc@eted as Crimina# Cases *os. 01-101102 to 01-101112. 'he ne4 Informations char ed as principa#s thirty-four 6/27 peop#e( inc#udin respondent Lacson and his t4entyfi$e 6207 other co-accused in Crimina# Cases *os. B-,,-+1-1, to B-,,-+1-+,. 'he crimina# cases 4ere assi ned to .ud e ;a. 'heresa L. Yadao. 6227 >n the same day( respondent Lacson fi#ed !efore the Court of Appea#s a petition for certiorari /1 a ainst .ud e Pasam!a( the Secretary of .ustice( the P*P Chief( State Prosecutors >n and Oacarias( 2nd Assistant City Prosecutor .amo#in( and the Peop#e of the Phi#ippines. 'he said petition 4as amended to imp#ead as additiona# party-respondents State Prosecutor C#aro Are##ano and the "'C( Bue9on City( :ranch +1 in 4hich the Informations in Crimina# Cases *os. 01-101102 to 01-101112 4ere fi#ed. /2 6207 'he Second Amended Petition// dated .une 12( 2001 and admitted !y the Court of Appea#s on .une 2-( 2001( a##e edF I'he re#iefs of certiorari( prohi!ition and in8unction a ainst the Cuestioned >rder 6AnneE A7 and the ne4 Informations in Crimina# Cases *os. 01-101102 to 01-101112 pendin !efore respondent Yadao 6AnneE :7 are founded upon the ra$e a!use of discretion !y respondent .ud e Pasam!a of her discretion in its issuance( the i##e a#ity of the proceedin s of the respondent State Prosecutors as they cannot re$i$e comp#aints 4hich had !een dismissed o$er t4o 627 years from the date the dismissa# order 4as issued( and the in$a#idity of the ne4 Informations for ;urder fi#ed a ainst petitioners and others( a## in defiance of #a4 and 8urisprudence as sho4n !y the fo##o4in F 6a7 "espondent 8ud e had ru#ed on the merits of the main prohi!ition action a 9uo renderin the same moot and academic !y conc#udin that the dismissa# of Crimina# Cases *os. B-,,-+1-1,-B-,,-+1-+, !y the BC "'C 4as not fina# and eEecutory( hence JiK the comp#aints therein can !e rein$esti ated( and JiiK petitionerGs arrai nment 4hi#e the case had not yet !een remanded to the BC "'C and 4hi#e the "an(igan-ayan had $a#id 8urisdiction thereo$er JCrimina# Cases *o. 2/021-202+K 4as $oid( not4ithstandin that the on#y issue in the '"> app#ication 4as the eEistence or #ac@ of a $a#id comp#aint as defined in S1 and S/( "u#e 110. 6!7 "espondent .ud e ru#ed that respondent State Prosecutors cou#d proceed to re-in$esti ate and thereafter fi#e ne4 Informations on .une -( 2001 co$erin those offenses su!8ect of Crimina# Cases *os. B-,,-+1-1,-B-,,-+1-+, on the !asis of affida$its fi#ed after said cases 4ere dismissed on ;arch 2,( 1,,,( despite the fact that under Section +( "u#e 111( cases simi#ar to those fi#ed a ainst the petitioner and others 64here the pena#ty imposa!#e is imprisonment of siE 6-7 years or more7 cannot !e re$i$ed after t4o 627 years from the date the dismissa# order 4as issued. 6c7 "espondent .ud e he#d that the petitioner had not sho4n a ri ht to !e preser$ed despite e$idence sho4in the short cuts ta@en !y respondent State prosecutors in re-in$esti atin a dismissed case( in not comp#yin 4ith "u#es in respect of its re-openin ( and in insistin that a $a#id comp#aint 4as fi#ed in c#ear $io#ation of the "u#es and case #a4 thereon( and despite the fact that the petitioner had sho4n that an ineEtendi!#e dead#ine of .une 0( 2001 4as i$en him to fi#e his counter-affida$it 4ithout 4hich his indictment for a non-!ai#a!#e offense is assured !ecause of D>. Secretary %ernando Pere9Gs po#itica# schemes.I /2 62-7 In the meantime( on .une +( 2001( respondent Lacson a#so fi#ed 4ith the "'C-BC :ranch +1 6presided !y .ud e ;a. 'heresa Yadao7( a ;otion for .udicia# Determination of Pro!a!#e Cause and in the a!sence thereof( to dismiss the cases outri ht. "espondent Lacson( ho4e$er( fi#ed a ;anifestation and ;otion dated .une 1/( 2001 see@in the suspension of the proceedin s !efore the tria# court./0 6217 'he Court of Appea#s issued a temporary restrainin order en8oinin .ud e Yadao from issuin a 4arrant of arrest or conductin any proceedin or hearin in Crimina# Cases *os. 01-101102 to 01-101112. /-

A!o$e considered( this Court finds petitioners ha$e not pre#iminari#y esta!#ished that they ha$e a ri ht to !e preser$ed pendin hearin on the in8uncti$e re#ief.

62+7 >n Au ust 22( 2001( the Court of Appea#s 6Specia# 'hird Di$ision7( rendered the no4 assai#ed Decision. It characteri9ed the termination of Crimina# Cases *os. B-,,-+1-1, to B-,,-+1-+, as Ipro$isiona# dismissa#(I and considered Crimina# Cases *os. 01-101102 to 01-101112 as mere re$i$a#s of the same. App#yin Section +( "u#e 111 of the 2000 "e$ised "u#es of Crimina# Procedure( it dismissed the crimina# cases a ainst the respondent( vi=F IIn sum( this Court is of the considered $ie4 that the su!8ect dismissa# of JtheK crimina# cases 4as pro$isiona# in nature and that the cases present#y sou ht to !e prosecuted !y the respondents are mere re$i$a# or re-openin of the dismissed cases. 'he present contro$ersy( !ein one in$o#$in Ipro$isiona# dismissa#I and re$i$a# of crimina# cases( fa##s 4ithin the pur$ie4 of the prescripti$e period pro$ided under Section +( "u#e 111 of the 2000 "e$ised "u#es of Crimina# Procedure. 'he second para raph of the said pro$ision is couched in c#ear( simp#e and cate orica# 4ords. It mandates that for offenses punisha!#e !y imprisonment of more than siE 6-7 years( as the su!8ect crimina# cases( their pro$isiona# dismissa# sha## !ecome permanent t4o 627 years after the issuance of the order 4ithout the case ha$in !een re$i$ed. It shou#d !e noted that the re$i$a# of the su!8ect crimina# cases( e$en if rec@oned from the D>.Gs issuance of su!poenas to petitioner( 4as commenced on#y on Apri# 1,( 2001( that is( more than t4o 627 years after the issuance( on ;arch 2,( 1,,,( of "'C-Bue9on CityGs "eso#ution( pro$isiona##y dismissin the crimina# cases no4 sou ht to !e re$i$ed. App#yin the c#ear and cate orica# mandate of Section +( "u#e 111( supra( such efforts to re$i$e the crimina# cases are no4 definite#y !arred !y the t4o-year prescripti$e period pro$ided therein. EEE EEE EEE

'he records of the case( ho4e$er( do not re$ea# 4ith eCua# c#arity and conc#usi$eness 4hether notices to the offended parties 4ere i$en !efore the cases a ainst the respondent Lacson 4ere dismissed !y then .ud e A nir. It appears from the reso#ution of then .ud e A nir that the re#ati$es of the $ictims 4ho desisted did not appear durin the hearin to affirm their affida$its. 'heir affida$its of desistance 4ere on#y presented !y Atty. )od4in Va#de9 4ho testified that he assisted the pri$ate comp#ainants in preparin their affida$its and he si ned them as a 4itness. It a#so appears that on#y se$en 617 persons su!mitted their affida$its of desistance( name#yF a. ;yrna A!a#ora( mother of the $ictims Sher4in A!a#ora and "ey A!a#ora !. Carme#ita &#came#( 4ife of 3i#!ur &#came#D c. Leonora Amora( mother of $ictim .oe# AmoraD d. *enita A#ap-ap( 4ife of $ictim Car#ito A#ap-apD e. Ime#da ;ontero( 4ife of $ictim ;anue# ;onteroD f. ;ar arita "edi##as( mother of $ictim %i#ario .e$y "edi##asD and . "o#ando Sip#on. ?rom the records of the case !efore us( it cannot !e determined 4hether there 4ere affida$its of desistance eEecuted !y the re#ati$es of the three 6/7/+ other $ictims( name#yF ;e#eu!ren Soronda( Pacifico ;ontero( .r.( and A#eE *eri. 'he same records do not sho4 4hether they 4ere notified of the hearin or had @no4#ed e thereof. 'o !e sure( it is not fair to eEpect the e#ement of notice to !e #iti ated !efore then .ud e A nir for Section +( "u#e 111 4as yet ineEistent at that time. 'he fact of notice to the offended parties 4as not raised either in the petition for prohi!ition 4ith app#ication for temporary restrainin order or 4rit of pre#iminary in8unction fi#ed !y respondent Lacson in the "'C of ;ani#a( presided !y .ud e Pasam!a( to en8oin the prosecutors from rein$esti atin the said cases a ainst him. 'he on#y Cuestion raised in said petition is 4hether the rein$esti ation 4i## $io#ate the ri ht of respondent Lacson a ainst dou!#e 8eopardy. 'hus( the issue of 4hether or not the rein$esti ation is !arred !y Section +( "u#e 111 4as not tac@#ed !y the #iti ants. *or 4as the fact of notice to the offended parties the su!8ect of proof after the e#e$en 6117 informations for murder a ainst respondent Lacson and company 4ere re$i$ed in the "'C of Bue9on City presided !y .ud e Yadao. 'here 4as hard#y any proceedin conducted in the case for respondent Lacson immediate#y fi#ed a petition for certiorari in the appe##ate court cha##en in ( amon others( the authority of .ud e Yadao to entertain the re$i$ed informations for mu#tip#e murder a ainst him. 'his is not to !e 4ondered at. 'he app#ica!i#ity of Section +( "u#e 111 4as ne$er considered in the tria# court. It 4as in the Court of Appea#s 4here respondent Lacson raised for the first time the ar ument that Section +( "u#e 111 !ars the re$i$a# of the mu#tip#e murder cases a ainst him. :ut e$en then( the appe##ate court did not reCuire the parties to e#ucidate the crucia# issue of 4hether notices 4ere i$en to the offended parties !efore .ud e A nir ordered the dismissa# of the cases a ainst respondent Lacson and company. 'o !e sure( there is a statement in the Decision of the appe##ate court to the effect that Irecords sho4 that the prosecution and the pri$ate offended parties 4ere notified of the hearin E E E.I /, It is dou!tfu# 4hether this findin is supported !y the records of the case. It appears to !e contrary to .ud e A nirGs findin that on#y se$en 617 of the comp#ainants su!mitted affida$its of desistance. Indeed( the records of this case are inconc#usi$e on the factua# issue of 4hether the mu#tip#e murder cases a ainst respondent Lacson are !ein re$i$ed 4ithin or !eyond the 2-year !ar. 'he rec@onin date of the 2-year !ar has to !e first determined - - -

3%&"&?>"&( the petition is )"A*'&D. As prayed for( the 'emporary "estrainin >rder ear#ier issued a ainst the conduct of further proceedin s in Crimina# Cases *os. 01-101102 to 01-101112( inc#udin the issuance of 4arrants of arrest a ainst the petitioner( PA*?IL> ;. LACS>*( is here!y made P&";A*&*'. Accordin #y( 4ith respect to said accused( the proceedin s conducted !y respondent State Prosecutors in respect of the said crimina# cases are dec#ared *5LL A*D V>ID and the correspondin Informations( doc@eted as Crimina# Cases *os. 01-101102 to 01-101112( entit#ed GPeop#e of the Phi#ippines $s. Panfi#o ;. Lacson( et al.E and fi#ed !efore respondent .ud e ;aria 'heresa L. Yadao of :ranch +1 of the "e iona# 'ria# Court of Bue9on City( are here!y ordered DIS;ISS&D. S> >"D&"&D.I/1 'he issue is 4hether Section +( "u#e 111 !ars the fi#in of the e#e$en 6117 informations a ainst the respondent Lacson in$o#$in the @i##in of some mem!ers of the :uratong 1aleleng an . 'his ru#e 4hich too@ effect on Decem!er 1( 2000 pro$idesF IS&C. +. Provisional (ismissal.- A case sha## not !e pro$isiona##y dismissed eEcept 4ith the eEpress consent of the accused and 4ith notice to the offended party. 'he pro$isiona# dismissa# of offenses punisha!#e !y imprisonment not eEceedin siE 6-7 years or a fine of any amount( or !oth( sha## !ecome permanent one 617 year after issuance of the order 4ithout the case ha$in !een re$i$ed. 3ith respect to offenses punisha!#e !y imprisonment of more than siE 6-7 years( their pro$isiona# dismissa# sha## !ecome permanent t4o 627 years after issuance of the order 4ithout the case ha$in !een re$i$ed.I Li@e any other fa$ora!#e procedura# ru#e( this ne4 ru#e can !e i$en retroacti$e effect. %o4e$er( this Court cannot ru#e on this 8u u#ar issue due to the #ac@ of sufficient factua# !ases. 'hus( there is need of proof of the fo##o4in facts( vi=H 617 4hether the pro$isiona# dismissa# of the cases had the eEpress consent of the accusedD 627 4hether it 4as ordered !y the court after notice to the offended party( 6/7 4hether the 2-year period to re$i$e has a#ready #apsed( and 627 4hether there is any 8ustification for the fi#in of the cases !eyond the 2-year period. 'here is no uncertainty 4ith respect to the fact that the pro$isiona# dismissa# of the cases a ainst respondent Lacson !ears his eEpress consent. It 4as respondent Lacson himse#f 4ho mo$ed to dismiss the su!8ect cases for #ac@ of pro!a!#e cause !efore then .ud e A nir( hence( it is !eyond ar ument that their dismissa# !ears his eEpress consent.

4hether it is from the date of the >rder of then .ud e A nir dismissin the cases or from the dates the >rder 4ere recei$ed !y the $arious offended parties or from the date of the effecti$ity of the ne4 ru#e. If the cases 4ere re$i$ed on#y after the 2-year !ar( the State must !e i$en the opportunity to 8ustify its fai#ure to comp#y 4ith said time#ine. 'he ne4 ru#e fiEes a time#ine to pena#i9e the State for its ineEcusa!#e de#ay in prosecutin cases a#ready fi#ed in courts. It can therefore present compe##in reasons to 8ustify the re$i$a# of cases !eyond the 2-year !ar. In #i ht of the #ac@ of or the conf#ictin e$idence on the $arious reCuirements to determine the app#ica!i#ity of Section +( "u#e 111( this Court is not in a position to ru#e 4hether or not the re-fi#in of the cases for mu#tip#e murder a ainst respondent Lacson shou#d !e en8oined. ?undamenta# fairness reCuires that !oth the prosecution and the respondent Lacson shou#d !e afforded the opportunity to !e heard and to adduce e$idence on the presence or a!sence of the predicate facts upon 4hich the app#ication of the ne4 ru#e depends. 'hey in$o#$e disputed facts and ar ua!#e Cuestions of #a4. 'he reception of e$idence on these $arious issues cannot !e done in this Court !ut !efore the tria# court. IN VIEA OF THE FOREGOING( the case at !ar is remanded to the "'C - Bue9on City( :ranch +1 so that the State prosecutors and the respondent Lacson can adduce e$idence and !e heard on 4hether the reCuirements of Section +( "u#e 111 ha$e !een comp#ied 4ith on the !asis of the e$idence of 4hich the tria# court shou#d ma@e a ru#in on 4hether the Informations in Crimina# Cases *os. 01-101102 to 01-101112 shou#d !e dismissed or not. Pendin the ru#in ( the tria# court is restrained from issuin any 4arrant of arrest a ainst the respondent Lacson. ;e#o and Carpio( 88., ta@e no part. SO OR*ERE*. ).". *o. L-00-0 THE UNITE* STATES( p#aintiff-appe##ee( $s. LUIS TORI IO( defendant-appe##ant. C!'0on, J.: 'he e$idence of record fu##y sustains the findin s of the tria# court that the appe##ant s#au htered or caused to !e s#au htered for human consumption( the cara!ao descri!ed in the information( 4ithout a permit from the municipa# treasure of the municipa#ity 4herein it 4as s#au htered( in $io#ation of the pro$isions of sections /0 and // of Act *o. 1121( an Act re u#atin the re istration( !randin ( and s#au hter of #ar e catt#e. It appears that in the to4n of Carmen( in the Pro$ince of :oho#( 4herein the anima# 4as s#au htered there is no municipa# s#au hterhouse( and counse# for appe##ant contends that under such circumstances the pro$isions of Act *o. 1121 do not prohi!it nor pena#i9e the s#au hter of #ar e catt#e 4ithout a permit of the municipa# treasure. Sections /0( /1( /2( and // of the Act are as fo##o4sF S&C. /0. *o #ar e catt#e sha## !e s#au htered or @i##ed for food at the municipa# s#au hterhouse eEcept upon permit secured from the municipa# treasure. :efore issuin the permit for the s#au hter of #ar e catt#e for human consumption( the municipa# treasurer sha## reCuire for !randed catt#e the production of the ori ina# certificate of o4nership and certificates of transfer sho4in tit#e in the person app#yin for the permit( and for un!randed catt#e such e$idence as may satisfy said treasurer as to the o4nership of the anima#s for 4hich permit to s#au hter has !een reCuested. S&C. /1. *o permit to s#au hter has !een cara!aos sha## !e ranted !y the municipa# treasurer un#ess such anima#s are unfit for a ricu#tura# 4or@ or for draft purposes( and in no e$ent sha## a permit !e i$en to s#au hter for food any anima# of any @ind 4hich is not fit for human consumption. S&C. /2. 'he municipa# treasurer sha## @eep a record of a## permits for s#au hter issued !y him( and such record sha## sho4 the name and residence of the o4ner( and the c#ass( seE( a e( !rands( @nots of radiated hair common#y @no4 as remolinos or

co4#ic@s( and other mar@s of identification of the anima# for the s#au hter of 4hich permit is issued and the date on 4hich such permit is issued. *ames of o4ners sha## !e a#pha!etica##y arran ed in the record( to ether 4ith date of permit. A copy of the record of permits ranted for s#au hter sha## !e for4arded month#y to the pro$incia# treasurer( 4ho sha## fi#e and proper#y indeE the same under the name of the o4ner( to ether 4ith date of permit. S&C. //. Any person s#au hterin or causin to !e s#au htered for human consumption or @i##in for food at the municipa# s#au hterhouse any #ar e catt#e eEcept upon permit du#y secured from the municipa# treasurer( sha## !e punished !y a fine of not #ess than ten nor more than fi$e hundred pesos( Phi#ippine currency( or !y imprisonment for not #ess than one month nor more than siE months( or !y !oth such fine and imprisonment( in the discretion of the court. It is contended that the proper construction of the #an ua e of these pro$isions #imits the prohi!ition contained in section /0 and the pena#ty imposed in section // to cases 617 of s#au hter of #ar e catt#e for human consumption in a municipal slaughter 4ithout a permit du#y secured from the municipa# treasurer( and 627 cases of @i##in of #ar e catt#e for food in a municipal slaughterhouse 4ithout a permit du#y secured from the municipa# treasurerD and it is ur ed that the municipa#ity of Carmen not !ein pro$ided 4ith a municipa# s#au hterhouse( neither the prohi!ition nor the pena#ty is app#ica!#e to cases of s#au hter of #ar e catt#e 4ithout a permit in that municipa#ity. 3e are of opinion( ho4e$er( that the prohi!ition contained in section /0 refers 617 to the s#au hter of #ar e catt#e for human consumption( any4here( 4ithout a permit du#y secured from the municipa# treasurer( and 627 eEpress#y and specifica##y to the @i##in for food of #ar e catt#e at a municipa# s#au hterhouse 4ithout such permitD and that the pena#ty pro$ided in section // app#ies enera##y to the s#au hter of #ar e catt#e for human consumption( any4here( 4ithout a permit du#y secured from the municipa# treasurer( and specifica##y to the @i##in for food of #ar e catt#e at a municipa# s#au hterhouse 4ithout such permit. It may !e admitted at once( that the pertinent #an ua e of those sections ta@en !y itse#f and eEamined apart from the conteEt fair#y admits of t4o constructionsF one 4here!y the phrase Iat the municipa# s#au hterhouseI may !e ta@en as #imitin and restrictin !oth the 4ord Is#au hteredI and the 4ords I@i##ed for foodI in section /0( and the 4ords Is#au hterin or causin to !e s#au htered for human consumptionI and the 4ords I@i##in for foodI in section //D and the other 4here!y the phrase Iat the municipa# s#au hterhouseI may !e ta@en as #imitin and restrictin mere#y the 4ords I@i##ed for foodI and I@i##in for foodI as used in those sections. :ut upon a readin of the 4ho#e Act( and @eepin in mind the manifest and eEpressed purpose and o!8ect of its enactment( it is $ery c#ear that the #atter construction is that 4hich shou#d !e adopted. 'he Act primari#y see@s to protect the I#ar e catt#eI of the Phi#ippine Is#ands a ainst theft and to ma@e easy the reco$ery and return of such catt#e to their proper o4ners 4hen #ost( strayed( or sto#en. 'o this end it pro$ides an e#a!orate and compu#sory system for the separate !randin and re istry of o4nership of a## such catt#e throu hout the Is#ands( 4here!y o4ners are ena!#ed readi#y and easi#y to esta!#ish their tit#eD it prohi!its and in$a#idates a## transfers of #ar e catt#e unaccompanied !y certificates of transfer issued !y the proper officer in the municipa#ity 4here the contract of sa#e is madeD and it pro$ides a#so for the disposition of thie$es or persons un#a4fu##y in possession( so as to protect the ri hts of the true o4ners. A## this( manifest#y( in order to ma@e it difficu#t for any one !ut the ri htfu# o4ner of such catt#e to retain them in his possession or to dispose of them to others. :ut the usefu#ness of this e#a!orate and compu#sory system of identification( restin as it does on the officia# re istry of the !rands and mar@s on each separate anima# throu hout the Is#ands( 4ou#d !e #ar e#y impaired( if not tota##y destroyed( if such anima#s 4ere reCuirin proof of o4nership and the production of certificates of re istry !y the person s#au hterin or causin them to !e s#au htered( and this especia##y if the anima#s 4ere s#au htered pri$ate#y or in a c#andestine manner outside of a municipa# s#au hterhouse. %ence( as it 4ou#d appear( sections /0 and // prohi!it and pena#i9e the s#au hter for human consumption or @i##in for food at a municipa# s#au hterhouse of such anima#s 4ithout a permit issued !y the municipa# treasurer( and section /2 pro$ides for the @eepin of detai#ed records of a## such permits in the office of the municipa# and a#so of the pro$incia# treasurer er/O&. If( ho4e$er( the construction !e p#aced on these sections 4hich is contended for !y the appe##ant( it 4i## readi#y !e seen that a## these carefu##y 4or@ed out pro$isions for the re istry and record of the !rands and mar@s of identification of a## #ar e catt#e in the Is#ands 4ou#d pro$e in #ar e part a!ortion( since thie$es and persons un#a4fu##y in possession of such catt#e( and natura##y 4ou#d( e$ade the pro$isions of the #a4 !y s#au hterin them outside of municipa# s#au hterhouses( and thus en8oy the fruits of their 4ron doin 4ithout eEposin themse#$es to the dan er of detection incident to the !rin in of the anima#s to the pu!#ic s#au hterhouse( 4here the !rands and other identification mar@s mi ht !e scrutini9ed and proof of o4nership reCuired.

3here the #an ua e of a statute is fair#y suscepti!#e of t4o or more constructions( that construction shou#d !e adopted 4hich 4i## most tend to i$e effect to the manifest intent of the #a4ma@er and promote the o!8ect for 4hich the statute 4as enacted( and a construction shou#d !e re8ected 4hich 4ou#d tend to render a!orti$e other pro$isions of the statute and to defeat the o!8ect 4hich the #e is#ator sou ht to attain !y its enactment. 3e are of opinion( therefore( that sections /0 and // of the Act prohi!it and pena#i9e the s#au hterin or causin to !e s#au htered for human consumption of #ar e catt#e at any p#ace 4ithout the permit pro$ided for in section /0. It is not essentia# that an eEp#anation !e found for the eEpress prohi!ition in these sections of the I@i##in for food at a municipa# s#au hterhouseI of such anima#s( despite the fact that this prohi!ition is c#ear#y inc#uded in the enera# prohi!ition of the s#au hter of such anima#s for human consumption any4hereD !ut it is not impro!a!#e that the reCuirement for the issue of a permit in such cases 4as eEpress#y and specifica##y mentioned out of supera!undance of precaution( and to a$oid a## possi!i#ity of misunderstandin in the e$ent that some of the municipa#ities shou#d !e disposed to modify or $ary the enera# pro$isions of the #a4 !y the passa e of #oca# ordinances or re u#ations for the contro# of municipa# s#au hterhouse %r!:iYI. Simi#ar reasonin app#ied to the specific pro$isions of section /1 of the Act #eads to the same conc#usion. >ne of the secondary purposes of the #a4( as set out in that section( is to pre$ent the s#au hter for food of cara!aos fit for a ricu#tura# and draft purposes( and of a## anima#s unfit for human consumption. A construction 4hich 4ou#d #imit the prohi!itions and pena#ties prescri!ed in the statute to the @i##in of such anima#s in municipa# s#au hterhouses( #ea$in unprohi!ited and unpena#i9ed their s#au hter outside of such esta!#ishments( so manifest#y tends to defeat the purpose and o!8ect of the #e is#ator( that un#ess imperati$e#y demanded !y the #an ua e of the statute it shou#d !e re8ectedD and( as 4e ha$e a#ready indicated( the #an ua e of the statute is c#ear#y suscepti!#e of the construction 4hich 4e ha$e p#aced upon it( 4hich tends to ma@e effecti$e the pro$isions of this as 4e## as a## the other sections of the Act cCrYmYp.9. It appears that the defendant did in fact app#y for a permit to s#au hter his cara!ao( and that it 4as denied him on the round that the anima# 4as not unfit Ifor a ricu#tura# 4or@ or for draft purposes.I Counse# for appe##ant contends that the statute( in so far as it underta@es to pena#i9e the s#au hter of cara!aos for human consumption as food( 4ithout first o!tainin a permit 4hich can not !e procured in the e$ent that the anima# is not unfit Ifor a ricu#tura# 4or@ or draft purposes(I is unconstitutiona# and in $io#ation of the terms of section 0 of the Phi#ippine :i## 6Act of Con ress( .u#y 1( 1,027( 4hich pro$ides that Ino #a4 sha## !e enacted 4hich sha## depri$e any person of #ife( #i!erty( or property 4ithout due process of #a4.I It is not Cuite c#ear from the ar ument of counse# 4hether his contention is that this pro$ision of the statute constitutes a ta@in of property for pu!#ic use in the eEercise of the ri ht of eminent domain without provi(ing for the compensation of the owners( or that it is an undue and unauthori9ed eEercise of the po#ice po4er of the State. :ut 4hate$er may !e the !asis of his contention( 4e are of opinion( appropriatin ( 4ith necessary modifications understood( the #an ua e of that reat 8urist( Chief .ustice Sha4 6in the case of Com. $s. 'e4@s!ury( 11 ;et. 00( 4here the Cuestion in$o#$ed 4as the constitutiona#ity of a statute prohi!itin and pena#i9in the ta@in or carryin a4ay !y any person( inc#udin the o4ner( of any stones( ra$e#( or sand( from any of the !eaches in the to4n of Chesea(7 that the #a4 in Cuestion Iis not a ta@in of the property for pu!#ic use( 4ithin the meanin of the constitution( !ut is a 8ust and #e itimate eEercise of the po4er of the #e is#ature to re u#ate and restrain such particu#ar use of the property as 4ou#d !e inconsistent 4ith or in8urious to the ri hts of the pu!#ic. A## property is acCuired and he#d under the tacit condition that it sha## not !e so used as to in8ure the eCua# ri hts of others or reat#y impair the pu!#ic ri hts and interest of the community.I It may !e conceded that the !eneficia# use and eEc#usi$e en8oyment of the property of a## cara!ao o4ners in these Is#ands is to a reater or #ess de ree interfered 4ith !y the pro$isions of the statuteD and that( 4ithout inCuirin 4hat Cuantum of interest thus passes from the o4ners of such catt#e( it is an interest the depri$ation of 4hich detracts from their ri ht and authority( and in some de ree interferes 4ith their eEc#usi$e possession and contro# of their property( so that if the re u#ations in Cuestion 4ere enacted for pure#y pri$ate purpose( the statute( in so far as these re u#ations are concerned( 4ou#d !e a $io#ation of the pro$isions of the Phi#ippine :i## re#ied on !e appe##antD !ut 4e are satisfied that it is not such a ta@in ( such an interference 4ith the ri ht and tit#e of the o4ners( as is in$o#$ed in the eEercise !y the State of the ri ht of eminent domain( so as to entit#e these o4ners to compensation( and that it is no more than Ia 8ust restrain of an in8urious pri$ate use of the property( 4hich the #e is#ature had authority to impose.I In the case of Com. vs. Alger 61 Cush. 0/( +27( 4herein the doctrine #aid do4n in Com. vs. %ew5s-ury6supra7 4as re$ie4ed and

affirmed( the same eminent 8urist 4ho 4rote the former opinion( in distin uishin the eEercise of the ri ht of eminent domain from the eEercise of the so$erei n po#ice po4ers of the State( saidF 3e thin@ it is sett#ed princip#e( ro4in out of the nature of 4e##-ordered ci$i# society( that e$ery ho#der of property( ho4e$er a!so#ute and unCua#ified may !e his tit#e( ho#ds it under the imp#ied #ia!i#ity that his use of it may !e so re u#ated that is sha## not !e in8urious to the eCua# en8oyment of others ha$in an eCua# ri ht to the en8oyment of their property( nor in8urious to the ri hts of the community. . . . "i hts of property( #i@e a## other socia# and con$entiona# ri hts( are su!8ect to such reasona!#e #imitations in their en8oyment as sha## pre$ent them from !ein in8urious( and to such reasona!#e restrain and re u#ations esta!#ish !y #a4( as the #e is#ature( under the o$ernin and contro##in po4er $ested in them !y the constitution( may thin@ necessary and eEpedient. 'his is $ery different from the ri ht of eminent domain( the ri ht of a o$ernment to ta@e and appropriate pri$ate property to pu!#ic use( 4hene$er the pu!#ic eEi ency reCuires itD 4hich can !e done on#y on condition of pro$idin a reasona!#e compensation therefor. 'he po4er 4e a##ude to is rather the po#ice po4er( the po4er $ested in the #e is#ature !y the constitution( to ma@e( ordain( and esta!#ish a## manner of 4ho#esome and reasona!#e #a4s( statutes( and ordinances( either 4ith pena#ties or 4ithout( not repu nant to the constitution( as they sha## 8ud e to !e for the ood and 4e#fare of the common4ea#th( and of the su!8ects of the same. It is much easier to percei$e and rea#i9e the eEistence and sources of this po4er than to mar@ its !oundaries or prescri!e #imits to its eEercise. App#yin these princip#es( 4e are opinion that the restrain p#aced !y the #a4 on the s#au hter for human consumption of cara!aos fit for a ricu#tura# 4or@ and draft purpose is not an appropriation of property interests to a Ipu!#ic use(I and is not( therefore( 4ithin the princip#e of the eEercise !y the State of the ri ht of eminent domain. It is fact a mere restriction or #imitation upon a pri$ate use( 4hich the #e is#ature deemed to !e detrimenta# to the pu!#ic 4e#fare. And 4e thin@ that an eEamination of the enera# pro$isions of the statute in re#ation to the pu!#ic interest 4hich it see@s to safe uard and the pu!#ic necessities for 4hich it pro$ides( #ea$es no room for dou!t that the #imitations and restraints imposed upon the eEercise of ri hts of o4nership !y the particu#ar pro$isions of the statute under consideration 4ere imposed not for pri$ate purposes !ut( strict#y( in the promotion of the I enera# 4e#fareI and Ithe pu!#ic interestI in the eEercise of the so$erei n po#ice po4er 4hich e$ery State possesses for the enera# pu!#ic 4e#fare and 4hich Ireaches to e$ery species of property 4ithin the common4ea#th.I ?or se$era# years prior to the enactment of the statute a $iru#ent conta ious or infectious disease had threatened the tota# eEtinction of cara!aos in these Is#ands( in many sections s4eepin a4ay se$enty( ei hty( and in some cases as much as ninety and e$en one hundred per cent of these anima#s. A ricu#ture !ein the principa# occupation of the peop#e( and the cara!ao !ein the 4or@ anima# a#most eEc#usi$e#y in use in the fie#ds as 4e## as for draft purposes( the ra$a es of the disease 4ith 4hich they 4ere infected struc@ an a#most $ita# !#o4 at the materia# 4e#fare of the country. #ar e areas of producti$e #and #ay 4aste for years( and the production of rice( the stap#e food of the inha!itants of the Is#ands( fe## off to such an eEtent that the impo$erished peop#e 4ere compe##ed to spend many mi##ions of pesos in its importation( not4ithstandin the fact that 4ith sufficient 4or@ anima#s to cu#ti$ate the fie#ds the ara!#e rice #ands of the country cou#d easi#y !e made to produce a supp#y more that sufficient for its o4n needs. 'he drain upon the resources of the Is#ands 4as such that famine soon !e an to ma@e itse#f fe#t( hope san@ in the !reast of the peop#e( and in many pro$inces the ener ies of the !read4inners seemed to !e para#y9ed !y the apparent#y hope#ess stru #e for eEistence 4ith 4hich they 4ere confronted. 'o meet these conditions( #ar e sums of money 4ere eEpended !y the )o$ernment in re#ie$in the immediate needs of the star$in peop#e( three mi##ions of do##ars 4ere $oted !y the Con ress of the 5nited States as a re#ief or famine fund( pu!#ic 4or@s 4ere underta@en to furnish emp#oyment in the pro$inces 4here the need 4as most pressin ( and e$ery effort made to a##e$iate the sufferin incident to the 4idespread fai#ure of the crops throu hout the Is#ands( due in #ar e measure to the #ac@ of anima#s fit for a ricu#tura# 4or@ and draft purposes. Such measures( ho4e$er( cou#d on#y temporari#y re#ie$e the situation( !ecause in an a ricu#tura# community materia# pro ress and permanent prosperity cou#d hard#y !e hoped for in the a!sence of the 4or@ anima#s upon 4hich such a community must necessari#y re#y for the cu#ti$ation of the fie#ds and the transportation of the products of the fie#ds to mar@et. Accordin #y efforts 4ere made !y the )o$ernment to increase the supp#y of these anima#s !y importation( !ut( as appears from the officia# reports on this su!8ect( hope for the future depended #ar e#y on the conser$ation of those anima#s 4hich had !een spared from the ra$a es of the diseased( and their redistri!ution throu hout the Is#ands 4here the need for them 4as reatest.

At #ar e eEpense( the ser$ices of eEperts 4ere emp#oyed( 4ith a $ie4 to the disco$ery and app#ications of pre$enti$e and curati$e remedies( and it is hoped that these measures ha$e pro$ed in some de ree successfu# in protectin the present inadeCuate supp#y of #ar e catt#e( and that the radua# increase and redistri!ution of these anima#s throu hout the Archipe#a o( in response to the operation of the #a4s of supp#y and demand( 4i## u#timate#y resu#ts in practica##y re#ie$in those sections 4hich suffered most !y the #oss of their 4or@ anima#s. As 4as to !e eEpected under such conditions( the price of cara!aos rapid#y increase from the three to fi$e fo#d or more( and it may fair#y !e presumed that e$en if the conser$ati$e measures no4 adopted pro$e entire#y successfu#( the scant supp#y 4i## @eep the price of these anima#s at a hi h fi ure unti# the natura# increase sha## ha$e more near#y eCua#i9ed the supp#y to the demand. Coincident 4ith and pro!a!#y intimate#y connected 4ith this sudden rise in the price of catt#e( the crime of catt#e stea#in !ecame eEtreme#y pre$a#ent throu hout the Is#ands( necessitatin the enactment of a specia# #a4 pena#i9in 4ith the se$erest pena#ties the theft of cara!aos and other persona# property !y ro$in !andsD and it must !e assumed from the #e is#ati$e authority found that the enera# 4e#fare of the Is#ands necessitated the enactment of specia# and some4hat !urdensome pro$isions for the !randin and re istration of #ar e catt#e( and super$ision and restriction of their s#au hter for food. It 4i## hard#y !e Cuestioned that the pro$isions of the statute touchin the !randin and re istration of such catt#e( and prohi!itin and pena#i9in the s#au hter of diseased catt#e for food 4ere enacted in the due and proper eEercise of the po#ice po4er of the StateD and 4e are of opinion that( under a## the circumstances( the pro$ision of the statute prohi!itin and pena#i9in the s#au hter for human consumption of cara!aos fit for 4or@ 4ere in #i@e manner enacted in the due and proper eEercise of that po4er( 8ustified !y the eEi ent necessities of eEistin conditions( and the ri ht of the State to protect itse#f a ainst the o$er4he#min disaster incident to the further reduction of the supp#y of anima#s fit for a ricu#tura# 4or@ or draft purposes. It is( 4e thin@( a fact of common @no4#ed e in these Is#ands( and disc#osed !y the officia# reports and records of the administrati$e and #e is#ati$e departments of the )o$ernment( that not mere#y the materia# 4e#fare and future prosperity of this a ricu#tura# community 4ere threatened !y the ra$a es of the disease 4hich s4ept a4ay the 4or@ anima#s durin the years prior to the enactment of the #a4 under consideration( !ut that the $ery #ife and eEistence of the inha!itants of these Is#ands as a ci$i#i9ed peop#e 4ou#d !e more or #ess imperi#ed !y the continued destruction of #ar e catt#e !y disease or other4ise. Confronted !y such conditions( there can !e no dou!t of the ri ht of the Le is#ature to adopt reasona!#e measures for the preser$ation of 4or@ anima#s( e$en to the eEtent of prohi!itin and pena#i9in 4hat 4ou#d( under ordinary conditions( !e a perfect#y #e itimate and proper eEercise of ri hts of o4nership and contro# of the pri$ate property of the citi9en. 'he po#ice po4er rests upon necessity and the ri ht of se#f-protection and if e$er the in$asion of pri$ate property !y po#ice re u#ation can !e 8ustified( 4e thin@ that the reasona!#e restriction p#aced upon the use of cara!aos !y the pro$ision of the #a4 under discussion must !e he#d to !e authori9ed as a reasona!#e and proper eEercise of that po4er s=$P;Cf-. As stated !y ;r. .ustice :ro4n in his opinion in the case of Lawton vs. "teele 6102 5.S. 1//( 1/-7F 'he eEtent and #imits of 4hat is @no4n as the po#ice po4er ha$e !een a fruitfu# su!8ect of discussion in the appe##ate courts of near#y e$ery State in the 5nion. It is uni$ersa##y conceded to inc#ude e$erythin essentia# to the pu!#ic safe#y( hea#th( and mora#s( and to 8ustify the destruction or a!atement( !y summary proceedin s( of 4hate$er may !e re arded as a pu!#ic nuisance. 5nder this po4er it has !een he#d that the State may order the destruction of a house fa##in to decay or other4ise endan erin the #i$es of passers-!yD the demo#ition of such as are in the path of a conf#a rationD the s#au hter of diseased catt#eD the destruction of decayed or un4ho#esome foodD the prohi!ition of 4ooden !ui#din s in citiesD the re u#ation of rai#4ays and other means of pu!#ic con$eyance( and of interments in !uria# roundsD the restriction of o!8ectiona!#e trades to certain #oca#itiesD the compu#sory $accination of chi#drenD the confinement of the insane or those aff#icted 4ith conta ious deceasesD the restraint of $a rants( !e ars( and ha!itua# drun@ardsD the suppression of o!scene pu!#ications and houses of i## fameD and the prohi!ition of am!#in houses and p#aces 4here intoEicatin #iCuors are so#d. 1eyon( this, however, the "tate may interfere wherever the pu-lic interests (eman( it, an( in this particular a large (iscretion is necessarily veste( in the legislature to (etermine, not only what the interests of the pu-lic re9uire, -ut what measures are necessary for the protection of such interests . 6:ar!ier $s. Conno##y( 11/ 5.S. 21D =idd $s. Pearson( 12+ 5.S. 1.7 'o 8ustify the State in thus interposin its authority in !eha#f of the pu!#ic( it must appear( first( that the interests of the pu!#ic enera##y( as distin uished from those of a particu#ar c#ass( reCuire such interferenceD and( second( that the means are reasona!#y necessary for the accomp#ishment of the purpose( and not undu#y oppressi$e upon indi$idua#s. 'he #e is#ature may not( under the uise of protectin the pu!#ic interests( ar!itrari#y interfere 4ith pri$ate !usiness(

or impose unusua# and unnecessary restrictions upon #a4fu# occupations. In other 4ords( its determination as to 4hat is a proper eEercise of its po#ice po4ers is not fina# or conc#usi$e( !ut is su!8ect to the super$ision of the court. ?rom 4hat has !een said( 4e thin@ it is c#ear that the enactment of the pro$isions of the statute under consideration 4as reCuired !y Ithe interests of the pu!#ic enera##y( as distin uished from those of a particu#ar c#assDI and that the prohi!ition of the s#au hter of cara!aos for human consumption( so #on as these anima#s are fit for a ricu#tura# 4or@ or draft purposes 4as a Ireasona!#y necessaryI #imitation on pri$ate o4nership( to protect the community from the #oss of the ser$ices of such anima#s !y their s#au hter !y impro$ident o4ners( tempted either !y reed of momentary ain( or !y a desire to en8oy the #uEury of anima# food( e$en 4hen !y so doin the producti$e po4er of the community may !e measura!#y and dan erous#y affected. Chief .ustice "edfie#d( in %horpe vs. Rutlan( D 1urlington R. R. Co. 621 Vt. 1207( said 6p. 12,7 that !y this I enera# po#ice po4er of the State( persons and property are su!8ected to a## @inds of restraints and !urdens( in order to secure the enera# comfort( hea#th( and prosperity of the StateD of the perfect ri ht in the #e is#ature to do 4hich no Cuestion e$er 4as( or( upon ac@no4#ed e and enera# princip#es( e$er can !e made( so far as natura# persons are concerned.I And Coo#ey in his IConstitutiona# LimitationsI 6-th ed.( p. 1/+7 saysF It 4ou#d !e Cuite impossi!#e to enumerate a## the instances in 4hich the po#ice po4er is or may !e eEercised( !ecause the $arious cases in 4hich the eEercise !y one indi$idua# of his ri hts may conf#ict 4ith a simi#ar eEercise !y others( or may !e detrimenta# to the pu!#ic order or safety( are infinite in num!er and in $ariety. And there are other cases 4here it !ecomes necessary for the pu!#ic authorities to interfere 4ith the contro# !y indi$idua#s of their property( and e$en to destroy it( 4here the o4ners themse#$es ha$e fu##y o!ser$ed a## their duties to their fe##o4s and to the State( !ut 4here( ne$erthe#ess( some contro##in pu!#ic necessity demands the interference or destruction. A stron instance of this description is 4here it !ecomes necessary to ta@e( use( or destroy the pri$ate property of indi$idua#s to pre$ent the spreadin of a fire( the ra$a es of a pesti#ence( the ad$ance of a hosti#e army( or any other reat pu!#ic ca#amity. %ere the indi$idua# is in no de ree in fau#t( !ut his interest must yie#d to that InecessityI 4hich I@no4s no #a4.I 'he esta!#ishment of #imits 4ithin the denser portions of cities and $i##a es 4ithin 4hich !ui#din s constructed of inf#amma!#e materia#s sha## not !e erected or repaired may a#so( in some cases( !e eCui$a#ent to a destruction of pri$ate propertyD !ut re u#ations for this purpose ha$e !een sustained not4ithstandin this resu#t. 3harf #ines may a#so !e esta!#ished for the enera# ood( e$en thou h they pre$ent the o4ners of 4ater-fronts from !ui#din out on soi# 4hich constitutes pri$ate property. And( 4hene$er the #e is#ature deem it necessary to the protection of a har!or to for!id the remo$a# of stones( ra$e#( or sand from the !each( they may esta!#ish re u#ations to that effect under pena#ties( and ma@e them app#ica!#e to the o4ners of the soi# eCua##y 4ith other persons. Such re u#ations are on#y Ia 8ust restraint of an in8urious use of property( 4hich the #e is#ature ha$e authorityI to impose. So a particu#ar use of property may sometimes !e for!idden( 4here( !y a chan e of circumstances( and 4ithout the fau#t of the po4er( that 4hich 4as once #a4fu#( proper( and uno!8ectiona!#e has no4 !ecome a pu!#ic nuisance( endan erin the pu!#ic hea#th or the pu!#ic safety. ;i##dams are sometimes destroyed upon this roundsD and churchyards 4hich pro$e( in the ad$ance of ur!an popu#ation( to !e detrimenta# to the pu!#ic hea#th( or in dan er of !ecomin so( are #ia!#e to !e c#osed a ainst further use for cemetery purposes. 'hese citations from some of the hi hest 8udicia# and teEt-!oo@ authorities in the 5nited States c#ear#y indicate the 4ide scope and eEtent 4hich has there !een i$en to the doctrine us in our opinion that the pro$ision of the statute in Cuestion !ein a proper eEercise of that po4er is not in $io#ation of the terms of section 0 of the Phi#ippine :i##( 4hich pro$ide that Ino #a4 sha## !e enacted 4hich sha## depri$e any person of #ife( #i!erty( or property 4ithout due process of #a4(I a pro$ision 4hich itse#f is adopted from the Constitution of the 5nited States( and is found in su!stance in the constitution of most if not a## of the States of the 5nion. 'he 8ud ment of con$iction and the sentence imposed !y the tria# court shou#d !e affirmed 4ith the costs of this instance a ainst the appe##ant. So ordered. ).". *o. L-2/0+1-++ LUCAS RAMIRE4 !n" ENCARNACION FAJAR*O RAMIRE4( petitioners( $s. THE HONORA LE COURT OF APPEALS( respondent.

:efore 5s is a 8oint petition for certiorari to re$ie4 the decision dated ;ay 22( 1,-2 of the Court of Appea#s( affirmin the 8ud ment of the Court of ?irst Instance( ;ani#a :ranch LVI( in its Crimina# Cases *os. //2/+( //2/, and //220 con$ictin the spouses Lucas "amire9 and &ncarnacion ?a8ardo "amire9 of the crime of fa#sification of pu!#ic( officia# and<or commercia# documents punisha!#e under Section 112( para raph 1( of the "e$ised Pena# Code( and sentencin each of them in each case to not #ess than siE 6-7 months of arresto mayor and not more than three 6/7 years( siE 6-7 months and t4enty- one 6217 days of prision correccional to pay a fine of P1(000.00 and one-ha#f of the costs in each case. 'he record disc#oses the fo##o4in factsF >n Decem!er ,( 1,2,( the Centra# :an@ of the Phi#ippines( !eset !y an eEchan e crisis and pursuant to Section 12 6&Eercise of Authority7 and 12 6&mer ency "estrictions on &Echan e >peration7 of "epu!#ic Act 2-0( other4ise @no4n as the Centra# :an@ Act( issued Circu#ar *o. 20 desi ned to protect the internationa# reser$e durin the said crisis. It su!8ected a## transactions in o#d and forei n eEchan e to a pre$ious #icensin !y the Centra# :an@. 'o imp#ement the said circu#ar( uidin princip#es o$ernin the #icensin of forei n eEchan e for the payment of imports 4ere promu# ated and em!odied in Circu#ar *o. 22 issued on .une 12( 1,0/( and made effecti$e .u#y 1( 1,0/. It created the :an@ers Committee to process app#ications of ne4 importers 4ho 4ere made to accomp#ish and su!mit( amon others( throu h #oca# authori9ed !an@s( documents such as :a#ance Sheets( Profit and Loss Statements( Schedu#e of ;onth#y Sa#es and ;erchandise In$entory to sho4 that they met the criteria set !y the Centra# :an@ for ne4 importers. 'hese documents 4ere further reCuired to !e certified to !y an independent Certified Pu!#ic Accountant. ?urther restrictions 4ere imposed !y su!seCuent circu#ars( a## of 4hich 4ere de$ised to com!at the then pre$ai#in eEchan e crisis. A ainst this !ac@drop( Crimina# Cases *os. //2/+( //2/, and //220( each entit#ed Peop#e $s. Lucas "amire9( &ncarnacion "amire9 and Li aya :ernardino( Peop#e $s. Lucas "amire9( &ncarnacion "amire9 and Sa#ustia Lasin and Peop#e $s. Lucas "amire9( &ncarnacion "amire9 and *ata#ia Capara9( respecti$e#y( 4ere fi#ed( a## for fa#sification of pu!#ic( officia# and or commercia# documents( spa4ned !y a raid of "oom /0+ of the Buisum!in !#d . at Dasmarinas Street( ;ani#a( 4hich room 4as then #eased !y ;rs. &ncarnacion ?a8ardo "amire9. 'he search 4hich 4as conducted !y the *:I a ents and .ose ACuino( a Centra# :an@ confidentia# a ent( yie#ded $o#uminous documents amon 4hich 4ere dup#icates of the papers su!mitted !y app#icant-importers :ernardino( Lasin and Capara9 du#y certified !y Se undo &s uerra( A CPA !ut 4hich 4ere a##e ed#y fa#sified. Crimina# Case *o. //2/+ 4as e$entua##y dismissed for fai#ure of the prosecution to esta!#ish fa#sification and a#so !ecause one of the accused( :ernardino( remained at #ar e. In Crimina# Case *o. //2/, the information reads as fo##o4sF 'hat on or a!out the period comprised !et4een Decem!er 2+( 1,0/ and ;ay 12( 1,02( inc#usi$e( in the City of ;ani#a( Phi#ippines( the said accused( conspirin and confederatin to ether 4ith others 4hose true names and Identities are sti## un@no4n( and he#pin one another( did then and there 4i##fu##y( un#a4fu##y and fe#onious#y commit acts of fa#sification in the fo##o4in manner( to 4itF the said accused for the purpose of securin and o!tainin do##ar a##ocations or forei n eEchan e #icense for import payments( from the Centra# :an@ of the Phi#ippines( an a encies of instrumenta#ity of the )o$ernment of the "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines( thru its #a4fu##y authori9ed a ent( the Phi#ippine :an@ of Communications( did then and there 4i##fu##y( un#a4fu##y and fe#onious#y prepare( concoct( eEecute and accomp#ish or cause to !e prepared( concocted and eEecuted and accomp#ished the fo##o4in pu!#ic( officia# and commercia# documentsF 1. App#ication of Sa#ustia Lasin to Cua#ify as ne4 importer( to ether 4ithF a. :a#ance Sheet as of Decem!er /1( 1,0/D !. Profit and Loss Statement for the year endin Decem!er /1( 1,0/D c. Schedu#e of ;onth#y Sa#es as of Decem!er /1( 1,0/D d. ;erchandise In$entory as of Decem!er /1( 1,0/. Income 'aE "eturn for 1,0/ E?A4.

2. Information Sheet of Sa#ustia Lasin as a ne4 importer 4hich documents ha$e !een eEecuted under oath !efore a notary pu!#ic and or officer authori9ed to administer oaths( as reCuired !y #a4 and the re u#ations du#y promu# ated !y the ;onetary :oard( Centra# :an@ of the Phi#ippines( pursuant to "epu!#ic Act *o. 2-0( and other records or documents connected there4ith and reCuired !y to #a4 to @ept !y merchants( !y statin ( narratin ( ma@in it appear and representin in the said documents that the accused Sa#ustia Lasin 4as Cua#ified( under the #a4 and re u#ations of the Centra# :an@( as a ne4 importer( !ein acti$e#y en a ed in the enera# merchandise 6teEti#e7 !usiness( 4ith an esta!#ishment at *os. 1012-1010( Di$isoria ;ar@et( in said city( continuous#y since .u#y 1( 1,0/ operatin on a paid-up capita# of P2/(000.00 4ith adeCuate distri!ution faci#ities( and that her purchases and ross sa#es of merchandise durin the period from .anuary 1( 1,0/ to Decem!er /1( 1,0/ amounted to P121(0-2./0 and P12,(22-./0( respecti$e#y and such other information or narration of facts pertinent thereto and in connection there4ith( the said information( data and narration of facts !ein materia# for the purpose of said app#ication( the said accused @no4in fu##y 4e## that their manifestations 4ere a## fa#se and untrue and 4ere made so#e#y for the purpose of o!tainin the said do##ar a##ocations and forei n eEchan e #icense for import Payments from the Centra# :an@ of the Phi#ippinesD and the said accused( in furtherance of their conspiracy( su!mitted and fi#ed the aforesaid documents 4ith the said Centra# :an@ of the Phi#ippines thru its aforesaid du#y authori9ed a ent !an@( $ested !y #a4 4ith authority to determine and authori9e the issuance of such do##ar payments( securin and o!tainin as a resu#t thereof the appro$a# of the app#ication of said accused as a ne4 importer and the issuance to her of a do##ar a##ocation or forei n eEchan e #icense for import payments in the amount of U+(,10.00( e$ery semester( to the dama e and pre8udice of the "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines and or the Centra# :an@ of the Phi#ippines. Crimina# Case *o. //220 #i@e4ise char ed the spouses Lucas and &ncarnacion "amire9 4ith the same offense( 4ith *ata#ia Capara9 as co-accused. In the Information it 4as a##e ed that the forei n eEchan e a##ocation in the amount of U+(111.10 e$ery semester 4as o!tained !y Capara9 throu h the su!mission of fa#sified documents. "ecord #i@e4ise sho4ed that Sa#ustia Lasin and *ata#ia Capara9 4ho 4ere indicted in the information 4ere dischar ed and made state 4itnesses. After tria# the #o4er court con$icted petitioners herein of the char es concernin the do##ar app#ication of Capara9 and Lasin. :oth spouses appea#ed to the Court of Appea#s 4hich affirmed the 8ud ment of the Court of ?irst Instance and a#so denied their motion for reconsideration. %ence this petition. :efore 3e ta@e up the assi ned errors( 3e note( as 4as !rou ht up !y defense counse#s Buisum!in ( >rdone9 and )atcha#ian in their 4e##-4ritten !rief( the fact that-on .anuary 21( 1,-2( 4hi#e this case 4as pendin in the Court of Appea#s( the Centra# :an@ issued Circu#ar *o. 1// 4hich #ifted and a!o#ished the forei n eEchan e contro#s instituted !y ear#ier circu#ars. 'his particu#ar circu#ar dispensed 4ith the need for prior specific #icensin from the Centra# :an@ for the sa#e of forei n eEchan e for imports. :efore 5s no4 therefore are posed these CuestionsF 1. Did the %onora!#e Court of Appea#s err in not acCuittin the petitioners hereinM 2. Did the %onora!#e Court of Appea#s err in not ru#in that prosecution a ainst petitioner spouses may no #on er !e had for fa#sification of documents reCuired !y the Centra# :an@ Circu#ar *o. 20 as a conseCuence of the repea# of said Circu#ar !y Circu#ar *o. 1//M I A re$ie4 of the proceedin s and eEhi!its presented in the #o4er court re$ea#s that there is truth in the findin s of the tria# court( affirmed !y the Court of Appea#s( that the spouses Lucas and &ncarnacion "amire9 4ere ui#ty of the crime char ed. A#thou h their names ne$er appeared in the a##e ed#y fa#sified documents( this 4as so !ecause they concocted( schemed and eEecuted the p#ot to fa#sify the said documents su!mitted to the Centra# :an@ $ery carefu##y and meticu#ous#y 4ithout in$o#$in their names( !ut this p#ot 4as !etrayed !y their acti$e participation 6other than si nin their names7 in the commission of the offense at !ar 4hich 4as positi$e#y pro$ed. Durin the tria# the fact of i##iteracy of the app#icant-importers Sa#ustia Lasin and *ata#ia Capara9 4as e#icited and esta!#ished. Capita#i9in on the i##iteracy of Lasin and Capara9 4ho neither cou#d read nor 4rite eEcept to si n their names !ut 4ho 4ere ea er !ea$ers to !e amon the importers( spouses Lucas and &ncarnacion "amire9 had ready- made app#ications 4ith

manufactured fi ures and data si ned !y them 6app#icant importers7. 'hese app#ications had e$ery appearance of enuineness and since the same appear to !e du#y certified to !y Se undo &s uerra( an independent Certified Pu!#ic Accountant( in comp#iance 4ith a C: re u#ation( the app#icant importers Cua#ified as ne4 importers and in fact o!tained do##ar a##ocations. Petitioners herein 4ou#d pass the !uc@ to Se undo &s uerra the CPA 4hose si nature appeared in a## the statements fi#ed in the C:. 'hus petitioner "amire9 dec#ared durin the tria# that Se undo &s uerra 4ith another #a4yer( >smundo ;iranda( no4 deceased( su!-#eased a portion of the room at /0+ Buisum!in :#d . #eased !y her 4hich &s uerra used as his office after the re u#ar office hours 6&s uerra 4as said to !e 4or@in for %. ". Lope9( Inc. as Accountant7 and that he used to stay there from 11F/0 A.;. to 2F00 P.;.( then from 0F00 P.;. to 1F00 P.;. dai#y 6t.s.n. *o$em!er 2(1,-0 pp. /1-217. She 4ou#d a#so ha$e us !e#ie$e that the a##e ed fa#sified papers 4ere found at the outer room 4hich 4as then occupied !y &s uerra and the #ate Atty. ;irandaHa fact 4hich she fai#ed to pro$e. 3hen the raid occurred it 4as Lucas "amire9 4ho came to the scene( opened the main door and un#oc@ed a## the ca!inets and dra4ers in "oom /0+. As found out !y the Court of Appea#sF ... Los a entes de #a #ey antes de $erificar e# re istro de# cuarto *um. /0+ de# edificio Buisum!in estu$ieron en #a residencia de #os esposos aCui acusados y Lucas "amire9 fue Cuien #es acompano a# referido cuarto( y se un #as prue!as de #a accusacion( "amire9 tenia #as ##a$e9 de #os armarios y mesas Cue esta!an dentro de# cuarto y fue Cuien a!rio #os ca8ones de dichas mesas donde se encontraron #os dup#icados y #os documentos fa#sos. 6&mphasis supp#ied7 6Crimina# "ecord( Decision of the court of Appea#s( 'hird Di$.7 'he testimony of .ose ACuino( C: a ent 6t.s.n( ;arch 10( 1,0+ pp. /-07 that he remem!ered that there 4ere di$isions in "oom /0+ 4ith se$era# ta!#es !ut 4ithout Identifyin 4ho the occupants of the ta!#es 4ere did not in any 4ay #end support to the contention of accused &ncarnacion "amire9 that she su!#eased a portion of her room to &s uerra and deceased ;iranda. *o contract of su!-#ease 4as presented( and e$en assumin ar uendo that the same 4as su!-#eased( no reason 4as offered 4hy Lucas "amire9 had the @eys not on#y to the main door !ut a## the ca!inets and dra4ers as 4e##. 3hat is apparent is that &s uerra he#d office at "oom /0+ Buisum!in :#d . not as su!#essee !ut on a reement 4ith Lucas "amire9 4ho 4as himse#f a CPA and an Auditor of %.". Lope9 Inc.( a firm 4here &s uerra 4as a#so emp#oyed as an Accountant. In fact &s uerra admitted that he 4ent to /0+ Buisum!in :#d . after office hours 6t.s.n. ;arch 20( 1,0, pp. 12-1/.7 on instructions of Lucas "amire9 and si ned statements for a fee of P100.00 per certification 6t.s.n. >cto!er 0( 1,0-( Crimina# "ecord p. /02( /017. It surprises 5s 4hy &s uerra 4as not su!8ected to further in$esti ations if he 4ere eCua##y ui#ty of the crime char ed. Accused &ncarnacion "amire9 too tried to 4ash her hands !y testifyin that she did not @no4 *ata#ia Capara9 nor did she meet her !efore the hearin 6t.s.n. p. 21 *o$. 2( 1,-07. >n further eEamination( ho4e$er( she admitted ha$in @no4n her as she 6Caparas7 4as introduced to her 6"amire97 !y a mutua# friend( Apo#onia A#cantara 6t.s.n. p. /1 *o$. 2( 1,-07. A#so durin the raid( the *:I and C: a ents found amon the papers po4ers of attorney eEecuted !y Lasin and Capara9 in fa$or of &ncarnacion ?a8ardo "amire9( authori9in the #atter to mana e the disposa# of the do##ar a##ocations. Li@e4ise it 4as sho4n durin the tria# that the spouses petitioners herein !enefited from the do##ar a##ocations o!tained !y Capara9 and Lasin and in fact retained the #ionGs share therefrom. 'hus from the a##ocation o!tained !y Capara9 in the amount of U+(111.10( she 6Caparas7 4as on#y i$en the amount of P200.00 as reim!ursement of her eEpenses and P-0.00 as her share of the do##ar a##ocation 6t.s.n. pp. 10-11 ;arch 20( 1,0,7. Simi#ar#y 4hen LasinGs app#ication 4as appro$ed for U+(,10.00 she 4as on#y i$en a share of P000.00 6t.s.n. ;ay 10( 1,0, pp. //( /27. A## the a!o$e facts positi$e#y affirm the ui#t of spouses-petitioners herein y,"rB. II Anent the second error( it is the contention of petitioners herein that 4ith the ad$ent of fu## decontro# en$isa ed in Circu#ar *o. 1// issued on .anuary 21( 1,-2( the crime for 4hich petitioners 4ere indicted has a#ready !een eEtin uished. Pertinent pro$isions of Circu#ar 1// are hereunder Cuoted for easy reference( $i9F EEE EEE EEE 2. >n#y authori9ed a ent !an@s may se## forei n eEchan e for imports. Such eEchan e shou#d !e so#d at the pre$ai#in mar@et rate to any app#icant( 4ithout reCuirin prior specific #icensin from the Centra# :an@( su!8ect to the fo##o4in conditionsF a. A## imports must !e co$ered !y #etter of credit eEcept sma## transactions in$o#$in not more than U100.00D !. E E E

EEE EEE EEE 2. 'he free mar@et rate sha## not !e administrati$e#y fiEed !ut sha## !e determined throu h transactions in the free mar@et( EEE EEE EEE +. A## eEistin circu#ars( ru#es and re u#ations and conditions o$ernin transactions in forei n eEchan e not inconsistent 4ith the pro$isions on this Circu#ar are deemed incorporated hereto and made inte ra# parts hereof !y reference )mfOr.-L/. It is $ery c#ear that Circu#ar 1// #ifted the restrictions imposed !y Circu#ar 20 and su!seCuent circu#ars thereto. In short Circu#ar 1// repea#ed Circu#ar 20. 'his is so !ecause Circu#ar 20 and Circu#ar 1// are diametrica##y opposed to each other. 3hi#e Circu#ar 20 restricted the sa#e of forei n eEchan e and su!8ected a## transactions therein to specific #icensin !y the Centra# :an@( Circu#ar 1// practica##y did a4ay 4ith prior #icensin . As apt#y e#ucidated in the case of Peop#e $s. Sandico 1( .r. et a#. ... 'he So#icitor )enera#Gs opposition to the motion for dismissa# is predicated primari#y upon his contention that Circu#ar 20 has not !een repea#ed !y Circu#ar 1//( and that far from !ein incompati!#e( the t4o actua##y comp#ement each other. 'his contention is 4ithout merit. In the first p#ace( 4hi#e Circu#ar 20 restricts sa#es of forei n eEchan e and su!8ects a## transactions therein to specific #icensin !y the Centra# :an@( Circu#ar 1// neither restricts sa#es of forei n eEchan e nor su!8ects transactions therein to #icensin . As a matter of fact( Circu#ar 1// pro$ides that forei n eEchan e sha## !e so#d at a free mar@et rate to any app#icant 4ithout reCuirin prior specific #icensin from the Centra# :an@( and that the free mar@et rate sha## not !e administrati$e#y fiEed !ut sha## !e determined in the transactions in the free mar@et. ?rom the contradictory concepts of the t4o systems may !e seen the incompati!i#ity !et4een the t4o circu#ars. Circu#ar 1// 4as promu# ated precise#y to remedy the e$i#s !rou ht a!out !y the contro# systemD it is therefore not anci##ary to Circu#ar 20. If #ife is to !e i$en to the remedy of decontro# as a po#icy for economic sur$i$a#( Circu#ar 20 must i$e a4ay to the super$enin Circu#ar 1//. 'he purpose of Circu#ar 1// cannot !e achie$ed !y app#yin the pro$isions of Circu#ar 20D the t4o circu#ars cannot operate hand in hand. It may !e true that Circu#ar 1// contains no specific pro$ision 4hich is in direct conf#ict 4ith Secs. 2-a and ! of Circu#ar 20( the particu#ar sections under 4hich the appe##ants 4ere char ed and con$icted. :ut it is o!$ious nonethe#ess that the respecti$e purposes of these t4o circu#ars are diametrica##y opposed to each other( !ecause 4hi#e Circu#ar 20 restricts the sa#e of forei n eEchan e and su!8ects a## transactions therein to specific #icensin !y the Centra# :an@( the purpose of Circu#ar 1// is c#ear#y to a!o#ish such restrictions and do a4ay 4ith #icensin . It is !eyond dou!t( therefore( that the purpose of Circu#ar 20 4as a!andoned !y the promu# ation of Circu#ar 1//( and Secs. 2-a and ! thereof ha$e #ost a## meanin and function. A#so under para raph + of Circu#ar 1// 6supra7 it is so pro$ided that circu#ars consistent 4ith the pro$isions of Circu#ar 1// are deemed incorporated thereto. %o4e$er since Circu#ar 20 is inconsistent and runs counter to it then !y necessary imp#ication the same is a!ro ated and repea#ed. And as Suther#and 2 an eminent authority on Statutory Construction says-I3hen a su!seCuent enactment co$erin a fie#d of operation coterminous 4ith a prior statute cannot !y any reasona!#e construction !e i$en effect 4hi#e the prior #a4 remains in operati$e eEistence !ecause of irreconci#a!#e conf#ict !et4een the t4o acts( the #atest #e is#ati$e eEpression pre$ai#s and the prior #a4 yie#ds to the eEtent of the conf#ict.I 'he decisi$e Cuestion to determine no4 is 4hether or not repea# of Circu#ar 20 o!#iterated petitionersG crime. Petitioners hea$i#y re#ied on the case of Peop#e $s. Buasha / 4here this Court opinedF ... 'he ma8ority of the court ho4e$er( are a#so of the opinion that( e$en supposin that the act imputed to the dependant constituted fa#sification at the time it 4as perpetrated( sti## 4ith the appro$a# of the Parity Amendment to the Constitution in ;arch( 1,21( 4hich p#aced Americans on the same footin as ?i#ipino citi9ens 4ith respect to the ri ht to operate pu!#ic uti#ities in the Phi#ippines( thus doin a4ay 4ith the prohi!ition in Section +( Artic#e LIV( of the Constitution in so far as American citi9ens are concerned( the said act has ceased to !e an offense 4ithin the meanin of the #a4( so that defendant can no #on er !e he#d crimina##y #ia!#e therefor. ... >n the other hand( the Court of Appea#s in its decision saidF ?ina#mente( #os ape#antes contienden Cue con #a a!o#icion de #a ad8udicacion de do#ares( #os actos cometidos por #os esposos en e#

supuesto de Cue fuesen estos cu#pa!#es ya han de8ado de ser puni!#es( citando para este efecto #a causa de Pue-lo $s. Buasha( 2, >.). 2+2-. &ntendemos Cue #a contencion carece de merito porCue en #a presente causa #os esposos estan acusados de fa#sification de documentos officia# y commercia# y no de una infraction de #os re #amentos de# :anco Centra# so!re #a ad8udicacion de do#ares y #a causa de Buasha( supra( no es ap#ica!#e a# caso de autos donde en parte se sostu$o Cue de!ido a #a enmienda de #a Constitution concediendo a #os americanos i ua#es pri$i#e ios Cue #os fi#ipinos en #a L#amadad c#ausu#a de paridad( no era necesario eEpresar en #a escritura de incorporacion #a naciona#idad de #os incorporadores americanos en una corporacion de uti#idad pu!#ica puesto Cue tenian #os mismos derechos y pri$i#e ios Cue #os fi#ipinos en una corporacion de ta# indo#e. 3e !e#ie$e that the ratiocination of the Court of Appea#s is a#to ether hair-sp#ittin . If 3e 4i## reca##( the crime of fa#sification stemmed from the $io#ation of the #e a# reCuirements of the Centra# :an@( specifica##y Circu#ars 20 and 22( 4here app#icantimporters 4ere o!#i ed to disc#ose the truth on the fi ures and data appearin in the documents su!mitted !ut 4hich they a##e ed#y fa#sified to Cua#ify them as ne4 importers. 'hese reCuirements incorporated in Circu#ar 20 and su!seCuent circu#ars 4ere issued durin an emer ency in an effort to cur! the out4ard f#o4 of forei n eEhan e. &$entua##y( a free mar@et ensued and the emer ency measures 4ere #ifted. ConseCuent#y( there is no more o!#i ation no4 to su!mit to the Centra# :an@ such documents in support of an app#ication for forei n eEchan e. A#thou h the acts imputed to the accused constituted( at the time they 4ere committed( fa#sification of commercia# documents pena#i9ed under Sec. 112( para raph 1( of the "e$ised Pena# Code( the promu# ation of Centra# :an@ Circu#ar 1// a!o#ishin the reCuirement of specific #icensin under Centra# :an@ Circu#ar *o. 20 4iped a4ay the #e a# o!#i ation of the app#icants for forei n eEchan e to disc#ose the truth of the facts narrated in the documents supportin their app#ication. As there is no more #e a# o!#i ation of the app#icant to disc#ose such truth( an untruthfu# statement therein no #on er constitutes the crime of fa#sification perpetrated !y ma@in fa#se statements in a narration of facts 6?rancisco( "e$ised Pena# Code( p. 1,2( 1,-/ ed.D 5.S. $s. Lope9( 10 Phi#. 010 and Peop#e $s. Buasha(,/ Phi#. ///7 BE4OhcD'. It may !e ar ued that the repea# of Centra# :an@ Circu#ar *o. 20 !y Centra# :an@ Circu#ar *o. 1// did not eEtin uish the crimina# #ia!i#ity for fa#sification of commercia# documents !ecause the "e$ised Pena# Code 4here such offense is punisha!#e 4as unaffected there!y and remains $a#id and su!sistin . 'rue that the pertinent pro$ision of the "e$ised Pena# Code on fa#sification 4as not repea#ed !y Circu#ar *o. 1//( !ut the stu!!orn fact remains that the repea# of Circu#ar *o. 20 4hich imposed the o!#i ation to state the truth in the papers supportin the app#ication for forei n eEchan e eEtin uished that o!#i ation( #ea$in no more foundation on 4hich the fa#sification of such papers 4ou#d rest. 'he root cause of the fa#sification( 4hich 4as Centra# :an@ Circu#ar *o. 20( ha$in !een tota##y remo$ed( the offense arisin out of a disre ard or $io#ation of said circu#ar has no more #e to stand on p%:c"d>$r*. 'he reater 4ei ht of authority is inc#ined to the $ie4 that an appe##ate court( in re$ie4in a 8ud ment on appea#( 4i## dispose of a Cuestion accordin to the #a4 pre$ai#in at the time of such disposition( and not accordin to the #a4 pre$ai#in at the time of rendition of the appea#ed 8ud ment. 'he court 4i##( therefore( re$erse a 8ud ment 4hich 4as correct at the time it 4as ori ina##y rendered 4here( !y statute( there has !een an intermediate chan e in the #a4 4hich renders such 8ud ment erroneous at the time the case 4as fina##y disposed of on appea# 6111 A.L.". 1/1+D see cases cited therein7. 'hus( if pendin the appea# from a 8ud ment of the #o4er court the #a4 is chan ed( or the statute under 4hich it 4as decided has !een repea#ed( the appe##ate court must dispose of the case under the #a4 in force 4hen its decision is rendered. 'he court must conform its decision to the #a4 then eEistin and may( therefore( re$erse a 8ud ment 4hich 4as correct 4hen pronounced in the su!ordinate tri!una#( if it appears that pendin the appea# a statute 4hich 4as necessary to support the 8ud ment of the #o4er court has !een 4ithdra4n !y an a!so#ute repea# 6Vance $. "an@in 61,027 1,2 I11. -20( -2 *.&. +01( ++ Am. St. "ep. 11/D 3a## $. Chesapea@e N >.". Co. 61,1,7 2,0 I11. 221( 120 *.&. 207. Li@e4ise it 4as he#d that 4hi#e as a enera# ru#e it is the pro$ince of an appe##ate court to inCuire on#y into the Cuestion 4hether a 8ud ment 4as erroneous 4hen rendered( if su!seCuent to the 8ud ment of the #o4er court and !efore the decision of the appe##ate court is handed do4n a #a4 inter$enes chan in the app#ica!#e ru#e( the 8ud ment of the #o4er court( a#thou h correct under the #a4 pre$ai#in at the time it 4as rendered must !e set aside !y the appe##ate court and a 8ud ment in conformity 4ith the ne4 #a4 must !e entered 65.S. $. 'he Pe y 61+017 1 Cranch 65.S.7 10/( 2L. &d. 2,7. It may !e ar ued that the function of the appe##ate court is not to consider the merits of a cause on the !asis of super$enin eEtraneous circumstances !ut mere#y to re$ie4 the 8ud ment of the #o4er court 4ith a $ie4 to determinin 4hether it 4as

erroneous or correct 4hen it 4as rendered. :ut !ecause 8ud ment is suspended !y appea#( it is 4ithout fina#ityD that to i$e it fina#ity the appe##ate court must itse#f pronounce its 8ud ment( and that in so doin it must !e o$erned !y the eEistin #a4. 3hen the pre$ious #a4 under 4hich a#one $a#idity cou#d !e i$en to the 8ud ment has !een repea#ed( the so#e prop and foundation for support of the 8ud ment has !een remo$ed( and of necessity it must !e dec#ared nu## and $oid 6Yeaton $. 5nited States 61+0,7 0 Cranch 65.S.7 2+1( / L. &d. 1017. In $ie4 of the fai#ure of the Court en -anc after its first de#i!eration to reach a decision on this case due to the a!sence of the reCuired num!er of 8ustices to promu# ate a decision( and of the a!stention of t4o 8ustices from participatin therein( the case 4as set for rehearin en -anc in accordance 4ith Sec. /( "u#e 120 of the "u#es of Court. >n Septem!er 2( 1,10( the case 4as rehearden -anc and su!seCuent#y the 8ustices present 4ere reCuested to cast their respecti$e $otes on the fina# outcome of the case. >n Apri# +( 1,1-( the Court for the second time( forma##y $oted on the case( and the resu#t of the $otin amon the e#e$en 8ustices present 4as as fo##o4sF 1. ?or AB5I''AL of the accused appe##antsH 17 &s uerra 27 ;uTo9 Pa#ma /7 Concepcion 27 ;artin( ... 2. ?or C>*VIC'I>* of the accused appe##antsH 17 Castro( C... 27 'eehan@ee /7 :arredo 27 ;a@asiar 07 ACuino( .. 2DuB-8I8f. /. ?or A:S'&*'I>*H 17 ?ernando 27 Antonio( ... It resu#ted that the ma8ority of ei ht reCuired !y the constitution in ordinary cases heard en -anc to decide a case has not for the second time !een o!tained. Pursuant to the pro$isions of Sec. /( "u#e 120 of the "u#es of Court( if after the case is reheard and in the rehearin no decision is a ain reached( the 8ud ment of con$iction of the #o4er court sha## !e re$ersed and the defendant sha## !e acCuitted. 3%&"&?>"&( the accused appe##ants( Lucas "amire9 and &ncarnacion ?a8ardo "amire9( are here!y acCuitted of the offense char e( 4ith costs (e oficio. S> >"D&"&D. SPOUSES ENRICUE M. ELO !n" FLORENCIA G. ELO, petitioners, vs. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL SPOUSES MARCOS !n" ARSENIA ESLA ON, respondents. *ECISION *E LEON, JR., J.: :efore us is a petition for re$ie4 on certiorari of the Decision J1K and "eso#utionJ2K in CA-).". *o. 0/+-0 of the Court of Appea#sJ/K dated ;ay 21( 1,,+ and .une 2,( 1,,+( respecti$e#y( 4hich modified the Decision J2K dated Apri# /0( 1,,- of the "e iona# 'ria# Court of "oEas City( :ranch 1, in a suit J0K for Dec#aration of *u##ity of the Contract of ;ort a e. 'he facts are as fo##o4sF AN8 !n"

&duarda :e#o o4ned an a ricu#tura# #and 4ith an area of siE hundred siEty one thousand t4o hundred ei hty ei ht 6--1(2++7 sCuare meters #ocated in 'impas( Panitan( Capi9( co$ered and descri!ed in 'ransfer Certificate of 'it#e 6'C' for !re$ity7 *o. '12,/. She #eased a portion of the said tract of #and to respondents spouses ;arcos and Arsenia &s#a!on in connection 4ith the said spousesA su ar p#antation !usiness. 'he #ease contract 4as effecti$e for a period of se$en 617 years at the renta# rate of Se$en 'housand Pesos 6P1(000.007 per year. 'o finance their !usiness $enture( respondents spouses &s#a!on o!tained a #oan from respondent Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@ 6P*: for !re$ity7 secured !y a rea# estate mort a e on their o4n four 627 residentia# houses #ocated in "oEas City( as 4e## as on the a ricu#tura# #and o4ned !y &duarda :e#o. 'he assent of &duarda :e#o to the mort a e 4as acCuired throu h a specia# po4er of attorney 4hich she eEecuted in fa$or of respondent ;arcos &s#a!on on .une 10( 1,+2. Inasmuch as the respondents spouses &s#a!on fai#ed to pay their #oan o!#i ation( eEtra8udicia# forec#osure proceedin s a ainst the mort a ed properties 4ere instituted !y respondent P*:. At the auction sa#e on .une 10( 1,,1( respondent P*: 4as the hi hest !idder of the forec#osed properties at ?our %undred ?orty Se$en 'housand SiE %undred 'hirty '4o Pesos 6P221(-/2.007. In a #etter dated Au ust 2+( 1,,1( respondent P*: appraised &duarda :e#o of the sa#e at pu!#ic auction of her a ricu#tura# #and on .une 10( 1,,1 as 4e## as the re istration of the Certificate of SheriffAs Sa#e in its fa$or on .u#y 1( 1,,1( and the one-year period to redeem the #and. ;ean4hi#e( &duarda :e#o so#d her ri ht of redemption to petitioners spouses &nriCue and ?#orencia :e#o under a deed of a!so#ute sa#e of proprietary and redemption ri hts. :efore the eEpiration of the redemption period( petitioners spouses :e#o tendered payment for the redemption of the a ricu#tura# #and in the amount of ?our %undred &i hty ?our 'housand ?our %undred &i hty '4o Pesos and *inety SiE Centa$os 6P2+2(2+2.,-7( 4hich inc#udes the !id price of respondent P*:( p#us interest and eEpenses as pro$ided under Act *o. /1/0. %o4e$er( respondent P*: re8ected the tender of payment of petitioners spouses :e#o. It contended that the redemption price shou#d !e the total claim of the -an5 on the (ate of the auction sale an( custo(y of property plus charges accrue( an( interests amountin to '4o ;i##ion Se$en %undred Se$enty *ine 'housand *ine %undred Se$enty &i ht and Se$enty '4o Centa$os 6P2(11,(,1+.127.J-K Petitioners spouses disa reed and refused to pay the said tota# c#aim of respondent P*:. >n .une 1+( 1,,2( petitioners spouses :e#o initiated in the "e iona# 'ria# Court of "oEas City( Ci$i# Case *o. V--1+2 4hich is an action for dec#aration of nu##ity of mort a e( 4ith an a#ternati$e cause of action( in the e$ent that the accommodation mort a e !e he#d to !e $a#id( to compe# respondent P*: to accept the redemption price tendered !y petitioners spouses :e#o 4hich is !ased on the 4innin !id price of respondent P*: in the eEtra8udicia# forec#osure in the amount of ?our %undred ?orty Se$en 'housand SiE %undred 'hirty '4o Pesos 6P221(-/2.007 p#us interest and eEpenses. In its Ans4er( respondent P*: raised( amon others( the fo##o4in defenses( to 4itF EEE 11. In a## #oan contracts ranted and mort a e contracts eEecuted under the 1,10 "e$ised Charter 6PD -,2( as amended7( the proper rate of interest to !e char ed durin the redemption period is the rate specified in the mort a e contract !ased on #e$. 25J1K o% &D 694 and the mort a e contract 4hich incorporates !y reference the pro$isions of the P*: Charters. Additiona##y( under Sec. 1+ of the )enera# :an@in Act 6"A *o. //1( as amended7 made app#ica!#e to P*: pursuant to Sec. /+ of PD *o. -,2( the rate of interest co##ecti!#e durin the redemption period is the rate specified in the mort a e contract. 1+. Since p#aintiffs fai#ed to tender and pay the reCuired amount for redemption of the property under the pro$isions of the )enera# :an@in Act( no redemption 4as $a#id#y effectedD J+K EEE After tria# on the merits( the tria# court rendered its Decision dated Apri# /0( 1,,- rantin the a#ternati$e cause of action of spouses :e#o( the decreta# portion of 4hich readsF

3%&"&?>"&( in $ie4 of a## the fore oin ( 8ud ment is here!y rendered in fa$or of p#aintiffs Spouses &nriCue ;. :e#o and ?#orencia ). :e#o and a ainst defendants Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@ and Spouses ;arcos and Arsenia &s#a!onF 1. ;a@in the in8unction issued !y the court permanent( insofar as the property of &duarda :e#o co$ered !y 'ransfer Certificate of 'it#e *o. '-12,/ is concernedD 2. >rderin defendant Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@ to a##o4 p#aintiff &nriCue ;. :e#o to redeem on#y &duarda :e#oAs property situated in :r y. 'impas( Panitan( Capi9( and co$ered !y 'ransfer Certificate of 'it#e *o. '-12,/ !y payin on#y its !id price of P221(-/2.00( p#us interest and other char es pro$ided for in Section /0( "u#e /, of the "u#es of Court( #ess the #oan $a#ue( as ori ina##y appraised !y said defendant :an@( of the forec#osed four 627 residentia# #ots of defendants Spouses ;arcos and Arsenia &s#a!onD and /. Dismissin for #ac@ of merit the respecti$e counterc#aims of defendants Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@ and spouses ;arcos and Arsenia &s#a!on. 3ith costs a ainst defendants. S> >"D&"&D.J,K Dissatisfied 4ith the fore oin 8ud ment of the tria# court( respondent P*: appea#ed to the Court of Appea#s. In its Decision rendered on ;ay 21( 1,,+( the appe##ate court( 4hi#e upho#din the decision of the tria# court on the $a#idity of the rea# estate mort a e on &duarda :e#oAs property( the eEtra8udicia# forec#osure and the pu!#ic auction sa#e( modified the tria# courtAs findin on the appropriate redemption price !y ru#in that the petitioners spouses :e#o shou#d pay the entire !'o(nt d(e to &)* (nder t+e 'ort,!,e deed !t t+e ti'e o% t+e %ore$-os(re s!-e p-(s interest, $osts !nd e.penses .J10K Petitioners spouses :e#o sou ht reconsideration J11K of the said Decision !ut the same 4as denied !y the appe##ate court in its "eso#ution promu# ated on .une 2,( 1,,+( ratiocinatin ( thusF >nce more( the Court shies a4ay from dec#arin the nu##ity of the mort a e contract o!#i atin &duarda :e#o as co-mort a or( considerin that it has not !een sufficient#y esta!#ished that &duarda :e#oAs assent to the specia# po4er of attorney and to the mort a e contract 4as tainted !y any $itiatin cause. ;oreo$er( in tenderin an offer to redeem the property 6&Ehi!it V20W( p. -02 "ecord7 after its eEtra8udicia# forec#osure( she has there!y admitted the $a#idity of the mort a e( as 4e## as the transactions #eadin to its inception. &duarda :e#o( and the appe##ees as mere assi nees of &duardaAs ri ht to redeem the property( are therefore estopped from Cuestionin the efficacy of the mort a e and its su!seCuent forec#osure. J12K 'he appe##ate court further dec#ared that petitioners spouses :e#o are o!#i ated to pay the tota# !an@As c#aim representin the redemption price for the forec#osed properties( as pro$ided !y "ection /? of P.2. No. 430( ho#din thatF >n the other hand( the courtAs ru#in that the appe##ees( !ein the assi nee of the ri ht of repurchase of &duarda :e#o( 4ere !ound !y the redemption price as pro$ided !y Section 20 of P.D. -,2( stands. 'he attac@ on the constitutiona#ity of Section 20 of P.D. -,2 cannot !e a##o4ed( as the %i h Court( in pre$ious instances( 6Du#ay $. Carria a( 12/ SC"A 1,2 J1,+/KD Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@ $. "emi io( 2/1 SC"A /-2 J1,,2K7 has re arded the said pro$ision of #a4 4ith respect( usin the same in determinin the proper redemption price in forec#osure of mort a es in$o#$in the P*: as mort a ee. 'he terms of the said pro$ision are Cuite c#ear and #ea$e no room for Cua#ification( as the appe##ees 4ou#d ha$e us ru#e. 'he said ru#e( as amended( ma@es no specific distinction as to assi nees or transferees of the mort a or of his redempti$e ri ht. In the a!sence of such distinction !y the #a4( the Court cannot ma@e a distinction. As admitted assi nees of &duarda :e#oAs ri ht of redemption( the appe##ees succeed to the precise ri ht of &duarda inc#udin a## conditions attendant to such ri ht. ;oreo$er( the indi$isi!#e character of a contract of mort a e 6Artic#e 20+,( Ci$i# Code7 4i## eEtend to app#y in the redemption sta e of the mort a e.

As 4e ha$e pre$ious#y remar@ed( Section 20 of P.D. -,2 is a sanctioned de$iation from the ru#e em!odied in "u#e /,( Section /0 of the "u#es of Court( and is a specia# protection i$en to o$ernment #endin institutions( particu#ar#y( the Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@. 6Du#ay $. Carria a( supra7J1/K %ence( the instant petition. Durin the ora# ar ument( petitioners( throu h counse#( Atty. &nriCue ;. :e#o( a reed to #imit the assi nment of errors to the fo##o4in F EEE EEE EEE

!enefit. Instead( said P*: SPA ?orm *o. 12 4as used !y de!tors &s#a!ons and P*: to !ind &duarda :e#o as accommodation mort a or for the crop #oan eEtended !y P*: to the &s#a!ons. /. 'hat the said P*: SPA ?orm *o. 12 4as si ned !y &duarda :e#o in !#an@( 4ithout specifyin the amount of the #oan to !e ranted !y respondent P*: to the respondents-de!tors &s#a!ons upon assurance !y the P*: mana er that the SPA 4as mere#y a forma#ity and that the !an@ 4i## not #end !eyond the $a#ue of the four 627 J"oEas CityK residentia# #ots #ocated in "oEas City mort a ed !y respondents-de!tors &s#a!ons 6see &Ehi!it VDWD &duarda :e#oAs deposition( &Ehi!it VVW( pp. 1 to 227. 2. 'hat P*: did not ad$ise &duarda :e#o of the amount of the #oan ranted to the &s#a!ons( did not ma@e demands upon her for payment( did not ad$ise her of &s#a!onsA defau#t. 'he pre-auction sa#e notice intended for &duarda :e#o 4as addressed and de#i$ered to the address of the de!tors &s#a!ons residence at :ay!ay( "oEas City( not to the :e#o ?ami#y %ouse 4hich is the residence of &duarda :e#o #ocated in the heart of "oEas City. 'he tria# court stated in its Decision that the P*: 4itness ;iss I nacio Vadmitted that throu h o$ersi ht( no demand #etters 4ere sent to &duarda :e#o( the accommodation mort a orW 6see p. 1( "'C Decision7. EEE 0. As an a reed fact stated in the Pre-'ria# >rder of the "e iona# 'ria# Court( the #oan 4hich 4as unpaid at the time of the eEtra8udicia# forec#osure sa#e 4as on#y P1+,(+,1.00. EEE

II. '%& C>5"' >? APP&ALS &""&D I* *>' "&V&"SI*) '%& '"IAL C>5"' >* '%& :ASIS >? '%& ASSI)*;&*' >? &"">"S ALL&)&D :Y P&'I'I>*&"S I* '%&I" :"I&?F 617 '%A' '%& SP&CIAL P>3&" >? A''>"*&Y &L&C5'&D :Y &D5A"DA :&L> I* ?AV>" >? "&SP>*D&*' &SLA:>* 3AS *5LL A*D V>IDD 627 '%A' '%& "&AL &S'A'& ;>"')A)& &L&C5'&D :Y "&SP>*D&*' ;A"C>S &SLA:>* 5*D&" SAID I*VALID SP&CIAL P>3&" >? A''>"*&Y IS ALS> *5LL A*D V>IDD III. '%& C>5"' >? APP&ALS &""&D I* *>' %>LDI*) '%A' "&SP>*D&*' P*: AC'&D I* :AD ?AI'% A*D C>**IV&D 3I'% "&SP>*D&*'S-D&:'>"S &SLA:>*S '> >:'AI* '%& C>*S&*' >? &D5A"DA :&L>( P&'I'I>*&"SA P"&D&C&SS>"( '%">5)% ?"A5D. IV. '%& C>5"' >? APP&ALS &""&D I* *>' %>LDI*) '%A' "&SP>*D&*' P*: 3AS *&)LI)&*' I* '%& P&"?>";A*C& >? I'S D5'Y AS C>;;&"CIAL ;>*&Y L&*D&". V. '%& C>5"' >? APP&ALS &""&D I* %>LDI*) '%A' &D5A"DA :&L>( P&'I'I>*&"SA P"&D&C&SS>"( %AD 3AIV&D '%& "I)%' '> B5&S'I>* '%& L&)ALI'Y >? '%& ACC>;;>DA'I>* ;>"')A)&. VI. '%& C>5"' >? APP&ALS &""&D I* "&V&"SI*) '%& '"IAL C>5"' :Y %>LDI*) '%A' >* "&D&;P'I>*( P&'I'I>*&"S S%>5LD PAY '%& &*'I"& CLAI; >? P*: A)AI*S' "&SP>*D&*'SD&:'>"S &SLA:>*S. VII. '%& C>5"' >? APP&ALS &""&D I* *>' >"D&"I*) '%A' S%>5LD P&'I'I>*&"S D&CID& '> PAY '%& &*'I"& CLAI; >? "&SP>*D&*' P*: A)AI*S' '%& "&SP>*D&*'S-D&:'>"S &SLA:>*S( P&'I'I>*&"S S%ALL S5CC&&D '> ALL '%& "I)%'S >? "&SP>*D&*' P*: 3I'% '%& "I)%' '> "&I;:5"S&;&*' :Y "&SP>*D&*'S-D&:'>"S( &SLA:>*S. VIII. '%& C>5"' >? APP&ALS &""&D I* *>' %>LDI*) '%A' S%>5LD P&'I'I>*&"S D&CID& *>' '> &L&"CIS& '%&I" "I)%' >? "&D&;P'I>*( P&'I'I>*&"S S%ALL :& &*'I'L&D '> '%& VAL5& >? '%&I" I;P">V&;&*'S ;AD& I* )>>D ?AI'% A*D ?>" '%& "&AL &S'A'& 'AL D5& P"I>" '> '%& ?>"&CL>S5"& SAL&.J12K Petitioners cha##en e the appreciation of the facts of the appe##ate court( pointin out the fo##o4in facts 4hich the appe##ate court a##e ed#y fai#ed to fu##y interpret and appreciateF 1. 'hat respondent P*: in its Ans4er admitted that &duarda :e#o 4as mere#y an accommodation mort a or and that she has no persona# #ia!i#ity to respondent P*:. EEE 2. 'hat the P*: Specia# Po4er of Attorney 6SPA7 ?orm *o. 12 6&Eh. VDW7 used to !ind &duarda :e#o as accommodation mort a or authori9ed the a ent &s#a!ons to !orro4 and mort a e her a ricu#tura# #and for her 6&duarda :e#o7 use and

-. 'hat herein petitioners Spouses :e#o in ma@in the tender to redeem &duarda :e#oAs a ricu#tura# #and eEpress#y reser$ed the ri ht to Cuestion the #e a#ity of the accommodation mort a e in the e$ent that said tender to redeem 4as re8ected !y P*: 6&Eh. VIW7.J10K Petitioners present !asica##y t4o 627 issues !efore this Court. ?irst( 4hether or not the Specia# Po4er of Attorney 6SPA for !re$ity7( the rea# estate mort a e contract( the forec#osure proceedin s and the su!seCuent auction sa#e in$o#$in &duarda :e#oAs property are $a#id. Second( assumin they are $a#id( 4hether or not the petitioners are reCuired to pay( as redemption price( the entire c#aim of respondent P*: in the amount of P2(11,(,1+.12 as of the date of the pu!#ic auction sa#e on .une 10( 1,,1. >n the first issue( the petitioners contend that the SPA is $oid for the reason that the amount for 4hich the spouses &s#a!on are authori9ed to !orro4 from respondent !an@ 4as un#imitedD and that( 4hi#e the SPA states that the amount #oaned is for the !enefit of &duarda :e#o( it 4as in fact used for the !enefit of the respondents spouses &s#a!on. ?or the said reasons petitioners contend that the mort a e contract #ac@s $a#id consent( o!8ect and considerationD that it $io#ates a concept in the #a4 of a ency 4hich pro$ides that the contract entered into !y the a ent must a#4ays !e for the !enefit of the principa#D and( that it does not eEpress the true intent of the parties. 'he su!8ect SPA( the rea# estate mort a e contract( the forec#osure proceedin s and the su!seCuent auction sa#e of &duarda :e#oAs property are $a#id and #e a#. ?irst( the $a#idity of the SPA and the mort a e contract cannot anymore !e assai#ed due to petitionersA fai#ure to appea# the same after the tria# court rendered its decision affirmin their $a#idity. After the tria# court rendered its decision rantin petitioners their alternative cause of action( i.e.( that they can redeem the su!8ect property on the !asis of the 4innin !id price of respondent P*:( petitioners did not anymore !other to appea# that decision on their first cause of action. If they fe#t a rie$ed !y the tria# courtAs decision upho#din the $a#idity of the said t4o 627 documents( then they shou#d ha$e a#so partia##y appea#ed therefrom !ut they did not. It is an a!use of #e a# remedies for petitioners to !e#ated#y pursue a c#aim that 4as sett#ed 4ith fina#ity due to their o4n shortcomin . As he#d in Caliguia v. National La-or Relations Commission, J1-K 4here a party did not appea# from the La!or Ar!iterAs decision denyin c#aims for actua#( mora# and eEemp#ary dama es and instead mo$ed for immediate eEecution( the decision then !ecame fina# as to him and !y as@in for its eEecution( he 4as estopped from re#iti atin his c#aims for dama es. Se5on", >e..#en,'en5-e" /0 ,-e 'u.e ,-!, ,-e 2/n"/n90 o2 ,'/!. 5ou',0 >-/5- !'e 2!5,u!. /n n!,u'e, e0;e5/!..( >-en !22/'3e" 1( ,-e Cou', o2 A;;e!.0, "e0e'=e ,o 1e 'e0;e5,e" !n" !22/'3e" 1( ,-e Su;'e3e Cou',, ;'o=/"e" /, /0 0u;;o',e" 1( 0u10,!n,/!. e=/"en5e.J11K T-e 2/n"/n9 o2 2!5,0 o2 ,-e ,'/!. 5ou', ,o ,-e e22e5, ,-!, E"u!'"! e.o >!0 no, /n"u5e" 1( ,-e 3!n!9e' o2 'e0;on"en, PN 1u, /n0,e!" ,-!, 0-e 2'ee.( 5on0en,e" ,o ,-e eEe5u,/on o2 ,-e SPA /0 9/=en ,-e -/9-e0, 'e0;e5, !0 /, >!0 !22/'3e" 1( ,-e !;;e..!,e 5ou',. In the case at !ar( the !urden of proof 4as on the petitioners to pro$e or sho4 that

there 4as a##e ed inducement and misrepresentation !y the mana er of respondent P*: and the spouses &s#a!on. 'heir a##e ation that &duarda :e#o on#y a reed to si n the SPA after she 4as assured that the spouses &s#a!on 4ou#d not !orro4 more than the $a#ue of their o4n four 627 residentia# #ots in "oEas City 4as proper#y o!8ected to !y respondent P*:. J1+K A#so their contention that &duarda :e#o si ned the SPA in !#an@ 4as proper#y o!8ected to !y respondent P*: on the round that the !est e$idence 4as the SPA. 'here is a#so no proof to sustain petitionersA a##e ation that respondent P*: acted in !ad faith and conni$ed 4ith the de!tors( respondents spouses &s#a!on( to o!tain &duarda :e#oAs consent to the mort a e throu h fraud. &duarda :e#o $ery 4e## @ne4 that the respondents spouses &s#a!on 4ou#d use her property as additiona# mort a e co##atera# for #oans inasmuch as the mort a e contract states that Vthe consideration of this mort a e is here!y initially fiEed at P22,(000.00.WJ1,K 'he mort a e contract sufficient#y apprises &duarda :e#o that the respondents spouses &s#a!on can app#y for more #oans 4ith her property as continuin additiona# security. If she found the said pro$ision Cuestiona!#e( she shou#d ha$e comp#ained immediate#y. Instead( a#most ten 6107 years had passed !efore she and the petitioners sou ht the annu#ment of the said contracts. 'hird( after ha$in one throu h the records( this Court finds that the courts a 9uo did not err in ho#din that the SPA eEecuted !y &duarda :e#o in fa$or of the respondents spouses &s#a!on and the "ea# &state ;ort a e eEecuted !y the respondents spouses in fa$or of respondent P*: are $a#id. It is stipu#ated in para raph three 6/7 of the SPA that &duarda :e#o appointed the &s#a!on spouses Vto ma@e( si n( eEecute and de#i$er any contract of mort a e or any other documents of 4hate$er nature or @ind .... 4hich may !e necessary or proper in connection 4ith the #oan herein mentioned( or 4ith any #oan 4hich my attorney-in-fact may contract persona##y in his o4n name X...W J20K 'his portion of the SPA is Cuite re#e$ant to the case at !ar. 'his 4as the main reason 4hy the SPA 4as eEecuted in the first p#ace inasmuch as &duarda :e#o consented to ha$e her #and mort a ed for the !enefit of the respondents spouses &s#a!on. 'he SPA 4as not meant to ma@e her a co-o!#i or to the principa# contract of #oan !et4een respondent P*:( as #ender( and the spouses &s#a!on( as !orro4ers. 'he accommodation rea# estate mort a e o$er her property( 4hich 4as eEecuted in fa$or of respondent P*: !y the respondents spouses &s#a!on( in their capacity as her attorneysAin-fact !y $irtue of her SPA( is mere#y an accessory contract. &duarda :e#o consented to !e an accommodation mort a or in the sense that she si ned the SPA to authori9e respondents spouses &s#a!ons to eEecute a mort a e on her #and. Petitioners themse#$es e$en ac@no4#ed ed that the re#ation created !y the SPA and the mort a e contract 4as mere#y that of mort a or-mort a ee re#ationship. 'he SPA form of the P*: 4as uti#i9ed to authori9e the spouses &s#a!on to mort a e &duarda :e#oAs #and as additiona# co##atera# of the &s#a!on spousesA #oan from respondent P*:. 'hus( the petitionersA contention that the SPA is $oid is untena!#e. :esides( &duarda :e#o !enefited( in si nin the SPA( in the sense that she 4as a!#e to co##ect the renta#s on her #eased property from the &s#a!ons. J21K An accommodation mort a e is not necessari#y $oid simp#y !ecause the accommodation mort a or did not !enefit from the same. 'he $a#idity of an accommodation mort a e is a##o4ed under Artic#e 20+0 of the *e4 Ci$i# Code 4hich pro$ides that V6t7hird persons 4ho are not parties to the principa# o!#i ation may secure the #atter !y p#ed in or mort a in their o4n property.W An accommodation mort a or( ordinari#y( is not himse#f a recipient of the #oan( other4ise that 4ou#d !e contrary to his desi nation as such. It is not a#4ays necessary that the accommodation mort a or !e appraised !eforehand of the entire amount of the #oan nor shou#d it first !e determined !efore the eEecution of the SPA for it has !een he#d thatF V6rea#7 mort a es i$en to secure future ad$ancements are $a#id and #e a# contractsD that the amounts named as consideration in said contract do not #imit the amount for 4hich the mort a e may stand as security if from the four corners of the instrument the intent to secure future and other inde!tedness can !e athered. A mort a e i$en to secure ad$ancements is a continuin security and is not dischar ed !y repayment of the amount named in the mort a e( unti# the fu## amount of the ad$ancements are paid.W J22K ?ourth( the courts a 9uo correct#y he#d that the #etter of &duarda :e#o addressed to respondent P*: manifestin her intent to redeem the property is a 4ai$er of her ri ht to Cuestion the $a#idity of the SPA and the mort a e contract as 4e## as the forec#osure and the sa#e of her su!8ect property. Petitioners c#aim that her #etter 4as not an offer to redeem as it 4as mere#y a dec#aration of her intention to redeem. "espondent P*:As ans4er to her #etter 4ou#d ha$e carried certain #e a# effects. %ad respondent P*: accepted her #etter-offer( it 4ou#d ha$e sure#y !ound the !an@ into acceptin the redemption price offered !y &duarda :e#o. If it 4as her opinion that her SPA and the mort a e contract 4ere nu## and $oid( she 4ou#d not ha$e manifested her intent to redeem !ut instead Cuestioned their $a#idity !efore a court of 8ustice. %er offer 4as a reco nition on her part that the said contracts are $a#id and produced #e a# effects. Inasmuch as &duarda :e#o is estopped from Cuestionin the $a#idity of the contracts( her assi nees 4ho are the petitioners in the instant case( are #i@e4ise estopped from disputin the $a#idity of her SPA(

the accommodation rea# estate mort a e contract( the forec#osure proceedin s( the auction sa#e and the SheriffAs Certificate of Sa#e. 'he second issue pertains to the app#ica!#e #a4 on redemption to the case at !ar. "espondent P*: maintains that Section 20 of Presidentia# Decree *o. -,2 shou#d app#y( thusF S&C. 20. Right of re(emption of foreclose( property P Right of possession (uring re(emption perio(. - 3ithin one year from the re istration of the forec#osure sa#e of rea# estate( the mortgagor shall have the right to re(eem the property -y paying all claims of the 1an5 against him on the (ate of the sale inc#udin a## the costs and other eEpenses incurred !y reason of the forec#osure sa#e and custody of the property( as 4e## as char es and accrued interests. J2/K Additiona##y( respondent !an@ see@s the app#ication to the case at !ar of Section 1+ of the )enera# :an@in Act( as amended !y P.D. *o. 1+2+( 4hich states that XXIn the e$ent of forec#osure( 4hether 8udicia##y or eEtra8udicia##y( of any mort a e on rea# estate 4hich is security for any #oan ranted !efore the passa e of this Act or under the pro$isions of this Act( the mort a or or de!tor 4hose rea# property has !een so#d at pu!#ic auction( 8udicia##y or eEtra8udicia##y( for the fu## or partia# payment of an o!#i ation to any !an@( !an@in or credit institution( 4ithin the pur$ie4 of this Act sha## ha$e the ri ht( 4ithin one year after the sa#e of the rea# estate as a resu#t of the forec#osure of the respecti$e mort a e( to re(eem the property -y paying the amount fiEed !y the court in the order of eEecution( or the amount (ue un(er the mortgage (ee(, as the case may !e( with interest thereon at the rate specifie( in the mortgage, an( all the costs, an( .u(icial an( other e)penses incurre( -y the -an5 or institution concerne( -y reason of the e)ecution an( sale an( as a result of the custo(y of sai( property less the income receive( from the property. J22K >n the other hand( petitioners assert that on#y the amount of the 4innin !idderAs purchase to ether 4ith the interest thereon and on a## other re#ated eEpenses shou#d !e paid as redemption price in accordance 4ith Section - of Act *o. /1/0 4hich pro$ides thatF Sec. -. In a## cases in 4hich an eEtra8udicia# sa#e is made under the specia# po4er herein!efore referred to( the de!tor( his successor in interest or any 8udicia# creditor or 8ud ment creditor of said de!tor( or any person ha$in a #ien on the property su!seCuent to the mort a e or deed of trust under 4hich the property is so#d( may redeem the same at any time 4ithin the term of one year from and after the date of the sa#eD and such redemption sha## !e o$erned !y the pro$isions of sections four hundred and siEty-four to four hundred and siEty siE( inc#usi$e( of the Code of Ci$i# Procedure J20K( in so far as these are not inconsistent 4ith the pro$isions of this Act. Section 2+ of "u#e /, of the 1,,1 "e$ised "u#es of Ci$i# Procedure states thatF S&C. 2+. %ime an( manner of, an( amounts paya-le on, successive re(emptions; notice to -e given an( file(. - 'he 8ud ment o!#i or( or redemptioner( may redeem the property from the purchaser( at any time 4ithin one 617 year from the date of the re istration of the certificate of sa#e( -y paying the purchaser the amount of his purchase, 4ithin one per centum per month interest thereon in addition( up to the time of redemption( to ether 4ith the amount of any assessments or taEes 4hich the purchaser may ha$e paid thereon after purchase( and interest on such #ast named amount at the same rateD and if the purchaser !e a#so a creditor ha$in a prior #ien to that of the redemptioner( other than the 8ud ment under 4hich such purchase 4as made( the amount of such other #ien( 4ith interest. 6Ita#ics supp#ied7 EEE EEE 'his Court finds the petitionersA position on that issue to !e meritorious. 'here is no dou!t that &duarda :e#o( assi nor of the petitioners( is an accommodation mort a or. 'he Pre-tria# >rder and respondent P*:As !rief contain a dec#aration of this fact. 'he dispute !et4een the parties is 4hether Section 20 of P.D. *o. -,2 app#ies to an accommodation mort a or( or her assi nees. 'he said #e a# pro$ision does not ma@e a distinction !et4een a de!torEEE

mort a or and an accommodation mort a or as it uses the !road term Vmort a orW. 'he appe##ate court thus ru#ed that the pro$ision app#ies e$en to an accommodation mort a or inasmuch as the #a4 does not ma@e any distinction. 3e disa ree. 3here a 4ord used in a statute has !oth a restricted and a enera# meanin ( the enera# must pre$ai# o$er the restricted unless the nature of the su-.ect matter or the conte)t in which it is employe( clearly in(icates that the limite( sense is inten(e( .J2-K It is presumed that the #e is#ature intended eEceptions to its #an ua e 4hich 4ou#d a$oid a!surd conseCuences of this character. J21K In the case at !ar( the Cua#ification to the enera# ru#e app#ies. 'he same pro$ision of Section 20 of P.D. *o. -,2 pro$ides that Vthe mort a or sha## ha$e the ri ht to redeem the property !y payin all claims of the 1an5 against him W. ?rom said pro$ision can !e deduced that the mort a or referred to !y that #a4 is one from 4hom the !an@ has a c#aim in the form of outstandin or unpaid #oanD he is a#so ca##ed a !orro4er or de!tor-mort a or. >n the other hand( respondent P*: has no c#aim a ainst accommodation mort a or &duarda :e#o inasmuch as she on#y mort a ed her property to accommodate the &s#a!on spouses 4ho are the #oan !orro4ers of the P*:. 'he principa# contract is the contract of #oan !et4een the &s#a!on spouses( as !orro4ers<de!tors( and the P*: as #ender. 'he accommodation rea# estate mort a e 64hich secures the #oan7 is on#y an accessory contract. It is our $ie4 and 4e ho#d that the term Vmort a orW in Section 20 of P.D. *o. -,2 pertains on#y to a de!tor-mort a or and not to an accommodation mort a or. It is 4e## sett#ed that courts are not to i$e a statute a meanin that 4ou#d #ead to a!surdities. If the 4ords of a statute are suscepti!#e of more than one meanin ( the a!surdity of the resu#t of one construction is a stron ar ument a ainst its adoption( and in fa$or of such sensi!#e interpretation. J2+K 3e test a #a4 !y its resu#t. A #a4 shou#d not !e interpreted so as not to cause an in8ustice. 'here are #a4s 4hich are enera##y $a#id !ut may seem ar!itrary 4hen app#ied in a particu#ar case !ecause of its pecu#iar circumstances. 3e are not !ound to app#y them in slavish o!edience to their #an ua e.J2,K 'he interpretation accorded !y respondent P*: to Section 20 of P.D. *o. -,2 is unfair and un8ust to accommodation mort a ors and their assi nees. ?orcin an accommodation mort a or #i@e &duarda :e#o to pay for 4hat the principa# de!tors 6&s#a!on spouses7 o4e to respondent !an@ is to punish her for the accommodation and enerosity she accorded to the &s#a!on spouses 4ho 4ere then hard pressed for additiona# co##atera#s needed to secure their !an@ #oan. "espondents P*: and spouses &s#a!ons $ery 4e## @ne4 that she mere#y consented to !e a mere accommodation mort a or. 'he circumstances of the case at !ar a#so pro$ide for amp#e reason 4hy petitioners cannot !e made to pay the entire #ia!i#ity of the principa# de!tors( &s#a!on spouses( to respondent P*:. 'he tria# court found that respondent P*:As app#ication for eEtra8udicia# forec#osure and pu!#ic auction sa#e of &duarda :e#oAs mort a ed propertyJ/0K 4as fi#ed under Act *o. /1/0( as amended !y P.D. *o. /+0. 'he notice of eEtra8udicia# sa#e( the Certificate of SheriffAs Sa#e( and the #etter it sent to &duarda :e#o did not mention P. D. *o. -,2 as the !asis for redemption. As apt#y ru#ed !y the tria# court In fairness to these mort a ors( their successors-in-interest( or innocent purchasers for $a#ue of their redemption ri hts( P*: shou#d ha$e at #east ad$ised them that redemption 4ou#d !e o$erned !y its "e$ised Charter or PD -,( and not !y Act /1/0 and the "u#es of Court( as common#y practicedX 'his practice of defendant :an@ is manifest#y unfair and un8ust to these redemptioners 4ho are cau ht !y surprise and usua##y ta@en a!ac@ !y the enormous c#aims of the :an@ not sho4n in the *otice of &Etra8udicia# Sa#e or the Certificate of SheriffAs Sa#e( as in this case. J/1K ;oreo$er( the mort a e contract eEp#icit#y pro$ides that VX. the mort a ee may immediate#y forec#ose this mort a e 8udicia##y in accordance 4ith the "u#es of Court or eEtra8udicia##y in accordance 4ith Act *o. /1/0( as amended and Presidentia# Decree *o. /+0X...WJ/2K Since the mort a e contract in this case is in the nature of a contract of adhesion as it 4as prepared so#e#y !y respondent( it has to !e interpreted in fa$or of petitioners. 'he respondent !an@ ho4e$er tries to rene e on this contractua# commitment !y see@in refu e in the 1,+, case of "y v. Court of AppealsJ//K 4herein this Court ru#ed that the redemption price is eCua# to the tota# amount of inde!tedness to the !an@As c#aim inasmuch as Section 1+ of the )enera# :an@in Act is an amendment to Section - of Act *o. /1/0( despite the fact that the eEtra8udicia# forec#osure procedure fo##o4ed !y the P*: 4as eEp#icit#y under or in accordance 4ith Act *o. /1/0. In the 1,,- case of China 1an5ing Corporation v. Court of Appeals, J/2K 4here the parties a#so stipu#ated that Act *o. /1/0 is the contro##in #a4 in case of forec#osure( this Court ru#ed thatD

:y in$o@in the said Act( there is no dou!t that it must V o$ern the manner in 4hich the sa#e and re(emption sha## !e effected.W C#ear#y( the fundamenta# princip#e that contracts are respected as the #a4 !et4een the contractin parties finds app#ication in the present case( specia##y 4here they are not contrary to #a4( mora#s( ood customs and pu!#ic po#icy. J/0K ;ore important#y( the ru#in pronounced in "y v. Court of Appeals and other cases(J/-K that the )enera# :an@in Act and P.D. *o. -,2 sha## pre$ai# o$er Act *o. /1/0 4ith respect to the redemption price( does not app#y here inasmuch as in the said cases the redemptioners 4ere the de!tors themse#$es or their assi nees( and not an accommodation mort a or or the #atterAs assi nees such as in the case at !ar. In the said cases( the de!tor-mort a ors 4ere reCuired to pay as redemption price their entire #ia!i#ity to the !an@ inasmuch as they 4ere o!#i ated to pay their #oan 4hich is a principa# o!#i ation in the first p#ace. >n the other hand( accommodation mort a ors as such are not in any4ay #ia!#e for the payment of the #oan or principa# o!#i ation of the de!tor<!orro4er. 'he #ia!i#ity of the accommodation mort a ors eEtends on#y up to the #oan $a#ue of their mort a ed property and not to the entire #oan itse#f. %ence( it is on#y 8ust that they !e a##o4ed to redeem their mort a ed property !y payin on#y the 4innin !id price thereof 6p#us interest thereon7 at the pu!#ic auction sa#e. >ne 4onders 4hy respondent P*: in$o@es Act *o. /1/0 in its contracts 4ithout Cua#ification and yet in the end appears to disre ard the same 4hen it finds its pro$isions unfa$ora!#e to it. 'his is unfair to the other contractin party 4ho in ood faith !e#ie$es that respondent P*: 4ou#d comp#y 4ith the contractua# a reement. It is therefore our $ie4 and 4e ho#d that Section 1+ of the )enera# :an@in Act( as amended !y P.D. *o. 1+2+( is inapp#ica!#e to accommodation mort a ors in the redemption of their mort a ed properties. 3hi#e the petitioners( as assi nees of &duarda :e#o( are not reCuired to pay the entire c#aim of respondent P*: a ainst the principa# de!tors( spouses &s#a!on( they can on#y eEercise their ri ht of redemption 4ith respect to the parce# of #and !e#on in to &duarda :e#o( the accommodation mort a or. 'hus( they ha$e to pay the !id price #ess the correspondin #oan $a#ue of the forec#osed four 627 residentia# #ots of the spouses &s#a!on. 'he respondent P*: contends that to a##o4 petitioners to redeem on#y the property !e#on in to their assi nor( &duarda :e#o( 4ou#d $io#ate the princip#e of indi$isi!i#ity of mort a e contracts. 3e disa ree. Artic#e 20+, of the Ci$i# Code of the Phi#ippines( pro$ides thatF A p#ed e or mort a e is indi$isi!#e( e$en thou h the de!t may !e di$ided amon the successors in interest of the de!tor or of the creditor. 'herefore( the de!torAs heir 4ho has paid a part of the de!t cannot as@ for the proportionate eEtin uishment of the p#ed e or mort a e as the de!t is not comp#ete#y satisfied. *either can the creditorAs heir 4ho recei$ed his share of the de!t return the p#ed e or cance# the mort a e( to the pre8udice of the other heirs 4ho ha$e not !een paid. ?rom these pro$isions is eEcepted the case in 4hich( there !ein se$era# thin s i$en in mort a e or p#ed e( each one of them uarantees on#y a determinate portion of the credit. 'he de!tor( in this case( sha## ha$e a ri ht to the eEtin uishment of the p#ed e or mort a e as the portion of the de!t for 4hich each thin is specia##y ans4era!#e is satisfied. 'here is no dispute that the mort a e on the four 627 parce#s of #and !y the &s#a!on spouses and the other mort a e on the property of &duarda :e#o !oth secure the #oan o!#i ation of respondents spouses &s#a!on to respondent P*:. %o4e$er( 4e are not persuaded !y the contention of the respondent P*: that the indi$isi!i#ity concept app#ies to the ri ht of redemption of an accommodation mort a or and her assi nees. 'he 8urisprudence in Philippine National 1an5 v. Agu(elo J/1K is en#i htenin to the case at !ar( to 4itF

EEE

EEE

EEE

%o4e$er( Pa9 A ude#o y )on9a a 6the principa#7 E E E a$e her consent to the #ien on #ot *o. +1+ E E E. 'his ac@no4#ed ment( ho4e$er( does not eEtend to #ots *os. 201 and -1X inasmuch as( although it is true that a mortgage is in(ivisi-le as to the contracting parties an( as to their successors in interest BArticle !>4K, Civil co(eC, it is not so with respect to a thir( person who (i( not ta5e part in the constitution thereof either personally or through an agent E E E. 'herefore( the on#y #ia!i#ity of the defendant-appe##ant Pa9 A ude#o y )on9a a is that 4hich arises from the aforesaid ac@no4#ed ment !ut on#y 4ith respect to the #ien and not to the principa# o!#i ation secured !y the mort a e ac@no4#ed ed !y her to ha$e !een constituted on said #ot *o. +1+ E E E. Such #ia!i#ity is not direct !ut a su!sidiary one.J/+K EEE EEE EEE

'he respondent 8ud e refused to ta@e co ni9ance of and continue the proceedin s in said case on the round that the proc#amation issued on >cto!er 2/( 1,22( !y )enera# Dou #as ;acArthur had the effect of in$a#idatin and nu##ifyin a## 8udicia# proceedin s and 8ud ements of the court of the Phi#ippines under the Phi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission and the "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines esta!#ished durin the .apanese mi#itary occupation( and that( furthermore( the #o4er courts ha$e no 8urisdiction to ta@e co ni9ance of and continue 8udicia# proceedin s pendin in the courts of the defunct "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines in the a!sence of an ena!#in #a4 rantin such authority. And the same respondent( in his ans4er and memorandum fi#ed in this Court( contends that the o$ernment esta!#ished in the Phi#ippines durin the .apanese occupation 4ere no (e facto o$ernments. >n .anuary 2( 1,22( the Imperia# .apanese ?orces occupied the City of ;ani#a( and on the neEt day their Commander in Chief proc#aimed Ithe ;i#itary Administration under #a4 o$er the districts occupied !y the Army.I In said proc#amation( it 4as a#so pro$ided that Iso far as the ;i#itary Administration permits( a## the #a4s no4 in force in the Common4ea#th( as 4e## as eEecuti$e and 8udicia# institutions( sha## continue to !e effecti$e for the time !ein as in the past(I and Ia## pu!#ic officia#s sha## remain in their present posts and carry on faithfu##y their duties as !efore.I A ci$i# o$ernment or centra# administration or ani9ation under the name of IPhi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission 4as or ani9ed !y >rder *o. 1 issued on .anuary 2/( 1,22( !y the Commander in Chief of the .apanese ?orces in the Phi#ippines( and .or e :. Var as( 4ho 4as appointed Chairman thereof( 4as instructed to proceed to the immediate coordination of the eEistin centra# administrati$e or ans and 8udicia# courts( !ased upon 4hat had eEisted therefore( 4ith appro$a# of the said Commander in Chief( 4ho 4as to eEercise 8urisdiction o$er 8udicia# courts. 'he Chairman of the &Eecuti$e Commission( as head of the centra# administrati$e or ani9ation( issued &Eecuti$e >rders *os. 1 and 2( dated .anuary /0 and ?e!ruary 0( 1,22( respecti$e#y( in 4hich the Supreme Court( Court of Appea#s( Courts of ?irst Instance( and the 8ustices of the peace and municipa# courts under the Common4ea#th 4ere continued 4ith the same 8urisdiction( in conformity 4ith the instructions i$en to the said Chairman of the &Eecuti$e Commission !y the Commander in Chief of .apanese ?orces in the Phi#ippines in the #atterGs >rder *o. / of ?e!ruary 20( 1,22( concernin !asic princip#es to !e o!ser$ed !y the Phi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission in eEercisin #e is#ati$e( eEecuti$e and 8udicia# po4ers. Section 1 of said >rder pro$ided that Iacti$ities of the administration or ans and 8udicia# courts in the Phi#ippines sha## !e !ased upon the eEistin statutes( orders( ordinances and customs. . . .I >n >cto!er 12( 1,2/( the so-ca##ed "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines 4as inau urated( !ut no su!stantia# chan e 4as effected there!y in the or ani9ation and 8urisdiction of the different courts that functioned durin the Phi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission( and in the #a4s they administered and enforced. >n >cto!er 2/( 1,22( a fe4 days after the historic #andin in Leyte( )enera# Dou #as ;acArthur issued a proc#amation to the Peop#e of the Phi#ippines 4hich dec#aredF 1. 'hat the )o$ernment of the Common4ea#th of the Phi#ippines is( su!8ect to the supreme authority of the )o$ernment of the 5nited States( the so#e and on#y o$ernment ha$in #e a# and $a#id 8urisdiction o$er the peop#e in areas of the Phi#ippines free of enemy occupation and contro#D 2. 'hat the #a4s no4 eEistin on the statute !oo@s of the Common4ea#th of the Phi#ippines and the re u#ations promu# ated pursuant thereto are in fu## force and effect and #e a##y !indin upon the peop#e in areas of the Phi#ippines free of enemy occupation and contro#D and /. 'hat a## #a4s( re u#ations and processes of any other o$ernment in the Phi#ippines than that of the said Common4ea#th are nu## and $oid and 4ithout #e a# effect in areas of the Phi#ippines free of enemy occupation and contro#. >n ?e!ruary /( 1,20( the City of ;ani#a 4as partia##y #i!erated and on ?e!ruary 21( 1,20( )enera# ;acArthur( on !eha#f of the )o$ernment of the 5nited States( so#emn#y dec#ared Ithe fu## po4ers and responsi!i#ities under the Constitution restored to the Common4ea#th 4hose seat is here esta!#ished as pro$ided !y #a4.I

3herefore( it is here!y he#d that the #ia!i#ity contracted !y the aforesaid defendant-appe##ant Pa9 A ude#o y )on9a a is mere#y su!sidiary to that of ;auro A. )arrucho 6the a ent7( #imited to #ot *o. +1. EEE EEE EEE

?rom the 4ordin s of the #a4( indi$isi!i#ity arises on#y 4hen there is a de!t( that is( there is a de!tor-creditor re#ationship. :ut( this re#ationship is 4antin in the case at !ar in the sense that petitioners are assi nees of an accommodation mort a or and not of a de!tor-mort a or. %ence( it is fair and #o ica# to a##o4 the petitioners to redeem on#y the property !e#on in to their assi nor( &duarda :e#o. 3ith respect to the four 627 parce#s of residentia# #and !e#on in to the &s#a!on spouses( petitioners - !ein tota# stran ers to said #ots - #ac@ #e a# persona#ity to redeem the same. ?air p#ay and 8ustice demand that the respondent P*:As interest of reco$erin its entire !an@ c#aim shou#d not !e at the eEpense of petitioners( as assi nees of &duarda :e#o( 4ho is not inde!ted to it. :esides( the #etterJ/,K sent !y respondent P*: to &duarda :e#o states that Vyour 6:e#o7 mort a ed property<ies 4ith P*: co$ered !y 'C' Y '-12,/ 4as<4ere so#d at pu!#ic auction ....W. It further states that VYou 6:e#o7 ha$e( therefore( one year from .u#y 1( 1,,1 4ithin 4hich to redeem your mort a ed property<ies( shou#d you desire to redeem it.W "espondent P*: ne$er mentioned that she 4as !ound to redeem the entire mort a ed properties inc#udin the four 627 residentia# properties of the spouses &s#a!on. 'he #etter 4as eEp#icit in mentionin &duarda :e#oAs property on#y. ?rom the said statement( there is then an admission on the part of respondent P*: that redemption on#y eEtends to the su!8ect property of &duarda :e#o for the reason that the notice of the sa#e #imited the redemption to said property. AHEREFORE( the petition is partia##y ranted in that the petitioners are here!y a##o4ed to redeem on#y the property( co$ered and descri!ed in 'ransfer Certificate of 'it#e *o. '-12,/-Capi9 re istered in the name of &duarda :e#o( !y payin on#y the !id price #ess the correspondin #oan $a#ue of the forec#osed four 627 residentia# #ots of the respondents spouses ;arcos and Arsenia &s#a!on( consistent 4ith the Decision of the "e iona# 'ria# Court of "oEas City in Ci$i# Case *o. V--1+2. SO OR*ERE* G.R. No. L#% Se;,e31e' 1&, 19)%

CO 8IM CHAM 6!./!0 CO 8IM CHAM7, petitioner( $s. EUSE IO VAL*E4 TAN 8EH !n" ARSENIO P. *I4ON, Ju"9e o2 F/'0, In0,!n5e o2 M!n/.!, respondents.1 FERIA, J.: 'his petition for man(amus in 4hich petitioner prays that the respondent 8ud e of the #o4er court !e ordered to continue the proceedin s in ci$i# case *o. /012 of said court( 4hich 4ere initiated under the re ime of the so-ca##ed "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines esta!#ished durin the .apanese mi#itary occupation of these Is#ands.

In the #i ht of these facts and e$ents of contemporary history( the principa# Cuestions to !e reso#$ed in the present case may !e reduced to the fo##o4in F617 3hether the 8udicia# acts and proceedin s of the court eEistin in the Phi#ippines under the Phi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission and the "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines 4ere ood and $a#id and remained so e$en after the #i!eration or reoccupation of the Phi#ippines !y the 5nited States and ?i#ipino forcesD 6273hether the proc#amation issued on >cto!er 2/( 1,22( !y )enera# Dou #as ;acArthur( Commander in Chief of the 5nited States Army( in 4hich he dec#ared Ithat a## #a4s( re u#ations and processes of any of the o$ernment in the Phi#ippines than that of the said Common4ea#th are nu## and $oid and 4ithout #e a# effect in areas of the Phi#ippines free of enemy occupation and contro#(I has in$a#idated a## 8ud ements and 8udicia# acts and proceedin s of the said courtsD and 6/7 If the said 8udicia# acts and proceedin s ha$e not !een in$a#idated !y said proc#amation( 4hether the present courts of the Common4ea#th( 4hich 4ere the same court eEistin prior to( and continued durin ( the .apanese mi#itary occupation of the Phi#ippines( may continue those proceedin s pendin in said courts at the time the Phi#ippines 4ere reoccupied and #i!erated !y the 5nited States and ?i#ipino forces( and the Common4ea#th of the Phi#ippines 4ere reesta!#ished in the Is#ands. 3e sha## no4 proceed to consider the first Cuestion( that is( 4hether or not under the ru#es of internationa# #a4 the 8udicia# acts and proceedin s of the courts esta!#ished in the Phi#ippines under the Phi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission and the "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines 4ere ood and $a#id and remained ood and $a#id e$en after the #i!eration or reoccupation of the Phi#ippines !y the 5nited States and ?i#ipino forces. 1. It is a #e a# truism in po#itica# and internationa# #a4 that a## acts and proceedin s of the #e is#ati$e( eEecuti$e( and 8udicia# departments of a (e facto o$ernment are ood and $a#id. 'he Cuestion to !e determined is 4hether or not the o$ernments esta!#ished in these Is#ands under the names of the Phi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission and "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines durin the .apanese mi#itary occupation or re ime 4ere (e facto o$ernments. If they 4ere( the 8udicia# acts and proceedin s of those o$ernments remain ood and $a#id e$en after the #i!eration or reoccupation of the Phi#ippines !y the American and ?i#ipino forces. 'here are se$era# @inds of (e facto o$ernments. 'he first( or o$ernment (e facto in a proper #e a# sense( is that o$ernment that ets possession and contro# of( or usurps( !y force or !y the $oice of the ma8ority( the ri htfu# #e a# o$ernments and maintains itse#f a ainst the 4i## of the #atter( such as the o$ernment of &n #and under the Common4ea#th( first !y Par#iament and #ater !y Crom4e## as Protector. 'he second is that 4hich is esta!#ished and maintained !y mi#itary forces 4ho in$ade and occupy a territory of the enemy in the course of 4ar( and 4hich is denominated a o$ernment of paramount force( as the cases of Castine( in ;aine( 4hich 4as reduced to :ritish possession in the 4ar of 1+12( and 'ampico( ;eEico( occupied durin the 4ar 4ith ;eEico( !y the troops of the 5nited States. And the third is that esta!#ished as an independent o$ernment !y the inha!itants of a country 4ho rise in insurrection a ainst the parent state of such as the o$ernment of the Southern Confederacy in re$o#t not concerned in the present case 4ith the first @ind( !ut on#y 4ith the second and third @inds of (e facto o$ernments. Spea@in of o$ernment I(e factoI of the second @ind( the Supreme Court of the 5nited States( in the case of 'horin ton vs. Smith 6+ 3a##.( 17( saidF I:ut there is another description of o$ernment( ca##ed a#so !y pu!#icists a o$ernment (e facto( !ut 4hich mi ht( perhaps( !e more apt#y denominated a o$ernment of paramount force. Its distin uishin characteristics are 617( that its eEistence is maintained !y acti$e mi#itary po4er 4ith the territories( and a ainst the ri htfu# authority of an esta!#ished and #a4fu# o$ernmentD and 627( that 4hi#e it eEists it necessari#y !e o!eyed in ci$i# matters !y pri$ate citi9ens 4ho( !y acts of o!edience rendered in su!mission to such force( do not !ecome responsi!#e( or 4ron doers( for those acts( thou h not 4arranted !y the #a4s of the ri htfu# o$ernment. Actua# o$ernments of this sort are esta!#ished o$er districts differin reat#y in eEtent and conditions. 'hey are usua##y administered direct#y !y mi#itary authority( !ut they may !e administered( a#so( ci$i# authority( supported more or #ess direct#y !y mi#itary force. . . . >ne eEamp#e of this sort of o$ernment is found in the case of Castine( in ;ine( reduced to :ritish possession in the 4ar of 1+12 . . . 5. S. vs. "ice 62 3heaton( 20/7. A #i@e eEamp#e is found in the case of 'ampico( occupied durin the 4ar 4ith ;eEico( !y the troops of the 5nited States . . . ?#emin vs. Pa e 6, %o4ard( -127. 'hese 4ere cases of temporary possessions of territory !y #a4fu## and re u#ar o$ernments at 4ar 4ith the country of 4hich the territory so possessed 4as part.I 'he po4ers and duties of (e facto o$ernments of this description are re u#ated in Section III of the %a ue Con$entions of 1,01( 4hich is a re$ision of the pro$isions of the %a ue Con$entions of 1+,, on the same su!8ect of said Section III pro$ides Ithe authority of the #e is#ati$e po4er ha$in actua##y passed into the hands of the occupant( the #atter sha## ta@e steps in his po4er to

reesta!#ish and insure( as far as possi!#e( pu!#ic order and safety( 4hi#e respectin ( un#ess a!so#ute#y pre$ented( the #a4s in force in the country.I Accordin to the precepts of the %a ue Con$entions( as the !e##i erent occupant has the ri ht and is !urdened 4ith the duty to insure pu!#ic order and safety durin his mi#itary occupation( he possesses a## the po4ers of a (e facto o$ernment( and he can suspended the o#d #a4s and promu# ate ne4 ones and ma@e such chan es in the o#d as he may see fit( !ut he is en8oined to respect( un#ess a!so#ute#y pre$ented !y the circumstances pre$ai#in in the occupied territory( the municipa# #a4s in force in the country( that is( those #a4s 4hich enforce pu!#ic order and re u#ate socia# and commercia# #ife of the country. >n the other hand( #a4s of a po#itica# nature or affectin po#itica# re#ations( such as( amon others( the ri ht of assem!#y( the ri ht to !ear arms( the freedom of the press( and the ri ht to tra$e# free#y in the territory occupied( are considered as suspended or in a!eyance durin the mi#itary occupation. A#thou h the #oca# and ci$i# administration of 8ustice is suspended as a matter of course as soon as a country is mi#itari#y occupied( it is not usua# for the in$ader to ta@e the 4ho#e administration into his o4n hands. In practice( the #oca# ordinary tri!una#s are authori9ed to continue administerin 8usticeD and 8ud es and other 8udicia# officers are @ept in their posts if they accept the authority of the !e##i erent occupant or are reCuired to continue in their positions under the super$ision of the mi#itary or ci$i# authorities appointed( !y the Commander in Chief of the occupant. 'hese princip#es and practice ha$e the sanction of a## pu!#icists 4ho ha$e considered the su!8ect( and ha$e !een asserted !y the Supreme Court and app#ied !y the President of the 5nited States. 'he doctrine upon this su!8ect is thus summed up !y %a##ec@( in his 4or@ on Internationa# La4 6Vo#. 2( p. 2227F I'he ri ht of one !e##i erent to occupy and o$ern the territory of the enemy 4hi#e in its mi#itary possession( is one of the incidents of 4ar( and f#o4s direct#y from the ri ht to conCuer. 3e( therefore( do not #oo@ to the Constitution or po#itica# institutions of the conCueror( for authority to esta!#ish a o$ernment for the territory of the enemy in his possession( durin its mi#itary occupation( nor for the ru#es !y 4hich the po4ers of such o$ernment are re u#ated and #imited. Such authority and such ru#es are deri$ed direct#y from the #a4s 4ar( as esta!#ished !y the usa e of the of the 4or#d( and confirmed !y the 4ritin s of pu!#icists and decisions of courts H in fine( from the #a4 of nations. . . . 'he municipa# #a4s of a conCuered territory( or the #a4s 4hich re u#ate pri$ate ri hts( continue in force durin mi#itary occupation( eEcepts so far as they are suspended or chan ed !y the acts of conCueror. . . . %e( ne$erthe#ess( has a## the po4ers of a (e facto o$ernment( and can at his p#easure either chan e the eEistin #a4s or ma@e ne4 ones.I And app#yin the princip#es for the eEercise of mi#itary authority in an occupied territory( 4hich 4ere #ater em!odied in the said %a ue Con$entions( President ;c=in#ey( in his eEecuti$e order to the Secretary of 3ar of ;ay 1,(1+,+( re#atin to the occupation of the Phi#ippines !y 5nited States forces( said in partF I'hou h the po4ers of the mi#itary occupant are a!so#ute and supreme( and immediate#y operate upon the po#itica# condition of the inha!itants( the municipa# #a4s of the conCuered territory( such as affect pri$ate ri hts of person and property and pro$ide for the punishment of crime( are considered as continuin in force( so far as they are compati!#e 4ith the ne4 order of thin s( unti# they are suspended or superseded !y the occupyin !e##i erentD and in practice they are not usua##y a!ro ated( !ut are a##o4ed to remain in force and to !e administered !y the ordinary tri!una#s( su!stantia##y as they 4ere !efore the occupation. 'his en#i htened practice is( so far as possi!#e( to !e adhered to on the present occasion. 'he 8ud es and the other officia#s connected 4ith the administration of 8ustice may( if they accept the authority of the 5nited States( continue to administer the ordinary #a4 of the #and as !et4een man and man under the super$ision of the American Commander in Chief.I 6"ichardsonGs ;essa es and Papers of President( L( p. 20,.7 As to I(e factoI o$ernment of the third @ind( the Supreme Court of the 5nited States( in the same case of 'horin ton vs. Smith( supra( reco ni9ed the o$ernment set up !y the Confederate States as a (e facto o$ernment. In that case( it 4as he#d that Ithe centra# o$ernment esta!#ished for the insur ent States differed from the temporary o$ernments at Castine and 'ampico in the circumstance that its authority did no ori inate in #a4fu# acts of re u#ar 4arD !ut it 4as not( on the account( #ess actua# or #ess supreme. And 4e thin@ that it must !e c#assed amon the o$ernments of 4hich these are eEamp#es. . . . In the case of 3i##iam vs. :ruffy 6,- 5. S. 11-( 1,27( the Supreme Court of the 5nited States( discussin the $a#idity of the acts of the Confederate States( saidF I'he same enera# form of o$ernment( the same enera# #a4s for the administration of 8ustice and protection of pri$ate ri hts( 4hich had eEisted in the States prior to the re!e##ion( remained durin its continuance and after4ards. As far as the Acts of the States do not impair or tend to impair the supremacy of the nationa# authority( or the 8ust ri hts of citi9ens under the Constitution( they are( in enera#( to !e treated as $a#id and !indin . As 4e said in %orn vs. Loc@hart

611 3a##.( 010D 21 La4. ed.( -017F I'he eEistence of a state of insurrection and 4ar did not #oosen the !onds of society( or do a4ay 4ith ci$i# o$ernment or the re u#ar administration of the #a4s. >rder 4as to !e preser$ed( po#ice re u#ations maintained( crime prosecuted( property protected( contracts enforced( marria es ce#e!rated( estates sett#ed( and the transfer and descent of property re u#ated( precise#y as in the time of peace. No one( that 4e are a4are of( seriously 9uestions the vali(ity of .u(icial or legislative Acts in the insurrectionary States touchin these and @indered su!8ects( 4here they 4ere not hosti#e in their purpose or mode of enforcement to the authority of the *ationa# )o$ernment( and did not impair the ri hts of citi9ens under the ConstitutionG. 'he same doctrine has !een asserted in numerous other cases.I And the same court( in the case of :a#dy vs. %unter 6111 5. S.( /++( 2007( he#dF I'hat 4hat occured or 4as done in respect of such matters under the authority of the #a4s of these #oca# (e facto o$ernments shou#d not !e disre arded or he#d to !e in$a#id merely !ecause those o$ernments 4ere or ani9ed in hosti#ity to the 5nion esta!#ished !y the nationa# ConstitutionD this( !ecause the eEistence of 4ar !et4een the 5nited States and the Confederate States did not re#ie$e those 4ho are 4ithin the insurrectionary #ines from the necessity of ci$i# o!edience( nor destroy the !onds of society nor do a4ay 4ith ci$i# o$ernment or the re u#ar administration of the #a4s( and !ecause transactions in the ordinary course of ci$i# society as or ani9ed 4ithin the enemyGs territory a#thou h they may ha$e indirect#y or remote#y promoted the ends of the (e facto or un#a4fu# o$ernment or ani9ed to effect a disso#ution of the 5nion( 4ere 4ithout !#ame GeEcept 4hen pro$ed to ha$e !een entered into with actual intent to further in$asion or insurrectionFGI and I'hat 8udicia# and #e is#ati$e acts in the respecti$e states composin the soca##ed Confederate States shou#d !e respected !y the courts if they 4ere not hosti#e in their purpose or mode of enforcement to the authority of the *ationa# )o$ernment( and did not impair the ri hts of citi9ens under the Constitution.I In $ie4 of the fore oin ( it is e$ident that the Phi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission( 4hich 4as or ani9ed !y >rder *o. 1( issued on .anuary 2/( 1,22( !y the Commander of the .apanese forces( 4as a ci$i# o$ernment esta!#ished !y the mi#itary forces of occupation and therefore a (e facto o$ernment of the second @ind. It 4as not different from the o$ernment esta!#ished !y the :ritish in Castine( ;aine( or !y the 5nited States in 'ampico( ;eEico. As %a##ec@ says( I'he o$ernment esta!#ished o$er an enemyGs territory durin the mi#itary occupation may eEercise a## the po4ers i$en !y the #a4s of 4ar to the conCueror o$er the conCuered( and is su!8ect to a## restrictions 4hich that code imposes. It is of #itt#e conseCuence 4hether such o$ernment !e ca##ed a mi#itary or ci$i# o$ernment. Its character is the same and the source of its authority the same. In either case it is a o$ernment imposed !y the #a4s of 4ar( and so far it concerns the inha!itants of such territory or the rest of the 4or#d( those #a4s a#one determine the #e a#ity or i##e a#ity of its acts.I 6Vo#. 2( p. 2--.7 'he fact that the Phi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission 4as a ci$i# and not a mi#itary o$ernment and 4as run !y ?i#ipinos and not !y .apanese nationa#s( is of no conseCuence. In 1+0-( 4hen *apo#eon occupied the reater part of Prussia( he retained the eEistin administration under the enera# direction of a french officia# 6Lan frey %istory of *apo#eon( 1( IV( 207D and( in the same 4ay( the Du@e of 3i##in ton( on in$adin ?rance( authori9ed the #oca# authorities to continue the eEercise of their functions( apparent#y 4ithout appointin an &n #ish superior. 63e##in ton Despatches( LI( /01.7. 'he )ermans( on the other hand( 4hen they in$aded ?rance in 1+10( appointed their o4n officia#s( at #east in A#sace and Lorraine( in e$ery department of administration and of e$ery ran@. 6Ca#$o( pars. 21+--,/D %a##( Internationa# La4( 1th ed.( p. 000( note 2.7 'he so-ca##ed "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines( apparent#y esta!#ished and or ani9ed as a so$erei n state independent from any other o$ernment !y the ?i#ipino peop#e( 4as( in truth and rea#ity( a o$ernment esta!#ished !y the !e##i erent occupant or the .apanese forces of occupation. It 4as of the same character as the Phi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission( and the u#timate source of its authority 4as the same H the .apanese mi#itary authority and o$ernment. As )enera# ;acArthur stated in his proc#amation of >cto!er 2/( 1,22( a portion of 4hich has !een a#ready Cuoted( Iunder enemy duress( a so-ca##ed o$ernment sty#ed as the G"epu!#ic of the Phi#ippinesG 4as esta!#ished on >cto!er 12( 1,2/( !ased upon neither the free eEpression of the peop#eGs 4i## nor the sanction of the )o$ernment of the 5nited States.I .apan had no #e a# po4er to rant independence to the Phi#ippines or transfer the so$erei nty of the 5nited States to( or reco ni9e the #atent so$erei nty of( the ?i#ipino peop#e( !efore its mi#itary occupation and possession of the Is#ands had matured into an a!so#ute and permanent dominion or so$erei nty !y a treaty of peace or other means reco ni9ed in the #a4 of nations. ?or it is a 4e##-esta!#ished doctrine in Internationa# La4( reco ni9ed in Artic#e 20 of the %au e Con$entions of 1,01 64hich prohi!its compu#sion of the popu#ation of the occupied territory to s4ear a##e iance to the hosti#e po4er7( the !e##i erent occupation( -eing essentially provisional( does not ser$e to transfer so$erei nty o$er the territory contro##ed a#thou h the (e .ure o$ernment is durin the period of occupancy depri$ed of the po4er to eEercise its ri hts as such. 6'hirty %o shead of Su ar vs. :oy#e( , Cranch( 1,1D 5nited States vs. "ice( 2 3heat.( 22-D ?#emin vs.Pa e( , %o4ard( -0/D Do4nes vs. :id4e##( 1+2 5. S.( /20.7 'he formation of the "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines 4as a scheme contri$ed !y .apan to de#ude the ?i#ipino peop#e into !e#ie$in in the apparent ma nanimity of the .apanese esture of transferrin or turnin

o$er the ri hts of o$ernment into the hands of ?i#ipinos. It 4as esta!#ished under the mista@en !e#ief that !y doin so( .apan 4ou#d secure the cooperation or at #east the neutra#ity of the ?i#ipino peop#e in her 4ar a ainst the 5nited States and other a##ied nations. Indeed( e$en if the "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines had !een esta!#ished !y the free 4i## of the ?i#ipino 4ho( ta@in ad$anta e of the 4ithdra4a# of the American forces from the Is#ands( and the occupation thereof !y the .apanese forces of in$asion( had or ani9ed an independent o$ernment under the name 4ith the support and !ac@in of .apan( such o$ernment 4ou#d ha$e !een considered as one esta!#ished !y the ?i#ipinos in insurrection or re!e##ion a ainst the parent state or the 5nite States. And as such( it 4ou#d ha$e !een a (e facto o$ernment simi#ar to that or ani9ed !y the confederate states durin the 4ar of secession and reco ni9ed as such !y the !y the Supreme Court of the 5nited States in numerous cases( nota!#y those of 'horin ton vs. Smith( 3i##iams vs.:ruffy( and :ad#y vs. %unter( a!o$e CuotedD and simi#ar to the short-#i$ed o$ernment esta!#ished !y the ?i#ipino insur ents in the Is#and of Ce!u durin the Spanish-American 4ar( reco ni9ed as a (e facto o$ernment !y the Supreme Court of the 5nited States in the case of ;cC#eod vs. 5nited States 62,, 5. S.( 21-7. Accordin to the facts in the #ast-named case( the Spanish forces e$acuated the Is#and of Ce!u on Decem!er 20( 1+,+( ha$in first appointed a pro$isiona# o$ernment( and short#y after4ards( the ?i#ipinos( former#y in insurrection a ainst Spain( too@ possession of the Is#ands and esta!#ished a repu!#ic( o$ernin the Is#ands unti# possession thereof 4as surrendered to the 5nited States on ?e!ruary 22( 1+,+. And the said Supreme Court he#d in that case that Isuch o$ernment was of the class of (e facto o$ernments descri!ed in I ;ooreGs Internationa# La4 Di est( S 20( . . . Gca##ed a#so !y pu!#icists a o$ernment (e facto( !ut 4hich mi ht( perhaps( !e more apt#y denominated a o$ernment of paramount force . . G.I 'hat is to say( that the o$ernment of a country in possession of !e##i erent forces in insurrection or re!e##ion a ainst the parent state( rests upon the same princip#es as that of a territory occupied !y the hosti#e army of an enemy at re u#ar 4ar 4ith the #e itimate po4er. 'he o$ernments !y the Phi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission and the "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines durin the .apanese mi#itary occupation !ein (e facto o$ernments( it necessari#y fo##o4s that the 8udicia# acts and proceedin s of the courts of 8ustice of those o$ernments( 4hich are not of a po#itica# comp#eEion( 4ere ood and $a#id( and( !y $irtue of the 4e##-@no4n princip#e of post#iminy 6post#iminium7 in internationa# #a4( remained ood and $a#id after the #i!eration or reoccupation of the Phi#ippines !y the American and ?i#ipino forces under the #eadership of )enera# Dou #as ;acArthur. Accordin to that 4e##-@no4n princip#e in internationa# #a4( the fact that a territory 4hich has !een occupied !y an enemy comes a ain into the po4er of its #e itimate o$ernment of so$erei nty( Idoes not( eEcept in a $ery fe4 cases( 4ipe out the effects of acts done !y an in$ader( 4hich for one reason or another it is 4ithin his competence to do. 'hus 8udicia# acts done under his contro#( 4hen they are not of a po#itica# comp#eEion( administrati$e acts so done( to the eEtent that they ta@e effect durin the continuance of his contro#( and the $arious acts done durin the same time !y pri$ate persons under the sanction of municipa# #a4( remain ood. 3ere it other4ise( the 4ho#e socia# #ife of a community 4ou#d !e para#y9ed !y an in$asionD and as !et4een the state and the indi$idua#s the e$i# 4ou#d !e scarce#y #ess( H it 4ou#d !e hard for eEamp#e that payment of taEes made under duress shou#d !e i nored( and it 4ou#d !e contrary to the enera# interest that the sentences passed upon crimina#s shou#d !e annu##ed !y the disappearance of the intrusi$e o$ernment .I 6%a##( Internationa# La4( 1th ed.( p. 01+.7 And 4hen the occupation and the a!andonment ha$e !een each an incident of the same 4ar as in the present case( post#iminy app#ies( e$en thou h the occupant has acted as conCueror and for the time su!stituted his o4n so$erei nty as the .apanese intended to do apparent#y in rantin independence to the Phi#ippines and esta!#ishin the so-ca##ed "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines. 6'ay#or( Internationa# La4( p. -10.7 'hat not on#y 8udicia# !ut a#so #e is#ati$e acts of (e facto o$ernments( 4hich are not of a po#itica# comp#eEion( are and remain $a#id after reoccupation of a territory occupied !y a !e##i erent occupant( is confirmed !y the Proc#amation issued !y )enera# Dou #as ;acArthur on >cto!er 2/( 1,22( 4hich dec#ares nu## and $oid a## #a4s( re u#ations and processes of the o$ernments esta!#ished in the Phi#ippines durin the .apanese occupation( for it 4ou#d not ha$e !een necessary for said proc#amation to a!ro ate them if they 4ere in$a#id a- initio. 2. 'he second Cuestion hin es upon the interpretation of the phrase Iprocesses of any other o$ernmentI as used in the a!o$eCuoted proc#amation of )enera# Dou #as ;acArthur of >cto!er 2/( 1,22 H that is( 4hether it 4as the intention of the Commander in Chief of the American ?orces to annu# and $oid there!y a## 8ud ments and 8udicia# proceedin s of the courts esta!#ished in the Phi#ippines durin the .apanese mi#itary occupation.

'he phrase Iprocesses of any other o$ernmentI is !road and may refer not on#y to the 8udicia# processes( !ut a#so to administrati$e or #e is#ati$e( as 4e## as constitutiona#( processes of the "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines or other o$ernmenta# a encies esta!#ished in the Is#ands durin the .apanese occupation. 'a@in into consideration the fact that( as a!o$e indicated( accordin to the 4e##-@no4n princip#es of internationa# #a4 a## 8ud ements and 8udicia# proceedin s( 4hich are not of a po#itica# comp#eEion( of the (e facto o$ernments durin the .apanese mi#itary occupation 4ere ood and $a#id !efore and remained so after the occupied territory had come a ain into the po4er of the titu#ar so$erei n( it shou#d !e presumed that it 4as not( and cou#d not ha$e !een( the intention of )enera# Dou #as ;acArthur( in usin the phrase Iprocesses of any other o$ernmentI in said proc#amation( to refer to 8udicia# processes( in $io#ation of said princip#es of internationa# #a4. 'he on#y reasona!#e construction of the said phrase is that it refers to o$ernmenta# processes other than 8udicia# processes of court proceedin s( for accordin to a 4e##-@no4n ru#e of statutory construction( set forth in 20 ". C. L.( p. 102+( Ia statute ou ht ne$er to !e construed to $io#ate the #a4 of nations if any other possi!#e construction remains.I It is true that the commandin enera# of a !e##i erent army of occupation( as an a ent of his o$ernment( may not un#a4fu##y suspend eEistin #a4s and promu# ate ne4 ones in the occupied territory( if and 4hen the eEi encies of the mi#itary occupation demand such action. :ut e$en assumin that( under the #a4 of nations( the #e is#ati$e po4er of a commander in chief of mi#itary forces 4ho #i!erates or reoccupies his o4n territory 4hich has !een occupied !y an enemy( durin the mi#itary and !efore the restoration of the ci$i# re ime( is as !road as that of the commander in chief of the mi#itary forces of in$asion and occupation 6a#thou h the eEi encies of mi#itary reoccupation are e$ident#y #ess than those of occupation7( it is to !e presumed that )enera# Dou #as ;acArthur( 4ho 4as actin as an a ent or a representati$e of the )o$ernment and the President of the 5nited States( constitutiona# commander in chief of the 5nited States Army( did not intend to act a ainst the princip#es of the #a4 of nations asserted !y the Supreme Court of the 5nited States from the ear#y period of its eEistence( app#ied !y the Presidents of the 5nited States( and #ater em!odied in the %a ue Con$entions of 1,01( as a!o$e indicated. It is not to !e presumed that )enera# Dou #as ;acArthur( 4ho en8oined in the same proc#amation of >cto!er 2/( 1,22( Iupon the #oya# citi9ens of the Phi#ippines fu## respect and o!edience to the Constitution of the Common4ea#th of the Phi#ippines(I shou#d not on#y re$erse the internationa# po#icy and practice of his o4n o$ernment( !ut a#so disre ard in the same !reath the pro$isions of section /( Artic#e II( of our Constitution( 4hich pro$ides that I'he Phi#ippines renounces 4ar as an instrument of nationa# po#icy( and adopts the enera##y accepted princip#es of internationa# #a4 as part of the #a4 of the *ation.I ;oreo$er( from a contrary construction reat incon$enience and pu!#ic hardship 4ou#d resu#t( and reat pu!#ic interests 4ou#d !e endan ered and sacrificed( for disputes or suits a#ready ad8ud ed 4ou#d ha$e to !e a ain sett#ed accrued or $ested ri hts nu##ified( sentences passed on crimina#s set aside( and crimina#s mi ht easi#y !ecome immune for e$idence a ainst them may ha$e a#ready disappeared or !e no #on er a$ai#a!#e( especia##y no4 that a#most a## court records in the Phi#ippines ha$e !een destroyed !y fire as a conseCuence of the 4ar. And it is another 4e##-esta!#ished ru#e of statutory construction that 4here reat incon$enience 4i## resu#t from a particu#ar construction( or reat pu!#ic interests 4ou#d !e endan ered or sacrificed( or reat mischief done( such construction is to !e a$oided( or the court ou ht to presume that such construction 4as not intended !y the ma@ers of the #a4( un#ess reCuired !y c#ear and uneCui$oca# 4ords. 620 ". C. L.( pp. 1020( 1021.7 'he mere conception or thou ht of possi!i#ity that the titu#ar so$erei n or his representati$es 4ho reoccupies a territory occupied !y an enemy( may set aside or annu# a## the 8udicia# acts or proceedin s of the tri!una#s 4hich the !e##i erent occupant had the ri ht and duty to esta!#ish in order to insure pu!#ic order and safety durin mi#itary occupation( 4ou#d !e sufficient to para#y9e the socia# #ife of the country or occupied territory( for it 4ou#d ha$e to !e eEpected that #iti ants 4ou#d not 4i##in #y su!mit their #iti ation to courts 4hose 8ud ements or decisions may after4ards !e annu##ed( and crimina#s 4ou#d not !e deterred from committin crimes or offenses in the eEpectancy that they may escaped the pena#ty if 8ud ments rendered a ainst them may !e after4ards set aside. 'hat the proc#amation has not in$a#idated a## the 8ud ements and proceedin s of the courts of 8ustice durin the .apanese re ime( is imp#ied#y confirmed !y &Eecuti$e >rder *o. /1( 4hich has the force of #a4( issued !y the President of the Phi#ippines on ;arch 10( 1,20( !y $irtue of the emer ency #e is#ati$e po4er $ested in him !y the Constitution and the #a4s of the Common4ea#th of the Phi#ippines. Said &Eecuti$e order a!o#ished the Court of Appea#s( and pro$ided Ithat a## case 4hich ha$e heretofore !een du#y appea#ed to the Court of Appea#s sha## !e transmitted to the Supreme Court fina# decision.I 'his pro$ision imp#ied#y reco ni9es that the 8ud ments and proceedin s of the courts durin the .apanese mi#itary occupation ha$e not !een in$a#idated !y the proc#amation of )enera# ;acArthur of >cto!er 2/( !ecause the said >rder does not say or refer to cases 4hich

ha$e !een du#y appea#ed to said court prior to the .apanese occupation( !ut to cases 4hich had therefore( that is( up to ;arch 10( 1,20( !een du#y appea#ed to the Court of Appea#sD and it is to !e presumed that a#most a##( if not a##( appea#ed cases pendin in the Court of Appea#s prior to the .apanese mi#itary occupation of ;ani#a on .anuary 2( 1,22( had !een disposed of !y the #atter !efore the restoration of the Common4ea#th )o$ernment in 1,20D 4hi#e a#most a##( if not a##( appea#ed cases pendin on ;arch 10( 1,20( in the Court of Appea#s 4ere from .u(gments ren(ere( -y the Court of ;irst &nstance (uring the 8apanese regime . 'he respondent 8ud e Cuotes a portion of 3heatonGs Internationa# La4 4hich sayF I;oreo$er 4hen it is said that an occupierGs acts are $a#id and under internationa# #a4 shou#d not !e a!ro ated !y the su!seCuent conCueror( it must !e remem!ered that no crucia# instances eEist to sho4 that if his acts shou#d !e re$ersed( any internationa# 4ron 4ou#d !e committed. 3hat does happen is that most matters are a##o4ed to stand !y the restored o$ernment( !ut the matter can hard#y !e put further than this.I 63heaton( Internationa# La4( 3ar( 1th &n #ish edition of 1,22( p. 220.7 And from this Cuotion the respondent 8ud e Idra4s the conc#usion that 4hether the acts of the occupant shou#d !e considered $a#id or not( is a Cuestion that is up to the restored o$ernment to decideD that there is no ru#e of internationa# #a4 that denies to the restored o$ernment to decideD that there is no ru#e of internationa# #a4 that denies to the restored o$ernment the ri ht of eEercise its discretion on the matter( imposin upon it in its stead the o!#i ation of reco ni9in and enforcin the acts of the o$erthro4n o$ernment.I 'here is dou!t that the su!seCuent conCueror has the ri ht to a!ro ate most of the acts of the occupier( such as the #a4s( re u#ations and processes other than 8udicia# of the o$ernment esta!#ished !y the !e##i erent occupant. :ut in $ie4 of the fact that the proc#amation uses the 4ords Iprocesses of any other o$ernmentI and not I8udicia# processesI prise#y( it is not necessary to determine 4hether or not )enera# Dou #as ;acArthur had po4er to annu# and set aside a## 8ud ments and proceedin s of the courts durin the .apanese occupation. 'he Cuestion to !e determined is 4hether or not it 4as his intention( as representati$e of the President of the 5nited States( to a$oid or nu##ify them. If the proc#amation had( eEpress#y or !y necessary imp#ication( dec#ared nu## and $oid the 8udicia# processes of any other o$ernment( it 4ou#d !e necessary for this court to decide in the present case 4hether or not )enera# Dou #as ;acArthur had authority to dec#are them nu## and $oid. :ut the proc#amation did not so pro$ide( undou!ted#y !ecause the author thereof 4as fu##y a4are of the #imitations of his po4ers as Commander in Chief of ;i#itary ?orces of #i!eration or su!seCuent conCueror. *ot on#y the %a ue "e u#ations( !ut a#so the princip#es of internationa# #a4( as they resu#t from the usa es esta!#ished !et4een ci$i#i9ed nations( the #a4s of humanity and the reCuirements of the pu!#ic of conscience( constitute or from the #a4 of nations. 6Pream!#e of the %a ue Con$entionsD 3est#a@e( Internationa# La4( 2d ed.( Part II( p. -1.7 Artic#e 2/( section III( of the %a ue "e u#ations or Con$entions 4hich 4e ha$e a#ready Cuoted in discussin the first Cuestion( imposes upon the occupant the o!#i ation to esta!#ish courtsD and Artic#e 2/ 6h7( section II( of the same Con$entions( 4hich prohi!its the !e##i erent occupant Ito dec#are . . . suspended . . . in a Court of La4 the ri hts and action of the nationa#s of the hosti#e party(I for!ids him to ma@e any dec#aration pre$entin the inha!itants from usin their courts to assert or enforce their ci$i# ri hts. 6Decision of the Court of Appea#s of &n #and in the case of Porter vs. ?rueden!ur ( L.". J1,10K( 1 =.:.( +01.7 If a !e##i erent occupant is reCuired to esta!#ish courts of 8ustice in the territory occupied( and for!idden to pre$ent the nationa#s thereof from assertin or enforcin therein their ci$i# ri hts( !y necessary imp#ication( the mi#itary commander of the forces of #i!eration or the restored o$ernment is restrained from nu##ifyin or settin aside the 8ud ments rendered !y said courts in their #iti ation durin the period of occupation. >ther4ise( the purpose of these precepts of the %a ue Con$entions 4ou#d !e th4arted( for to dec#are them nu## and $oid 4ou#d !e tantamount to suspendin in said courts the ri ht and action of the nationa#s of the territory durin the mi#itary occupation thereof !y the enemy. It oes 4ithout sayin that a #a4 that en8oins a person to do somethin 4i## not at the same time empo4er another to undo the same. A#thou h the Cuestion 4hether the President or commandin officer of the 5nited States Army has $io#ated restraints imposed !y the constitution and #a4s of his country is o!$ious#y of a domestic nature( yet( in construin and app#yin #imitations imposed on the eEecuti$e authority( the Supreme Court of the 5nited States( in the case of >choa( vs. %ernande9 62/0 5.S.( 1/,7( has dec#ared that they Iarise from enera# ru#es of internationa# #a4 and from fundamenta# princip#es @no4n 4here$er the American f#a f#ies.I In the case of "aymond vs. 'homas 6,1 5.S.( 1127( a specia# order issued !y the officer in command of the forces of the 5nited States in South Caro#ina after the end of the Ci$i# 3ar( 4ho##y annu##in a decree rendered !y a court of chancery in that state in a case 4ithin its 8urisdiction( 4as dec#ared $oid( and not 4arranted !y the acts appro$ed respecti$e#y ;arch 2( 1+-1 612 Stat.( 22+7( and .u#y 1, of the same year 610 i(.( 127( 4hich defined the po4ers and duties of mi#itary officers in command of the se$era# states then #ate#y in re!e##ion. In the course of its decision the court saidD I3e ha$e #oo@ed carefu##y throu h the acts of ;arch 2(

1+-1 and .u#y 1,( 1+-1. 'hey i$e $ery #ar e o$ernmenta# po4ers to the mi#itary commanders desi nated( 4ithin the States committed respecti$e#y to their 8urisdictionD !ut 4e ha$e found nothin to 4arrant the order here in Cuestion. . . . 'he c#earest #an ua e 4ou#d !e necessary to satisfy us that Con ress intended that the po4er i$en !y these acts shou#d !e so eEercised. . . . It 4as an ar!itrary stretch of authority( needfu# to no ood end that can !e ima ined. 3hether Con ress cou#d ha$e conferred the po4er to do such an act is a Cuestion 4e are not ca##ed upon to consider. It is an un!endin ru#e of #a4 that the eEercise of mi#itary po4er( 4here the ri hts of the citi9en are concerned( sha## ne$er !e pushed !eyond 4hat the eEi ency reCuires. 6;ithe## vs. %armony( 1/ %o4.( 110D 3arden vs. :ai#ey( 2 'aunt.( -1D ?a!ri as vs. ;oysten( 1 Co4p.( 1-1D s.c.( 1 SmithGs L.C.( pt. 2( p. ,/2.7 Vie4in the su!8ect !efore us from the standpoint indicated( 4e ho#d that the order 4as $oid.I It is( therefore( e$ident that the proc#amation of )enera# ;acArthur of >cto!er 2/( 1,22( 4hich dec#ared that Ia## #a4s( re u#ations and processes of any other o$ernment in the Phi#ippines than that of the said Common4ea#th are nu## and $oid 4ithout #e a# effect in areas of the Phi#ippines free of enemy occupation and contro#(I has not in$a#idated the 8udicia# acts and proceedin s( 4hich are not a po#itica# comp#eEion( of the courts of 8ustice in the Phi#ippines that 4ere continued !y the Phi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission and the "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines durin the .apanese mi#itary occupation( and that said 8udicia# acts and proceedin s 4ere ood and $a#id !efore and no4 ood and $a#id after the reoccupation of #i!eration of the Phi#ippines !y the American and ?i#ipino forces. /. 'he third and #ast Cuestion is 4hether or not the courts of the Common4ea#th( 4hich are the same as those eEistin prior to( and continued durin ( the .apanese mi#itary occupation !y the Phi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission and !y the so-ca##ed "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines( ha$e 8urisdiction to continue no4 the proceedin s in actions pendin in said courts at the time the Phi#ippine Is#ands 4ere reoccupied or #i!erated !y the American and ?i#ipino forces( and the Common4ea#th )o$ernment 4as restored. A#thou h in theory the authority the authority of the #oca# ci$i# and 8udicia# administration is suspended as a matter of course as soon as mi#itary occupation ta@es p#ace( in practice the in$ader does not usua##y ta@e the administration of 8ustice into his o4n hands( !ut continues the ordinary courts or tri!una#s to administer the #a4s of the country 4hich he is en8oined( un#ess a!so#ute#y pre$ented( to respect. As stated in the a!o$e-Cuoted &Eecuti$e >rder of President ;c=in#ey to the Secretary of 3ar on ;ay 1,( 1+,+( Iin practice( they 6the municipa# #a4s7 are not usua##y a!ro ated !ut are a##o4ed to remain in force and to !e administered !y the ordinary tri!una#s su!stantia##y as they 4ere !efore the occupation. 'his en#i htened practice is( so far as possi!#e( to !e adhered to on the present occasion.I And 'ay#or in this connection saysF I?rom a theoretica# point of $ie4 it may !e said that the conCueror is armed 4ith the ri ht to su!stitute his ar!itrary 4i## for a## preeEistin forms of o$ernment( #e is#ati$e( eEecuti$e and 8udicia#. ?rom the stand-point of actua# practice such ar!itrary 4i## is restrained !y the pro$ision of the #a4 of nations 4hich compe#s the conCueror to continue #oca# #a4s and institution so far as mi#itary necessity 4i## permit.I 6'ay#or( Internationa# Pu!#ic La4( p.0,-.7 5ndou!ted#y( this practice has !een adopted in order that the ordinary pursuits and !usiness of society may not !e unnecessari#y deran ed( inasmuch as !e##i erent occupation is essentia##y pro$isiona#( and the o$ernment esta!#ished !y the occupant of transient character. ?o##o4in these practice and precepts of the #a4 of nations( Commander in Chief of the .apanese ?orces proc#aimed on .anuary /( 1,22( 4hen ;ani#a 4as occupied( the mi#itary administration under martia# #a4 o$er the territory occupied !y the army( and ordered that Ia## the #a4s no4 in force in the Common4ea#th( as 4e## as eEecuti$e and 8udicia# institutions( sha## continue to !e affecti$e for the time !ein as in the past(I and Ia## pu!#ic officia#s sha## remain in their present post and carry on faithfu##y their duties as !efore.I 3hen the Phi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission 4as or ani9ed !y >rder *o. 1 of the .apanese Commander in Chief( on .anuary 2/( 1,22( the Chairman of the &Eecuti$e Commission( !y &Eecuti$e >rders *os. 1 and 2 of .anuary /0 and ?e!ruary 0( respecti$e#y( continued the Supreme Court( Court of Appea#s( Court of ?irst Instance( and 8ustices of the peace of courts( 4ith the same 8urisdiction in conformity 4ith the instructions i$en !y the Commander in Chief of the Imperia# .apanese Army in >rder *o. / of ?e!ruary 20( 1,22. And on >cto!er 12( 1,2/ 4hen the so-ca##ed "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines 4as inau urated( the same courts 4ere continued 4ith no su!stantia# chan e in or ani9ation and 8urisdiction thereof. If the proceedin s pendin in the different courts of the Is#ands prior to the .apanese mi#itary occupation had !een continued durin the .apanese mi#itary administration( the Phi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission( and the so-ca##ed "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines( it stands to reason that the same courts( 4hich had !ecome reesta!#ished and concei$ed of as ha$in in continue( e)istence upon the reoccupation and #i!eration of the Phi#ippines !y $irtue of the princip#e of post#iminy 6%a##( Internationa# La4( 1th ed.( p. 01-7( may continue the proceedin s in cases then pendin in said courts( 4ithout necessity of enactin a #a4 conferrin

8urisdiction upon them to continue said proceedin s. As 'ay#or raphica##y points out in spea@in of said princip#es Ia state or other o$ernmenta# entity( upon the remo$a# of a forei n mi#itary force( resumes its o#d p#ace 4ith its ri ht and duties su!stantia##y unimpaired. . . . Such po#itica# resurrection is the resu#t of a #a4 ana#o ous to that 4hich ena!#es e#astic !odies to re ain their ori ina# shape upon remo$a# of the eEterna# force( H and su!8ect to the same eEception in case of a!so#ute crushin of the 4ho#e fi!re and content.I 6'ay#or( Internationa# Pu!#ic La4( p. -10.7 'he ar ument ad$anced !y the respondent 8ud e in his reso#ution in support in his conc#usion that the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a presided o$er !y him Ihas no authority to ta@e co ni9ance of( and continue said proceedin s 6of this case7 to fina# 8ud ment unti# and un#ess the )o$ernment of the Common4ea#th of the Phi#ippines . . . sha## ha$e pro$ided for the transfer of the 8urisdiction of the courts of the no4 defunct "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines( and the cases commenced and the #eft pendin therein(I is Ithat said courts 4ere a o$ernment a#ien to the Common4ea#th )o$ernment. 'he #a4s they enforced 4ere( true enou h( #a4s of the Common4ea#th prior to .apanese occupation( !ut they had !ecome the #a4s H and the courts had !ecome the institutions H of .apan !y adoption 65.S. vs. "eiter. 21 ?. Cases( *o. 1-12-7( as they !ecame #ater on the #a4s and institutions of the Phi#ippine &Eecuti$e Commission and the "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines.I 'he court in the said case of 5.S. vs. "eiter did not and cou#d not say that the #a4s and institutions of the country occupied if continued !y the conCueror or occupant( !ecome the #a4s and the courts( !y adoption( of the so$erei n nation that is mi#itari#y occupyin the territory. :ecause( as a#ready sho4n( !e##i erent or mi#itary occupation is essentia##y pro$isiona# and does not ser$e to transfer the so$erei nty o$er the occupied territory to the occupant. 3hat the court said 4as that( if such #a4s and institutions are continued in use !y the occupant( they !ecome his and deri$e their force from him( in the sense that he may continue or set them aside. 'he #a4s and institution or courts so continued remain the #a4s and institutions or courts of the occupied territory. 'he #a4s and the courts of the Phi#ippines( therefore( did not !ecome( !y !ein continued as reCuired !y the #a4 of nations( #a4s and courts of .apan. 'he pro$ision of Artic#e 20( section III( of the %a ue Con$entions of 1,01 4hich prohi!its any compu#sion of the popu#ation of occupied territory to s4ear a##e iance to the hosti#e po4er( IeEtends to prohi!it e$erythin 4hich 4ou#d assert or imp#y a chan e made !y the in$ader in the #e itimate so$erei nty. 'his duty is neither to inno$ate in the po#itica# #ife of the occupied districts( nor need#ess#y to !rea@ the continuity of their #e a# #ife. %ence( so far as the courts of 8ustice are a##o4ed to continue administerin the territoria# #a4s( they must !e a##o4ed to i$e their sentences in the name of the #e itimate so$erei n I 63est#a@e( Int. La4( Part II( second ed.( p. 1027. Accordin to 3heaton( ho4e$er( the $ictor need not a##o4 the use of that of the #e itimate o$ernment. 3hen in 1+10( the )ermans in ?rance attempted to $io#ate that ru#e !y orderin ( after the fa## of the &mperor *apo#eon( the courts of *ancy to administer 8ustice in the name of the I%i h )erman Po4ers occupyin A#sace and Lorraine(I upon the round that the eEercise of their po4ers in the name of ?rench peop#e and o$ernment 4as at #east an imp#ied reco nition of the "epu!#ic( the courts refused to o!ey and suspended their sittin . )ermany ori ina##y ordered the use of the name of I%i h )erman Po4ers occupyin A#sace and Lorraine(I !ut #ater offered to a##o4 use of the name of the &mperor or a compromise. 63heaton( Internationa# La4( 3ar( 1th &n #ish ed. 1,22( p. 222.7 ?urthermore( it is a #e a# maEim( that eEceptin that of a po#itica# nature( ILa4 once esta!#ished continues unti# chan ed !y the some competent #e is#ati$e po4er. It is not chan e mere#y !y chan e of so$erei nty.I 6.oseph %. :ea#e( Cases on Conf#ict of La4s( III( Summary Section ,( citin Common4ea#th vs. Chapman( 1/ ;et.( -+.7 As the same author says( in his 'reatise on the Conf#ict on La4s 6Cam!rid e( 1,1-( Section 1/17F I'here can no !rea@ or interre num in #a4. ?rom the time the #a4 comes into eEistence 4ith the first-fe#t corporateness of a primiti$e peop#e it must #ast unti# the fina# disappearance of human society. >nce created( it persists unti# a chan e ta@e p#ace( and 4hen chan ed it continues in such chan ed condition unti# the neEt chan e( and so fore$er. ConCuest or co#oni9ation is impotent to !rin #a4 to an endD in spite of chan e of constitution( the #a4 continues unchan ed unti# the ne4 so$erei n !y #e is#ati$e acts creates a chan e.I As courts are creatures of statutes and their eEistence defends upon that of the #a4s 4hich create and confer upon them their 8urisdiction( it is e$ident that such #a4s( not !ein a po#itica# nature( are not a!ro ated !y a chan e of so$erei nty( and continue in force IeE proprio $i oreI un#ess and unti# repea#ed !y #e is#ati$e acts. A proc#amation that said #a4s and courts are eEpress#y continued is not necessary in order that they may continue in force. Such proc#amation( if made( is !ut a dec#aration of the intention of respectin and not repea#in those #a4s. 'herefore( e$en assumin that .apan had #e a##y acCuired so$erei nty o$er these Is#ands( 4hich she had after4ards transferred to the so-ca##ed "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines( and that the #a4s and the courts of these Is#ands had !ecome the courts of .apan( as the said courts of the #a4s creatin and conferrin 8urisdiction upon them ha$e continued in force unti# no4( it necessari#y fo##o4s that the same courts may continue eEercisin the same 8urisdiction o$er cases

pendin therein !efore the restoration of the Common4ea#th )o$ernment( un#ess and unti# they are a!o#ished or the #a4s creatin and conferrin 8urisdiction upon them are repea#ed !y the said o$ernment. As a conseCuence( ena!#in #a4s or acts pro$idin that proceedin s pendin in one court !e continued !y or transferred to another court( are not reCuired !y the mere chan e of o$ernment or so$erei nty. 'hey are necessary on#y in case the former courts are a!o#ished or their 8urisdiction so chan e that they can no #on er continue ta@in co ni9ance of the cases and proceedin s commenced therein( in order that the ne4 courts or the courts ha$in 8urisdiction o$er said cases may continue the proceedin s. 3hen the Spanish so$erei nty in the Phi#ippine Is#ands ceased and the Is#ands came into the possession of the 5nited States( the IAudienciaI or Supreme Court 4as continued and did not cease to eEist( and proceeded to ta@e co ni9ance of the actions pendin therein upon the cessation of the Spanish so$erei nty unti# the said IAudienciaI or Supreme Court 4as a!o#ished( and the Supreme Court created in Chapter II of Act *o. 1/- 4as su!stituted in #ieu thereof. And the Courts of ?irst Instance of the Is#ands durin the Spanish re ime continued ta@in co ni9ance of cases pendin therein upon the chan e of so$erei nty( unti# section -0 of the same Act *o. 1/- a!o#ished them and created in its Chapter IV the present Courts of ?irst Instance in su!stitution of the former. Simi#ar#y( no ena!#in acts 4ere enacted durin the .apanese occupation( !ut a mere proc#amation or order that the courts in the Is#and 4ere continued. >n the other hand( durin the American re ime( 4hen section 1+ of Act *o. 1/- 4as enacted a!o#ishin the ci$i# 8urisdiction of the pro$ost courts created !y the mi#itary o$ernment of occupation in the Phi#ippines durin the Spanish-American 3ar of 1+,+( the same section 1+ pro$ided for the transfer of a## ci$i# actions then pendin in the pro$ost courts to the proper tri!una#s( that is( to the 8ustices of the peace courts( Court of ?irst Instance( or Supreme Court ha$in 8urisdiction o$er them accordin to #a4. And #ater on( 4hen the crimina# 8urisdiction of pro$ost courts in the City of ;ani#a 4as a!o#ished !y section / of Act *o. 1+-( the same section pro$ided that crimina# cases pendin therein 4ithin the 8urisdiction of the municipa# court created !y Act *o. 1+/ 4ere transferred to the #atter. 'hat the present courts as the same courts 4hich had !een functionin durin the .apanese re ime and( therefore( can continue the proceedin s in cases pendin therein prior to the restoration of the Common4ea#th of the Phi#ippines( is confirmed !y &Eecuti$e >rder *o. /1 4hich 4e ha$e a#ready Cuoted in support of our conc#usion in connection 4ith the second Cuestion. Said &Eecuti$e >rder pro$idesI617 that the Court of Appea#s created and esta!#ished under Common4ea#th Act *o. / as amended( !e a!o#ished( as it is here!y a!o#ished(I and I627 that a## cases 4hich ha$e heretofore !een du#y appea#ed to the Court of Appea#s sha## !e transmitted to the Supreme Court for fina# decision. . . .I In so pro$idin ( the said >rder considers that the Court of Appea#s a!o#ished 4as the same that eEisted prior to( and continued after( the restoration of the Common4ea#th )o$ernmentD for( as 4e ha$e stated in discussin the pre$ious Cuestion( a#most a##( if not a##( of the cases pendin therein( or 4hich had theretofore 6that is( up to ;arch 10( 1,207 !een du#y appea#ed to said court( must ha$e !een cases comin from the Courts of ?irst Instance durin the so-ca##ed "epu!#ic of the Phi#ippines. If the Court of Appea#s a!o#ished !y the said &Eecuti$e >rder 4as not the same one 4hich had !een functionin durin the "epu!#ic( !ut that 4hich had eEisted up to the time of the .apanese occupation( it 4ou#d ha$e pro$ided that a## the cases 4hich had( prior to and up to that occupation on .anuary 2( 1,22( !een du##y appea#ed to the said Court of Appea#s sha## !e transmitted to the Supreme Court for fina# decision. It is( therefore( o!$ious that the present courts ha$e 8urisdiction to continue( to fina# 8ud ment( the proceedin s in cases( not of po#itica# comp#eEion( pendin therein at the time of the restoration of the Common4ea#th )o$ernment. %a$in arri$ed at the a!o$e conc#usions( it fo##o4s that the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a has 8urisdiction to continue to fina# 8ud ment the proceedin s in ci$i# case *o. /012( 4hich in$o#$es ci$i# ri hts of the parties under the #a4s of the Common4ea#th )o$ernment( pendin in said court at the time of the restoration of the said )o$ernmentD and that the respondent 8ud e of the court( ha$in refused to act and continue him does a duty resu#tin from his office as presidin 8ud e of that court( man(amus is the speedy and adeCuate remedy in the ordinary course of #a4( especia##y ta@in into consideration the fact that the Cuestion of 8urisdiction herein in$o#$ed does affect not on#y this particu#ar case( !ut many other cases no4 pendin in a## the courts of these Is#ands. In $ie4 of a## the fore oin it is ad8ud ed and decreed that a 4rit of man(amus issue( directed to the respondent 8ud e of the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a( orderin him to ta@e co ni9ance of and continue to fina# 8ud ment the proceedin s in ci$i# case *o. /012 of said court. *o pronouncement as to costs. So ordered.

G.R. No. L#$&2%1 Au9u0, $1, 1981 CIT+ OF MANILA !n" CIT+ TREASURER, petitioners-appe##ants( $s. JU*GE AMA*OR E. GOME4 o2 ,-e Cou', o2 F/'0, In0,!n5e o2 M!n/.! !n" ESSO PHILIPPINES, INC., respondentsappe##ees. ACUINO, J.: 'his case is a!out the #e a#ity of the additiona# one-ha#f percent 6RQ7 rea#ty taE imposed !y the City of ;ani#a. Section -2 of the "e$ised Charter of ;ani#a( "epu!#ic Act *o. 20,( 4hich too@ effect on .une 1+( 1,2,( fiEes the annua# rea#ty taE at one and one-ha#f percent 61-R Q7. >n the other hand( section 2 of the Specia# &ducation ?und La4( "epu!#ic Act *o. 0221( 4hich too@ effect on .anuary 1( 1,-,( imposed Ian annua# additiona# taE of one per centum on the assessed $a#ue of rea# property in addition to the rea# property taE re u#ar#y #e$ied thereon under eEistin #a4sI !ut Ithe tota# rea# property taE sha## not eEceed a maEimum of three per centrum. 'hat maEimum #imit a$e the municipa# !oard of ;ani#a the Idea of fiEin the rea#ty taE at three percent. So( !y means of >rdinance *o. 1120( appro$ed !y the city mayor on Decem!er 2-( 1,11 and effecti$e !e innin the third Cuarter of 1,12( the !oard imposed an a((itional one-half percent realty ta). 'he ordinance readsF S&C'I>* 1. An additiona# annua# rea#ty taE of one-ha#f percent 61<2Q7( or in short a tota# of three percent B'QC realty ta) 61-RQ pursuant to the "e$ised Charter of ;ani#aD 1Q per "epu!#ic Act *o. 0221D and RQ per this >rdinance7 on the assessed $a#ue ... is here!y #e$ied and imposed. &sso Phi#ippines( Inc. paid under protest the sum of P1-(0,2.-, as additiona# one-ha#f percent rea#ty taE for the third Cuarter of 1,12 on its #and and machineries #ocated in ;ani#a. >n *o$em!er ,( 1,12( &sso fi#ed a comp#aint in the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a for the reco$ery of the said amount. It contended that the additiona# one-ha#f percent taE is $oid !ecause it is not authori9ed !y the city charter nor !y any #a4 6Ci$i# Case *o. +++217. After hearin ( the tria# court dec#ared the taE ordinance $oid and ordered the city treasurer of ;ani#a to refund to &sso the said taE. 'he City of ;ani#a and its treasurer appea#ed to this Court under "epu!#ic Act *o. 0220 64hich superseded "u#e 22 of the "u#es of Court7. 'he on#y issue is the $a#idity of the taE ordinance or the #e a#ity of the additiona# one-ha#f percent rea#ty taE. 'he petitioners in their manifestation of ;arch 11( 1,+1 a$erred that the said taE ordinance is sti## in forceD that >rdinance *o. 10--( 4hich 4as enacted on Septem!er 10( 1,12( imposed a t4o percent taE on commercia# rea# properties 6#i@e the rea# properties of &sso and that that t4o percent taE p#us the one percent taE under the Specia# &ducation ?und La4 i$es a tota# of three percent rea#ty taE on commercia# properties. &sso Phi#ippines( Inc.( no4 Petrophi# Corporation( in its manifestation of ;arch 2( 1,+1( re$ea#ed that up to this time it has !een payin the additiona# one-ha#f percent taE and that from 1,10 to 1,+0 it paid the tota# sum of P2(20-(220.11 as three percent taE on its rea# properties.

In this connection( it is re#e$ant to note that section /,627 of the "ea# Property 'aE Code( Presidentia# Decree *o. 2-2( 4hich too@ effect on .une 1( 1,12( pro$ides that a city counci# may( !y ordinance( impose a rea#ty taE Iof not #ess than one ha#f of one percent !ut not more than t4o percent of the assessed $a#ue of rea# propertyI. Section 21 of the said Code reaffirms the one percent taE on rea# property for the Specia# &ducation ?und in addition to the !asic t4o percent rea#ty taE. So( there is no Cuestion no4 that the additiona# one-ha#f percent rea#ty taE is $a#id under the "ea# Property 'aE Code. 3hat is in contro$ersy is the #e a#ity of the additiona# one-ha#f percent rea#ty taE for the t4o-year period from the third Cuarter of 1,12 up to the second Cuarter of 1,12. 3e ho#d that the doctrine of imp#ications in statutory construction sustains the City of ;ani#aGs contention that the additiona# oneha#f percent rea#ty taE is sanctioned !y the pro$ision in section 2 of the Specia# &ducation ?und La4 that Ithe tota# rea# property taE sha## not eEceed a maEimum of three per centum. 'he doctrine of imp#ications means that Ithat 4hich is p#ain#y imp#ied in the #an ua e of a statute is as much a part of it as that 4hich is eEpressedI 6&n re ;cCu##och Dic@( /+ Phi#. 21( 20( ,0D +2 C...S. -/2( 1/ Am .ur 2nd 2027. 3hi#e the 1,2, "e$ised Charter of ;ani#a fiEed the rea#ty taE at one and a ha#f percent( on the other hand( the 1,-+ Specia# &ducation ?und La4 definiti$e#y fiEed three percent as the ma)imum rea# property taE of 4hich one percent 4ou#d accrue to the Specia# &ducation ?und. 'he o!$ious imp#ication is that an additiona# one-ha#f percent taE cou#d !e imposed !y municipa# corporations. Inferentia##y( that #a4 fiEed at two percent the rea#ty taE that 4ou#d accrue to a city or municipa#ity. And the fact that the 1,12 "ea# Property 'aE Code specifica##y fiEes the rea# property taE at two percent confirms the prior intention of the #a4ma@er to impose two percent as the realty ta) proper. 'hat 4as a#so the a$o4ed intention of the Cuestioned ordinance. In in$a#idatin the ordinance( the tria# court uphe#d the $ie4 of &sso Phi#ippines( Inc( that the Specia# &ducation ?und La4 refers to a contin ency 4here the app#ication of the additiona# one percent rea#ty taE 4ou#d ha$e the effect of raisin the tota# rea#ty taE to more than three percent and that it cannot !e construed as an authority to impose an additiona# rea#ty taE !eyond the one percent fiEed !y the said #a4. At first #ance( that appears to !e a specious or reasona!#e contention. :ut the fact remains that the city charter fiEed the rea#ty taE at 1-RQ and the #ater #a4( the Specia# &ducation ?und La4( pro$ides for three percent as the maEimum rea#ty taE of 4hich one percent 4ou#d !e earmar@ed for the education fund. 'he una$oida!#e inference is that the #ater #a4 authori9ed the imposition of an additiona# one-ha#f percent rea#ty taE since the contin ency referred to !y the comp#ainin taEpayer 4ou#d not arise in the City of ;ani#a. It is true( as contended !y the taEpayer( that the po4er of a municipa# corporation to #e$y a taE shou#d !e eEpress#y ranted and shou#d not !e mere#y inferred. :ut in this case( the po4er to impose a rea#ty taE is not contro$erted. 3hat is disputed is the amount thereof( 4hether one and one-ha#f percent on#y or t4o percent. 6See sec. 2 of "ep. Act *o. 22-2.7 As repeated#y o!ser$ed( section 2 of the Specia# &ducation ?und La4( as confirmed !y the "ea# Property 'aE Code( in prescri!in a tota# rea#ty taE of three percent imp#ied#y authori9es the au mentation !y one-ha#f percent of the pre-eEistin one and one- ha#f percent rea#ty taE.

3%&"&?>"&( the decision of the tria# court is re$ersed and set aside. 'he comp#aint of &sso Phi#ippines( Inc. for reco$ery of the rea#ty taE paid under protest is dismissed. *o costs. S> >"D&"&D. G.R. No0. L#$2%60#61 O5,o1e' 22, 19&0 ESMERAL*O M. GATCHALIAN, petitioner on his !eha#f and on !eha#f of a## others simi#ar#y situated( $s. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. MA8ASIAR, J.:. Petitioner &smera#do ;. )atcha#ian a##e es that he is a candidate for de#e ate to the Constitutiona# Con$ention for the first district of "i9a#( ha$in fi#ed his certificates of candidacy 4ith the Commission on &#ections on Septem!er +( 1,10. It appears that pursuant to the reCuest of the ad$ertisin firms and associations of the Phi#ippines( the Commission on &#ections promu# ated on Au ust 1/( 1,10 Come#ec "eso#ution *o. ""-101 ho#din that Idonations of !i##!oards to the Commission !y forei ners or companies or corporations o4ned and contro##ed partia##y or 4ho##y !y forei ners are not co$ered !y the pro$ision of Sec. 0- of the "e$ised &#ection Code.I 6See AnneE A.7 >n Septem!er 11( 1,10( pursuant to the reCuest of the Ad$ertisin Counci# of the Phi#ippines( the Commission on &#ections promu# ated "eso#ution *o. ""-1/1 to the effect that the !an in Sec. 2- of the "e$ised &#ection Code( as amended( does not co$er the pro8ected campai n for funds and other contri!utions !y the Ad$ertisin Counci# of the Phi#ippines and others simi#ar#y situated( durin the 120 days immediate#y precedin a re u#ar or specia# e#ectionD and Ithat in #ine 4ith the ru#in in its reso#ution num!ered ""-101( donations and contri!utions for the a!o$e campai n may !e recei$ed from forei ners( companies or corporation o4ned and<or contro##ed 4ho##y or partia##y !y forei ners. 6See AnneE :.7 >n Septem!er 21( 1,10( petitioner fi#ed a petition 4ith the Commission on &#ections impu nin the $a#idity of said "eso#utions *os. ""-101 and 1/1 as $io#ati$e of Sec. 0- of the "e$ised &#ection Code. 6See AnneE C7 >n the same day( Septem!er 21( 1,10( the Commission on &#ections denied the petitionerGs petition on( the round Ithat contri!utions !y forei ners to the Come#ec :i##!oards Committee for the purpose of financin costs of Come#ec !i##!oards are not made in aid or support of any particu#ar candidate in a particu#ar district and that the a##ocation of space for its candidate is a##o4ed !y #ottery( nor 4ou#d it in any 4ay inf#uence the resu#t of the e#ection( ... . 6See AnneE D7 ?rom the said order of the Come#ec denyin his petition( petitioner( pursuant to Sec. 2 of Art. L of the Constitution( fi#ed a notice of appea# and the present petition for a re$ie4 !y this 'ri!una# of the said Come#ec ru#in ( contendin that said order of the Come#ec is nu## and $oid as contrary to #a4 or ha$in !een issued in eEcess of the po4ers of the Commission on &#ections or in ra$e a!use of its discretion( and prayin for a 4rit of pre#iminary as 4e## as permanent in8unction. *o 4rit of pre#iminary in8unction nor restrainin order 4as issued( ho4e$er( !y reason of the fact that the Come#ec itse#f refrained from enforcin the Cuestioned "eso#utions *os. ""-101 and 1/1 and had i$en the correspondin ad$ice to the ad$ertisin firms and associations concerned( inc#udin the Ad$ertisin Counci# of the Phi#ippines. Sec. 0- of the "e$ised &#ection Code( as amended( pro$ides that. *o forei ner sha## aid any candidate( direct#y or indirect#y( or to ta@e part in or to inf#uence in any manner any e#ections.

'he prohi!ited acti$e inter$ention of forei ners thereunder may consist ofF. 617 aidin any candidate( direct#y or indirect#y( in any e#ectionD 627 ta@in part in any e#ectionD and 6/7 inf#uencin in any manner any e#ection.

;oreo$er( under Sec. 1+0 of the "e$ised &#ection Code( as amended( Sec. 0-( a $io#ation of 4hich is a serious e#ection offense under Sec. 1+/ of the same Code( may !e $io#ated !y an entity 4hich( if found ui#ty( sha## !e sentenced to pay a fine of from fi$e thousand pesos 6P0(000.007 to one hundred thousand pesos 6P100(000.007 and its President( officia#s and emp#oyees performin duties connected 4ith the offense committed are #ia!#e as principa#s( accomp#ices or accessories as the case may !e( in addition Ito the responsi!i#ity of such entity.I% 'o #imit the term Iforei nerI to natura# persons 4ou#d !e unrea#istic and 4ou#d remo$e much of the !ite in the prohi!ition. It shou#d not !e disputed that 8uridica# persons or or ani9ed roups H 4hether ci$ic( fraterna#( re#i ious( professiona#( trade( or #a!or H ha$e more funds than indi$idua#s 4ith 4hich to su!sidi9e a candidate. ConseCuent#y( the inf#uence of a 8uridica# person or or ani9ed roup( 4hich is a contri!utor or donor( is reater than that of any natura# person. ?urthermore( any( 8uridica# person or ani9ed roup has more interests to protect than any of its component mem!ers or stoc@ho#ders. And if the interest of the indi$idua# stoc@ho#ders or mem!ers of the 8uridica# person or or ani9ed roup 4ere a#so to !e considered( !ecause usua##y the stoc@ho#ders or mem!ers ha$e common cause 4ith their corporation or or ani9ed roup( such artificia# person or or ani9ed roup to ether 4ith its mem!ers 4i## !e under a more compe##in moti$ation to aid a candidate or to inf#uence the conduct as 4e## as the outcome of the e#ection H e$en to frustrate the ho#din of the e#ection if it is necessary to protect( if not enhance( their interests. It has #i@e4ise !een he#d that in the a!sence of an eEpressed statutory pro$ision or instruction the 4ord IpersonI comprehends pri$ate corporations un#ess it appears that it is used in a more #imited sense( and that prima faciethe 4ord IpersonI under e$en a pena# statute 4hich is intended to inhi!it an act( must !e a Iperson in #a4I that is( an artificia# as 4e## as a natura# person and therefore inc#udes corporations if they are 4ithin the sphere and purpose of the statute. 6 'here is nothin in the "e$ised &#ection Code( much #ess in Sec. 0- itse#f( indictin that the term Iforei nerI is #imited on#y to natura# persons. *either is there any pro$ision in the same "e$ised &#ection Code eEpress#y or imp#ied#y su estin that the circumstances of an artificia# person in #a4 are not identica# to those of natura# persons co$ered !y the prohi!ition in the "e$ised &#ection Code. >n the contrary( there is reater reason to !e#ie$e that the #a4-ma@er feared more the assistance and inf#uence of artificia# persons in the e#ections than the aid of natura# persons. %ence( the #a4 uti#i9es the more eneric term Iforei ner.I It is a cardina# ru#e of statutory construction that a #a4 is understood to contain( !y imp#ication( if not !y its eEpressed terms( a## such pro$isions as may !e necessary to effectuate its o!8ect and purpose. And that the 4ho#e and e$ery part of the statute must !e considered in fiEin the meanin of its part.& 'he #a4 pena#i9in corrupt e#ection practices shou#d !e i$en a reasona!#e construction in the interests of the purity of the e#ections. 8 Since( as heretofore stated( the dan er of desecration of the sanctity of the !a##ot is reater from artificia# persons !y reason of their $ast#y superior financia# and other resources inc#udin the com!ined $otin po4er of their mem!ers and emp#oyees( the term Iforei nerI in Sec. 0- shou#d !e understood to inc#ude artificia# persons and other or ani9ed roups( 4ithout distinct #e a# persona#ity. 'he position of the respondents Chairman and mem!ers of the Commission on &#ections that the Ad$ertisin Counci# of the Phi#ippines and the other ad$ertisin firms( associations and or ani9ations are the donors( and not the a#ien contri!utors for the construction of Come#ec !i##!oards( is as inaccurate as it is specious. Inaccurate( !ecause the $ery "eso#ution *o. ""-101 states that the ad$ertisin firms and associations mentioned therein IreCuest an opinion from the Commission whether or not foreigners or companies or corporations which are owne( partially or wholly -y foreigners or with foreign stoc5hol(ers may contri-ute to or (onate -ill-oar(s to the Commission 4ithout $io#atin Sec. 0- of the "e$ised &#ection Code ...I 6See AnneE A7( re-emphasi9ed !y its conc#udin para raph that Iin #ine 4ith the a!o$e ru#in s of the Commission in the pre$ious e#ections the Commission here!y "&S>LV&S to ho#d that the (onations of -ill-oar(s to the Commission -y foreigners or companies or corporations owne( an( controlle( partially or wholly -y foreigners are not co$ered !y the prohi!ition of Sec. 0- of the "e$ised &#ection Code.I 6&mphasis supp#ied7

& 'o dissipate any dou!t( a#thou h not raised !y the parties( the first Cuestion is 4hether the term Iany e#ectionsI as used in Sec. 0of the "e$ised &#ection Code as amended( inc#udes the e#ection of de#e ates to the Constitutiona# Con$ention under "eso#ution of !oth %ouses *o. 2 of ;arch 1-( 1,-1( as amended !y "eso#ution of !oth %ouses *o. 2 of .une 11( 1,-,( as imp#emented !y "ep. Act *o. -1/2. 'he affirmati$e ans4er is !eyond de!ateD !ecause Sec. + of ".A. *o. -1/2 eEpress#y enumerates prohi!ited acts IIn addition to and supp#ementin prohi!ited acts pro$ided for in the "e$ised &#ection Code.I Said Sec. 0- of the "e$ised &#ection Code( as amended( defines one such prohi!ited act or corrupt e#ection practice. ;oreo$er( Sec. 2 of "es. *o. 2 states that the e#ection of de#e ates to the Constitutiona# Con$ention Isha## !e he#d on the second 'uesday in *o$em!er( 1,10 in accordance 4ith the "e$ised &#ection Code(I 4hich is restated in Sec. - of ".A. *o. -1/2. 'he same conc#usion finds support in contro##in 8urisprudence. 'hus( 3e he#d recent#y that the term Iany e#ectionI in Sec. 2 of Art. LII of the Constitution( 4hich prohi!its officers and emp#oyees in the Ci$i# Ser$ice( inc#udin mem!ers of the Armed ?orces( from en a in Idirect#y or indirect#y in partisan po#itica# acti$itiesI or Ita@in part in any e#ection eEcept to $ote(I comprehends or app#ies to e#ection of de#e ates Constitutiona# Con$ention.1 'he term Iany e#ectionI in a statute ma@in it crimina# to !et on any due# or on the resu#t of any e#ection inc#udes a## e#ections he#d in the State. 2 It means not on#y any e#ection then pro$ided !y the #a4s and the Constitution( !ut any e#ection 4hich may thereafter !e esta!#ished or reCuired to !e he#d pursuant to #a4. $ && 'he second issue is 4hether the term Iforei ner as emp#oyed in the #a4 inc#udes !oth natura# and 8uridica# persons or associations or or ani9ed roups( 4ith or 4ithout #e a# persona#ity. 5nder Sec. /, of Art. III of the "e$ised &#ection Code( Ithe term IpersonI inc#udes an indi$idua#( partnership( committee( association( corporation and any other or ani9ation or roup of persons.I ) Sec. /, refers to contri!utions from or eEpenditures !y any person for the purpose of inf#uencin or attemptin to inf#uence the e#ection of candidates. 'he contri!utors to e#ectora# campai n funds are either natura# or artificia# persons( or an or ani9ed roup of persons 4ithout separate #e a# persona#ity. Sec. /, e$en oes further !y inc#udin in the definition of the term Iperson(I a committee or any other roup of persons 4hich may not ha$e any 8uridica# persona#ity.

Specious( !ecause the ad$ertisin firms and or ani9ations are mere#y the co##ectors of such donations or contri!utionsD they do not o4n the money or materia#s contri!uted or donated !y the forei ners 4ho are the actua# !enefactors. &&& 'he third issue is 4hether the term Iany candidateI in Sec. 0- comprehends Isome candidatesI or Ia## candidates.I 'he term Iany can candidateI shou#d !e construed a#so to mean some or a## candidates. It has !een he#d that the term Iany candidateI $oted for at any e#ection refers to IcandidatesID 9 and that the term Iany personI is not #imited to Iany personI in the sin u#ar( !ut is app#ica!#e as 4e## to t4o or more persons. 10. 3hen the conteEt so indicates( the 4ord may !e construed to mean( and indeed it has !een freCuent#y used in its en#ar ed and p#ura# sense( as meanin Ia##(I Ia## or e$ery(I Ieach(I Ieach one of a##(I Ie$ery(I 4ithout #imitationD indefinite num!er or Cuantity( an indeterminate unit or num!er of units out of many or a##( one or more as the case may !e( se$era#( some. 11 Pena# #a4s( #i@e Sec. 0- and the "e$ised Pena# Code( usua##y refer to the fe#on in the sin u#ar. It is possi!#e that( to p#ay safe or for his o4n protection( the donor may aid or assist !oth opponents or a## of them( especia##y if they ha$e approEimate#y the same po#itica# stren th or fo##o4in . &I 'he fourth Cuestion is 4hether !y such donations( the forei ner. 6a7 aids any candidate direct#y or indirect#y( or 6!7 ta@es a part in any e#ection( or 6c7 inf#uences in any manner any e#ection. In #a4( the 4ord IaidI is understood to mean to support( to he#p( to assist or to stren then or to act in cooperation 4ith.
12

6/7 'ime-Ad( Inc. 4hose President is an a#ien 4ho o4ns 20Q of its stoc@s( to accept po#itica# commercia#s from candidates for inc#usion in their te#e$ision pro rams. as not contra$enin Sec. 0- of the "e$ised &#ection Code( does not ma@e the Cuestioned "eso#utions *os. ""-101 and 1/1 #e a#( nor the 1,-, reso#utions re ardin >BC G-,( Channe# 1( and 'ime-Ad( Inc.( $a#id and !indin on this 'ri!una#. It 4ou#d indeed !e a myopic $ie4 and the hei ht of nai$ete to !e#ie$e that donations for Come#ec !i##!oards 4i## not aid the candidates nor in any 4ay inf#uence the e#ections( no matter ho4 sma## the contri!utions may !eD a#thou h parenthetica##y( the needed amount of t4o hundred fifty thousand pesos 6P200(000.007 for !i##!oards is not insu!stantia#. 'he fact that a#ien donors ha$e no direct participation in the distri!ution or a##ocation of the Come#ec !i##!oards( does not ine$ita!#y mean that they ha$e no participation in the e#ections nor eEercise any inf#uence in the same( nor i$e assistance to any candidate. :i##!oards are means of propa anda. Supp#yin !i##!oards to a## candidates is an assistance reater than the aid that may !e i$en to one candidate. 'he inf#uence therefore that may !e eEerted 8oint#y !y the donors on a## the candidates is correspondin #y as reat( !ecause a## the candidates !enefited there!y 4i## natura##y !e ratefu# to the donors for such needed materia#s for their pu!#icity or propa anda. 'his is e$en 4orse than supportin a sin #e candidate( !ecause if the #atterGs opponent 4ins he 4i## not !e amena!#e to inf#uence !y those 4ho supported the ad$ersary H out in donations of this sort( 4hoe$er 4ins 4i## fee# ratefu#. 'he fact that the identity of the donors is not pu!#ici9ed( does not necessari#y mean that their identity cannot !e made @no4n to the candidates themse#$es thru adroit su!t#e means. 'he names of the donors 4i## !e entered in the !oo@s of the co##ectin ad$ertisin a encies or associations 4hich must ac@no4#ed e receipts thereof and must account for the same in their itemi9ed reports to the Come#ec and to their respecti$e mem!ers. :esides( there is nothin to stop the donors or contri!utors from informin the candidates durin the campai n and after the e#ections. 'he contri!utions or donations( no matter ho4 sma##( can effect the thin@in or attitude of the $ictorious candidates in dea#in 4ith matters in$o#$in forei ners( and more so 4hen the sum tota# of a## these donations is to !e ta@en into account. 'he a re ate tota# 4i## certain#y enerate a reater inf#uence on the triumphant candidates than the contri!ution of one forei ner considered separate#y or indi$idua##y. 'hen a ain( masterminds and financiers a#most a#4ays stay in the !ac@ round from 4here they issue order to those 4ho are either their outri ht dummies or 4ho are !eho#den to them. 'his 4i## open the f#ood ates to undesira!#e a#ien inf#uences in our country( 4hich may !e eEercised su!t#y and co$ert#y in many uises and forms. In matters of nationa# interest as 4e## as affectin ci$i# #i!erties( the ca$eat is o-sta principiis H oppose or resist from the $ery !e innin such Ierosion of sma## encroachments.I ConseCuent#y( 3e apprehend the same dan er feared !y petitionerD !ecause the Constitutiona# Con$ention 4i## inescapa!#y discuss proposa#s concernin the ri hts H ci$i#( socia#( economic( #e a# and po#itica# H of forei ners in this country( accentuated !y the off-and-on rene otiations of the Parity Amendment as 4e## as the 5.S.-Phi#ippine mi#itary !ase a reement( and 4hich rene otiations may eEtend to other treaties to 4hich the Phi#ippines is a si natory. 'he de#e ates 4ho are !eneficiaries of the Come#ec !i##!oards contri!uted or donated !y forei ners 4i## !e under terrific pressure from Cuarters 4hose interest are a#ien( if not inimica# to ours. Some sectors are a#ready a itatin for the inc#usion in the ne4 Constitution of the princip#e of .us soli as a mode of acCuirin ?i#ipino citi9enship 4ith retroacti$e effect. >ne cou#d 8ust $isua#i9e the impact of such a constitutiona# amendment. Dire repercussions arisin from such and other amendments on the po#itica# and economic #ife of our country and peop#e may !e too terrifyin to contemp#ate. If( as asserted !y the Assistant So#icitor )enera# and the So#icitor( 4ho fi#ed an Ans4er in !eha#f of the Come#ec 64hich Ans4er curious#y does not !ear the si nature of the So#icitor )enera#7( the needed amount is on#y a!out t4o hundred fifty thousand pesos 6P200(000.007 for the !i##!oards to !e a##ocated free to a## candidates in a## con ressiona# districts in the country or at the rate of t4o pesos and fifty centa$os 6P2.007 for each candidate( this amount of t4o hundred fifty thousand pesos 6P200(000.007 can easi#y !e co$ered !y contri!utions from patriotic and ci$ic-minded ?i#ipino citi9ens or ?i#ipino-o4ned corporations or associations or or ani9ed roups composed entire#y of ?i#ipino citi9ens( 4hich a!ound in our #and. If there are not enou h

>n the other hand( the term Ito ta@e partI means to participate or to en a e inD 1$ 4hi#e the term Iinf#uenceI means to use the partyGs endea$ors( thou h he may not !e a!#e to carry his point( or to eEert or have an effect on the nature or -ehaviour of, or affect the action or thought of, or modifyD or to s4ayD to persuadeD to affectD to have an effect on the con(ition or de$e#opment ofD to modify or act upon physica##y( especia##y in some gentle, su-tle, or gra(ual way; or to e)ert or maintain a mental or moral power upon or overD to effect or s4ay !y modifications( fee#in s or conduct. 1) 6&mphasis supp#ied7. 'he fact that the Come#ec a##o4edF. 617 >perations Buic@ Count 1,-, 6>BC G-,7( esta!#ished !y ci$ic-minded citi9ens for the purpose of reportin truthfu##y and speedi#y the resu#ts of the 1,-, Presidentia# &#ections( to accept monetary and materia# contri!utions from forei n indi$idua#s and corporations to finance its acti$itiesD 627 "o!ert L. Ste4art( an American citi9en 4ho o4ns 'V Channe# 1( to uti#i9e his "adio-'V station to disseminate information and pu!#ic features !eneficia# to pu!#ic interests in connection 4ith the e#ectionsD and

patriotic and ci$ic-minded citi9ens of this country 4ho can under4rite said amount( then it is certain#y a sad commentary on the character of our peop#e. %o4e$er( e$en donations from our o4n compatriots for such !i##!oards( are o!8ectiona!#eD !ecause Con ress shou#d appropriate the needed funds for the purpose. 'hat Con ress s#ashed the proposed Come#ec !ud et for this e#ection( can on#y mean that the #e is#ators( 4ho are fami#iar 4ith the cost of such campai n materia#s( estimated that the diminished appropriation 4i## suffice to co$er the eEpenses for this e#ection inc#udin those for Come#ec !i##!oards. In the same manner that it had economi9ed and accumu#ated sa$in s the #ast fisca# year( the Come#ec must not !e prodi a# 4ith pu!#ic funds to effectuate the #e is#ati$e 8ud ment in reducin its !ud et for this particu#ar e#ection. :ut a!o$e a##( our sense of nationa# inte rity( pride and di nity shou#d restrain us in su!scri!in to such a mendicant attitude( especia##y considerin that our country is endo4ed !y Di$ine Pro$idence 4ith rich natura# resources and a peop#e 4hose ta#ents( initiati$e and resourcefu#ness are eCua# if not superior in some respects( to those of forei ners. 'hat 4e shou#d( 4ithout fee#in any shame( !arter our nationa# inte rity( di nity and pride !y runnin for succor to forei ners to o!tain such a meas#y amount of t4o hundred fifty thousand pesos 6P200(000.007( does not spea@ 4e## of our independent status. 3%&"&?>"&( the reso#utions of the Commission on &#ections *os. ""-101 and 1/1 promu# ated respecti$e#y on Au ust 1/( 1,10 and Septem!er 11( 1,10 are here!y dec#ared i##e a# and nu## and $oid. 3rit ranted( 4ithout costs. Reyes, 8.1.L., Actg. C.8., 2i=on, +a5alintal, Castro, ;ernan(o, 1arre(o an( Iillamor 88., concur .R. No. L#)606 M!( $0, 19%2

/. After the orators had de#i$ered their respecti$e pieces( and after the 8ud es had eEpressed their $otes( the Chairman pu!#ic#y announced their decision a4ardin first price to *estor *osce( second price to &mma Imperia#( third price to ;enandro :ena$ides and fourth p#ace to Luis )enera#( .r. 2. ?our days after4ards( &mma Imperia# addressed a #etter to the :oard of .ud es protestin the $erdict( and a##e in that one of the .ud es had committed a mathematica# mista@e( resu#tin in her second p#ace on#y( instead of the first( 4hich she therefore c#aimed. 0. 5pon refusa# of the :oard to amend their a4ard( she fi#ed a comp#aint in the court of first instance. -. At the contest the fi$e 8ud es 4ere each furnished a !#an@ form 4herein he i$e the participants rades accordin to his estimate of their a!i#ities( i$in num!er 1 to the !est( num!er 2 to the second !est etc.( do4n to num!er +. 'hen the rades 4ere added( and the contestant recei$in the #o4est num!er ot first pri9e( the neEt second pri9e( etc. 1. 'he sums for the first four 4inners 4ereF *osce 10D Imperia# 10D :ene$ides 11( )enera# 11( the :oard of 8ud es ha$in $oted as fo##o4sF .ud e ?e#ipe Sr. ......... >!ias .............. "odri ue9 .......... Prado .............. ;o## ............... *osce / 1 1 / 2 10 Imperia# 1 2 2 2 1 10 :uena$ides )enera# 2 2 0 1 0 11 2 / / / 2 11

RAMON . FELIPE, SR., !0 C-!/'3!n, o!'" o2 Ju"9e0, petitioner( $s. HON. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, Ju"9e, Cou', o2 F/'0, In0,!n5e o2 C!3!'/ne0 Su', EMMA IMPERIAL, 'e;'e0en,e" 1( -e' 9u!'"/!n#!"#./,e3 JUSTO V. IMPERIAL, !n" SOUTHERN LU4ON COLLEGE,respondents. ENG4ON, J.: Statement of the case. 'he issue in the #iti ation is 4hether the courts ha$e the authority to re$erse the a4ard of the !oard of 8ud es of an oratorica# competition. In an oratorica# contest he#d in *a a( Camarines Sur( first honor 4as i$en !y the !oard of fi$e 8ud es to *estor *osce( and second honor to &mma Imperia#. SiE days #ater( &mma as@ed the court of the first instance of that pro$ince to re$ersed that a4ard( a##e in that one of the 8ud es had fa##en to error in radin her performance. After a hearin ( and o$er the o!8ection of the other four 8ud es of the contest( the court dec#ared &mma Imperia# 4inner of the first p#ace. %ence this specia# ci$i# action cha##en in the courtGs po4er to modify the !oardGs $erdict. %he facts. 'here is no dispute a!out the factsF 1. >n ;arch 12( 1,00 a !enefit inter-co##e iate oratorica# contest 4as he#d in *a a City. 'he contestants 4ere ei ht( amon them *estor *osce( &mma Imperia#( and Luis )enera#( .r. 2. 'here 4ere fi$e 8ud es of the competition( the petitioner "amon :. ?e#ipe( Sr. !ein the Chairman.

+. It appearin that *estor *osce and &mma Imperia# had tied for the first p#ace( the Chairman( apparent#y 4ith the consent of the !oard( !ro@e the tie a4ardin first honors to *osce and second honors to Imperia#. ,. ?or the con$enience of the 8ud es the type4ritten forms contained !#an@ spaces in 4hich( after the names of the ri$a# orators and their respecti$e orations( the 8ud e cou#d not 8ot do4n the rades he thou ht the contestants deser$ed accordin to I>ri ina#ityI( I'ime#inessI( I&n #ishI( ISta e Persona#ityI( IPronunciation and &nunciationI and IVoiceI. ?rom such data he made up his $ote. 10. It 4as disco$ered #ater that the form fi#ed !y De#fin "odri ue9( one of the .ud es( a$e Imperia# and )enera# the fo##o4in ratin s under the a!o$e headin sD Imperia# 1,-10-10-1+-12-12 'ota# ,2-P#ace 2th )enera# 1,-10-10 or 12-1,-12-12 'ota# ,0P#ace /rd. 11. Imperia# asserts that her tota# shou#d !e ,0 instead of ,2 and therefore shou#d ran@ /rd p#ace in "odri ue9G $ote. And if she ot / from "odri ue9( her tota# $ote shou#d ha$e !een , instead of ten( 4ith the resu#t that she copped first p#ace in the spea@in 8oust. 12. "odri ue9 testified that he made a mista@e in addin up Imperia#Gs ratin sD that she shou#d ha$e !een i$en a tota# of ,0( or p#aced *o. /( the same as )enera#D that he 4as not disposed to !rea@ the tie !et4een her and )enera# and insisted that he 4anted to i$e ran@ / to Imperia# and ran@ / a#so to )enera#. 2iscussion. A#thou h it 4ou#d seem anoma#ous for one 8ud e to i$e the same ran@ to t4o contestants( 4e 4i## concede for the moment that De#fin "odri ue9 cou#d ha$e i$en / to Imperia# to )enera#.

%o4e$er if deductions are to !e made from his recorded $ote 6&Ehi!it /7 one may infer that after the contest and !efore su!mittin his $ote he decided to i$e )enera# an ed e o$er Imperia#. %o4M 5nder the caption I&n #ishI )enera# 4as i$en !y himse#f at first I12I( #ater increased to I10I. &$ident#y !ecause after he had added the ratin s of Imperia# and 6erroneous#y7 reached the sum of ,2( he added the ratin s of )enera# 64hich 4ere the same as Imperia# 4ith 12 under I&n #ishI7 and 6mista@en#y7 reached ,2 a#so. So 4hat did he a#soM %e raised the 12 to 10 and thus a$e enera# ,0 to p#ace him o$er Imperia#Gs ,2. 6;ista@in #y a ain( !ecause 4ith 10 )enera# ot ,- instead of ,07. :ut to us the important thin is "odri ue9G vote durin and immediate#y after the affair. %is $ote in &Ehi!it / definite#y a$e )enera# p#ace *o. / and Imperia# p#ace *o. 2. %is ca#cu#ations recorded on &Ehi!it / 4ere not materia#. In fact the Chairman did not !other to fi## out the !#an@ spaces in his o4n form( and mere#y set do4n his conc#usions i$in one to Imperia#( 2 to :ena$ides etc. 4ithout specifyin the ratin s for IVoiceI( I&n #ishI( ISta e Persona#ityI etc. In other 4ords 4hat counted 4as the $ote. Pro!a!#y for the a!o$e reasons the !oard refused to IcorrectI the a##e ed error. 'he situation then is thisF Days after a contest has !een conducted and the 4inners announced( one of the 8ud es confesses he made a mista@e( that the ratin s he a$e the second p#ace 4inner shou#d ha$e !een such as 4ou#d entit#e her to first p#ace. 'he other 8ud es refuse to a#ter their $erdict. ;ay the matter !e !rou ht to the court to o!tain a ne4 a4ard( re$ersin the decision of the !oard of 8ud esM ?or more than thirty years oratorica# ti#ts ha$e !een he#d periodica##y !y schoo#s and co##e es in these is#ands. Inter-co##e iate oratorica# competitions are of more recent ori in. ;em!ers of this court ha$e ta@en part in them either as contestants in their schoo# days1( or as mem!ers of the !oard of 8ud es after4ards. 'hey @no4 some 6fe47 $erdicts did not ref#ect the audienceGs preference and that errors ha$e sometimes !een ascri!ed to the a4ard of the 8ud es. Yet no party e$er presumed to in$o@e 8udicia# inter$entionD for it is un4ritten #a4 in such contests that the !oardGs decision is fina# and unappea#a!#e. Li@e the ancient tournaments of the S4ord( these tournaments of the 3ord app#y the hi hest tenets of sportmanshipF fina##y of the refereeGs $erdict. *o a#i!is( no murmurs of protest. 'he participants are supposed to 8oin the competition to contri!ute to its success !y stri$in their utmostF the pri9es are secondary. *o ri hts to the pri9es may !e asserted !y the contestants( !ecause theirGs 4as mere#y the pri$i#e e to compete for the pri9e( and that pri$i#e e did not ripen into a demanda!#e ri ht un#ess and unti# they 4ere proc#aimed 4inners of the competition !y the appointed ar!iters or referees or 8ud es. Incidenta##y( these schoo# acti$ities ha$e !een imported from the 5nited States. 3e found in American 8urisprudence no #iti ation Cuestionin the determination of the !oard of 8ud es. *o4( the fact that a particu#ar action has had no precedent durin a #on period affords some reason for dou!tin the eEistence of the ri ht sou ht to !e enforced( especia##y 4here occasion for its assertion must ha$e often arisenD and courts are cautious !efore a##o4in it( !ein #oath to esta!#ish a ne4 #e a# princip#e not in harmony 4ith the enera##y accepted $ie4s thereon. 6See C...S. Vo#. 1( p. 10127. 3e o!ser$e that in assumin 8urisdiction o$er the matter( the respondent 8ud e reasoned out that 4here there is a 4ron there is a remedy and that courts of first instance are courts of enera# 8urisdiction. 'he f#a4 in his reasonin #ies in the assumption that Imperia# suffered some wrong at the hands of the !oard of 8ud es. If at a##( there 4as error on the part of one 8ud e( at most. &rror and 4ron do not mean the same thin . I3ron I as used in the aforesaid #e a# princip#e is the depri$ation or $io#ation of a ri ht. As stated !efore( a contestant has no right to the pri9e un#ess and unti# he or she is dec#ared 4inner !y the !oard of referees or 8ud es.

)rantin that Imperia# suffered some #oss or in8ury( yet in #a4 there are instances of Idamnum a!sCue in8uriaI. 'his is one of them. If fraud or ma#ice had !een pro$en( it 4ou#d !e a different proposition. :ut then her action shou#d !e directed a ainst the indi$idua# 8ud e or 8ud es 4ho fraudu#ent#y or ma#icious#y in8ured her. *ot a ainst the other 8ud es. :y the 4ay 4hat is here in stated must not !e understood as app#yin to those acti$ities 4hich the o$ernment has chosen to re u#ate 4ith the creation of the )ames and Amusements :oard in &Eecuti$e >rder *o. /,2( Series 1,00. 8u(gment. In $ie4 of a## the fore oin ( 4e are of the opinion and so dec#are( that the 8udiciary has no po4er to re$erse the a4ard of the !oard of 8ud es of an oratorica# contest. ?or that matter it 4ou#d not interfere in #iterary contests( !eauty contests and simi#ar competitions. 3herefore the order in contro$ersy is here!y set aside. *o costs. MANILA PRINCE HOTEL, petitioner, vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE S+STEM, MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION, COMMITTEE ON PRIVATI4ATION !n" OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL, respondents. *ECISION ELLOSILLO, J.: 'he ;ilipino ;irst Policy enshrined in the 1,+1 Constitution( i.e.( in the grant of rights, privileges, an( concessions covering the national economy an( patrimony, the "tate shall give preference to 9ualifie( ;ilipinos (J1K is in$o@ed !y petitioner in its !id to acCuire 01Q of the shares of the ;ani#a %ote# Corporation 6;%C7 4hich o4ns the historic ;ani#a %ote#. >pposin ( respondents maintain that the pro$ision is not se#f-eEecutin !ut reCuires an imp#ementin #e is#ation for its enforcement. Coro##ari#y( they as@ 4hether the 01Q shares form part of the nationa# economy and patrimony co$ered !y the protecti$e mant#e of the Constitution. 'he contro$ersy arose 4hen respondent )o$ernment Ser$ice Insurance System 6)SIS7( pursuant to the pri$ati9ation pro ram of the Phi#ippine )o$ernment under Proc#amation *o. 00 dated + Decem!er 1,+-( decided to se## throu h pu!#ic !iddin /0Q to 01Q of the issued and outstandin shares of respondent ;%C. 'he 4innin !idder( or the e$entua# Vstrate ic partner(W is to provi(e management e)pertise an(Nor an international mar5etingNreservation system, an( financial support to strengthen the profita-ility an( performance of the +anila Hotel .J2K In a c#ose !iddin he#d on 1+ Septem!er 1,,0 on#y t4o 627 !idders participatedF petitioner ;ani#a Prince %ote# Corporation( a ?i#ipino corporation( 4hich offered to !uy 01Q of the ;%C or 10(/00(000 shares at P21.0+ per share( and "enon :erhad( a ;a#aysian firm( 4ith I''-Sheraton as its hote# operator( 4hich !id for the same num!er of shares at P22.00 per share( or P2.22 more than the !id of petitioner. Pertinent pro$isions of the !iddin ru#es prepared !y respondent )SIS state I. EBECUTION OF THE NECESSAR+ CONTRACTS AITH GSISFMHC # 1. 'he %i hest :idder must comp#y 4ith the conditions set forth !e#o4 !y >cto!er 2/( 1,,0 6reset to *o$em!er /( 1,,07 or the %i hest :idder 4i## #ose the ri ht to purchase the :#oc@ of Shares and )SIS 4i## instead offer the :#oc@ of Shares to the other Bua#ified :iddersF a. 'he %i hest :idder must ne otiate and eEecute 4ith the )SIS<;%C the ;ana ement Contract( Internationa# ;ar@etin <"eser$ation System Contract or other type of contract specified !y the %i hest :idder in its strate ic p#an for the ;ani#a %ote# E E E E !. 'he %i hest :idder must eEecute the Stoc@ Purchase and Sa#e A reement 4ith )SIS E E E E

8. *ECLARATION OF THE AINNING I**ERFSTRATEGIC PARTNER # 'he %i hest :idder 4i## !e dec#ared the 3innin :idder<Strate ic Partner after the fo##o4in conditions are metF a. &Eecution of the necessary contracts 4ith )SIS<;%C not #ater than >cto!er 2/( 1,,0 6reset to *o$em!er /( 1,,07D and !. "eCuisite appro$a#s from the )SIS<;%C and C>P 6Committee on Pri$ati9ation7< >)CC 6>ffice of the )o$ernment Corporate Counse#7 are o!tained.WJ/K Pendin the dec#aration of "enon :erhard as the 4innin !idder<strate ic partner and the eEecution of the necessary contracts( petitioner in a #etter to respondent )SIS dated 2+ Septem!er 1,,0 matched the !id price of P22.00 per share tendered !y "enon :erhad.J2K In a su!seCuent #etter dated 10 >cto!er 1,,0 petitioner sent a mana erAs chec@ issued !y Phi#trust :an@ for 'hirty-three ;i##ion Pesos 6P//(000(000.007 as 1i( "ecurity to match the -i( of the +alaysian *roup, +essrs. Renong 1erha( E E E EJ0K 4hich respondent )SIS refused to accept. >n 11 >cto!er 1,,0( perhaps apprehensi$e that respondent )SIS has disre arded the tender of the matchin !id and that the sa#e of 01Q of the ;%C may !e hastened !y respondent )SIS and consummated 4ith "enon :erhad( petitioner came to this Court on prohi!ition and mandamus. >n 1+ >cto!er 1,,0 the Court issued a temporary restrainin order en8oinin respondents from perfectin and consummatin the sa#e to the ;a#aysian firm. >n 10 Septem!er 1,,- the instant case 4as accepted !y the Court n 1anc after it 4as referred to it !y the ?irst Di$ision. 'he case 4as then set for ora# ar uments 4ith former Chief .ustice &nriCue ;. ?ernando and ?r. .oaCuin ). :ernas( S...( as amici curiae. In the main( petitioner in$o@es Sec. 10( second par.( Art. LII( of the 1,+1 Constitution and su!mits that the ;ani#a %ote# has -een i(entifie( with the ;ilipino nation an( has practically -ecome a historical monument which reflects the vi-rancy of Philippine heritage an( culture. &t is a prou( legacy of an earlier generation of ;ilipinos who -elieve( in the no-ility an( sacre(ness of in(epen(ence an( its power an( capacity to release the full potential of the ;ilipino people. %o all intents an( purposes, it has -ecome a part of the national patrimony.J-K Petitioner a#so ar ues that since 01Q of the shares of the ;%C carries 4ith it the o4nership of the !usiness of the hote# 4hich is o4ned !y respondent )SIS( a o$ernment-o4ned and contro##ed corporation( the hote# !usiness of respondent )SIS !ein a part of the tourism industry is unCuestiona!#y a part of the nationa# economy. 'hus( any transaction in$o#$in 01Q of the shares of stoc@ of the ;%C is c#ear#y co$ered !y the term nationa# economy( to 4hich Sec. 10( second par.( Art. LII( 1,+1 Constitution( app#ies. J1K It is a#so the thesis of petitioner that since ;ani#a %ote# is part of the nationa# patrimony and its !usiness a#so unCuestiona!#y part of the nationa# economy petitioner shou#d !e preferred after it has matched the !id offer of the ;a#aysian firm. ?or the !iddin ru#es mandate that if for any reason, the Highest 1i((er cannot -e awar(e( the 1loc5 of "hares, *"&" may offer this to the other Qualifie( 1i((ers that have vali(ly su-mitte( -i(s provi(e( that these Qualifie( 1i((ers are willing to match the highest -i( in terms of price per share.J+K "espondents eEcept. 'hey maintain thatF ;irst( Sec. 10( second par.( Art. LII( of the 1,+1 Constitution is mere#y a statement of princip#e and po#icy since it is not a self-e)ecuting provision an( re9uires implementing legislationBsC ) ) ) ) %hus, for the sai( provision to operate, there must -e e)isting laws @to lay (own con(itions un(er which -usiness may -e (one.A J,K "econ(( rantin that this pro$ision is se#f-eEecutin ( ;ani#a %ote# does not fa## under the term national patrimony 4hich on#y refers to #ands of the pu!#ic domain( 4aters( minera#s( coa#( petro#eum and other minera# oi#s( a## forces of potentia# ener y( fisheries( forests or tim!er( 4i#d#ife( f#ora and fauna and a## marine 4ea#th in its territoria# sea( and eEc#usi$e marine 9one as cited in the first and second para raphs of Sec. 2( Art. LII( 1,+1 Constitution. Accordin to respondents( 4hi#e petitioner spea@s of the uests 4ho ha$e s#ept in the hote# and the e$ents that ha$e transpired therein 4hich ma@e the hote# historic( these a#one do not ma@e the hote# fa## under the patrimony of the nation. 3hat is more( the mandate of the Constitution is addressed to the State( not to respondent )SIS 4hich possesses a persona#ity of its o4n separate and distinct from the Phi#ippines as a State. %hir(( rantin that the ;ani#a %ote# forms part of the national patrimony( the constitutiona# pro$ision in$o@ed is sti## inapp#ica!#e since 4hat is !ein so#d is on#y 01Q of the outstandin shares of the corporation( not the hote# !ui#din nor the #and

upon 4hich the !ui#din stands. Certain#y( 01Q of the eCuity of the ;%C cannot !e considered part of the national patrimony. ;oreo$er( if the disposition of the shares of the ;%C is rea##y contrary to the Constitution( petitioner shou#d ha$e Cuestioned it ri ht from the !e innin and not after it had #ost in the !iddin . ;ourth( the re#iance !y petitioner on par. V.( su!par. .. 1.( of the !iddin ru#es 4hich pro$ides that if for any reason, the Highest 1i((er cannot -e awar(e( the 1loc5 of "hares, *"&" may offer this to the other Qualifie( 1i((ers that have vali(ly su-mitte( -i(s provi(e( that these Qualifie( 1i((ers are willing to match the highest -i( in terms of price per share ( is misp#aced. "espondents postu#ate that the pri$i#e e of su!mittin a matchin !id has not yet arisen since it on#y ta@es p#ace if for any reason, the Highest 1i((er cannot -e awar(e( the 1loc5 of "hares . 'hus the su!mission !y petitioner of a matchin !id is premature since "enon :erhad cou#d sti## $ery 4e## !e a4arded the !#oc@ of shares and the condition i$in rise to the eEercise of the pri$i#e e to su!mit a matchin !id had not yet ta@en p#ace. ;inally( the prayer for prohi!ition rounded on ra$e a!use of discretion shou#d fai# since respondent )SIS did not eEercise its discretion in a capricious( 4himsica# manner( and if e$er it did a!use its discretion it 4as not so patent and ross as to amount to an e$asion of a positi$e duty or a $irtua# refusa# to perform a duty en8oined !y #a4. Simi#ar#y( the petition for mandamus shou#d fai# as petitioner has no c#ear #e a# ri ht to 4hat it demands and respondents do not ha$e an imperati$e duty to perform the act reCuired of them !y petitioner. 3e no4 reso#$e. A constitution is a system of fundamenta# #a4s for the o$ernance and administration of a nation. It is supreme( imperious( a!so#ute and una#tera!#e eEcept !y the authority from 4hich it emanates. It has !een defined as the fun(amental an( paramount law of the nation.J10K It prescri!es the permanent frame4or@ of a system of o$ernment( assi ns to the different departments their respecti$e po4ers and duties( and esta!#ishes certain fiEed princip#es on 4hich o$ernment is founded. 'he fundamenta# conception in other 4ords is that it is a supreme #a4 to 4hich a## other #a4s must conform and in accordance 4ith 4hich a## pri$ate ri hts must !e determined and a## pu!#ic authority administered. J11K 5nder the doctrine of constitutiona# supremacy( if a #a4 or contract $io#ates any norm of the constitution that #a4 or contract 4hether promu# ated !y the #e is#ati$e or !y the eEecuti$e !ranch or entered into !y pri$ate persons for pri$ate purposes is nu## and $oid and 4ithout any force and effect. 'hus( since the Constitution is the fundamenta#( paramount and supreme #a4 of the nation( it is deemed 4ritten in e$ery statute and contract. Admitted#y( some constitutions are mere#y dec#arations of po#icies and princip#es. 'heir pro$isions command the #e is#ature to enact #a4s and carry out the purposes of the framers 4ho mere#y esta!#ish an out#ine of o$ernment pro$idin for the different departments of the o$ernmenta# machinery and securin certain fundamenta# and ina#iena!#e ri hts of citi9ens. J12K A pro$ision 4hich #ays do4n a enera# princip#e( such as those found in Art. II of the 1,+1 Constitution( is usua##y not se#f-eEecutin . :ut a pro$ision 4hich is comp#ete in itse#f and !ecomes operati$e 4ithout the aid of supp#ementary or ena!#in #e is#ation( or that 4hich supp#ies sufficient ru#e !y means of 4hich the ri ht it rants may !e en8oyed or protected( is se#f-eEecutin . 'hus a constitutiona# pro$ision is se#f-eEecutin if the nature and eEtent of the ri ht conferred and the #ia!i#ity imposed are fiEed !y the constitution itse#f( so that they can !e determined !y an eEamination and construction of its terms( and there is no #an ua e indicatin that the su!8ect is referred to the #e is#ature for action. J1/K As a ainst constitutions of the past( modern constitutions ha$e !een enera##y drafted upon a different princip#e and ha$e often !ecome in effect eEtensi$e codes of #a4s intended to operate direct#y upon the peop#e in a manner simi#ar to that of statutory enactments( and the function of constitutiona# con$entions has e$o#$ed into one more #i@e that of a #e is#ati$e !ody. %ence( un#ess it is eEpress#y pro$ided that a #e is#ati$e act is necessary to enforce a constitutiona# mandate( the presumption no4 is that a## pro$isions of the constitution are se#f-eEecutin . If the constitutiona# pro$isions are treated as reCuirin #e is#ation instead of se#f-eEecutin ( the #e is#ature 4ou#d ha$e the po4er to i nore and practica##y nu##ify the mandate of the fundamenta# #a4. J12K 'his can !e catac#ysmic. 'hat is 4hy the pre$ai#in $ie4 is( as it has a#4ays !een( that E E E E in case of dou!t( the Constitution shou#d !e considered se#f-eEecutin rather than non-se#f-eEecutin E E E E 5n#ess the contrary is c#ear#y intended( the pro$isions of the Constitution shou#d !e considered se#f-eEecutin ( as a contrary ru#e 4ou#d i$e the #e is#ature discretion to determine 4hen( or 4hether( they sha## !e effecti$e. 'hese pro$isions 4ou#d !e su!ordinated to the 4i## of the #a4ma@in !ody( 4hich cou#d ma@e them entire#y meanin #ess !y simp#y refusin to pass the needed imp#ementin statute.J10K

"espondents ar ue that Sec. 10( second par.( Art. LII( of the 1,+1 Constitution is c#ear#y not se#f-eEecutin ( as they Cuote from discussions on the f#oor of the 1,+- Constitutiona# Commission ;". ">D"I)>. ;adam President( I am as@in this Cuestion as the Chairman of the Committee on Sty#e. If the 4ordin of VP"&?&"&*C&W is i$en to B5ALI?I&D ?ILIPI*>S(W can it !e understood as a preference to Cua#ified ?i#ipinos visa-vis ?i#ipinos 4ho are not Cua#ified. So( 4hy do 4e not ma@e it c#earM 'o Cua#ified ?i#ipinos as a ainst a#iensM '%& P"&SID&*'. 3hat is the Cuestion of Commissioner "odri oM Is it to remo$e the 4ord VB5ALI?I&DMW ;". ">D"I)>. *o( no( !ut say definite#y V'> B5ALI?I&D ?ILIPI*>SW as a ainst 4homM As a ainst a#iens or o$er a#iens M ;". *>LL&D>. ;adam President( I thin@ that is understood. 3e use the 4ord VB5ALI?I&DW !ecause the eEistin #a4s or prospecti$e #a4s 4i## a#4ays #ay do4n conditions under 4hich !usiness may !e done. ?or eEamp#e( Cua#ifications on capita#( Cua#ifications on the settin up of other financia# structures( et cetera 6underscorin supp#ied !y respondents7. ;". ">D"I)>. It is 8ust a matter of sty#e. ;". *>LL&D>. Yes.J1-K Buite apparent#y( Sec. 10( second par.( of Art LII is couched in such a 4ay as not to ma@e it appear that it is non-se#f-eEecutin !ut simp#y for purposes of sty#e. :ut( certain#y( the #e is#ature is not prec#uded from enactin further #a4s to enforce the constitutiona# pro$ision so #on as the contemp#ated statute sCuares 4ith the Constitution. ;inor detai#s may !e #eft to the #e is#ature 4ithout impairin the se#f-eEecutin nature of constitutiona# pro$isions. In se#f-eEecutin constitutiona# pro$isions( the #e is#ature may sti## enact #e is#ation to faci#itate the eEercise of po4ers direct#y ranted !y the constitution( further the operation of such a pro$ision( prescri!e a practice to !e used for its enforcement( pro$ide a con$enient remedy for the protection of the ri hts secured or the determination thereof( or p#ace reasona!#e safe uards around the eEercise of the ri ht. 'he mere fact that #e is#ation may supp#ement and add to or prescri!e a pena#ty for the $io#ation of a se#feEecutin constitutiona# pro$ision does not render such a pro$ision ineffecti$e in the a!sence of such #e is#ation. 'he omission from a constitution of any eEpress pro$ision for a remedy for enforcin a ri ht or #ia!i#ity is not necessari#y an indication that it 4as not intended to !e se#f-eEecutin . 'he ru#e is that a se#f-eEecutin pro$ision of the constitution does not necessari#y eEhaust #e is#ati$e po4er on the su!8ect( !ut any #e is#ation must !e in harmony 4ith the constitution( further the eEercise of constitutiona# ri ht and ma@e it more a$ai#a!#e. J11K Su!seCuent #e is#ation ho4e$er does not necessari#y mean that the su!8ect constitutiona# pro$ision is not( !y itse#f( fu##y enforcea!#e. "espondents a#so ar ue that the non-se#f-eEecutin nature of Sec. 10( second par.( of Art. LII is imp#ied from the tenor of the first and third para raphs of the same section 4hich undou!ted#y are not se#f-eEecutin . J1+K 'he ar ument is f#a4ed. If the first and third para raphs are not se#f-eEecutin !ecause Con ress is sti## to enact measures to encoura e the formation and operation of enterprises fu##y o4ned !y ?i#ipinos( as in the first para raph( and the State sti## needs #e is#ation to re u#ate and eEercise authority o$er forei n in$estments 4ithin its nationa# 8urisdiction( as in the third para raph( then a fortiori( !y the same #o ic( the second para raph can on#y !e se#f-eEecutin as it does not !y its #an ua e reCuire any #e is#ation in order to i$e preference to Cua#ified ?i#ipinos in the rant of ri hts( pri$i#e es and concessions co$erin the nationa# economy and patrimony. A constitutiona# pro$ision may !e se#f-eEecutin in one part and non-se#f-eEecutin in another. J1,K &$en the cases cited !y respondents ho#din that certain constitutiona# pro$isions are mere#y statements of princip#es and po#icies( 4hich are !asica##y not se#f-eEecutin and on#y p#aced in the Constitution as mora# incenti$es to #e is#ation( not as 8udicia##y enforcea!#e ri hts - are simp#y not in point. 1asco v. Philippine Amusements an( *aming Corporation J20K spea@s of constitutiona# pro$isions on persona# di nity(J21K the sanctity of fami#y #ife( J22K the $ita# ro#e of the youth in nation-!ui#din ( J2/K the promotion of socia# 8ustice(J22K and the $a#ues of education. J20K %olentino v. "ecretary of ;inance J2-K refers to constitutiona# pro$isions on socia# 8ustice and human ri htsJ21K and on education.J2+K Last#y( :ilos-ayan, &nc. v. +oratoJ2,K cites pro$isions on the promotion of enera# 4e#fare(J/0K the sanctity of fami#y #ife( J/1K the $ita# ro#e of the youth in nation-!ui#din J/2K and the promotion of tota# human #i!eration and de$e#opment.J//K A readin of these pro$isions indeed c#ear#y sho4s that they are not 8udicia##y enforcea!#e constitutiona# ri hts !ut mere#y uide#ines for #e is#ation. 'he $ery terms of the pro$isions manifest that they are on#y princip#es upon 4hich #e is#ations must !e !ased. Res ipsa lo9uitur.

>n the other hand( Sec. 10( second par.( Art. LII of the 1,+1 Constitution is a mandatory( positi$e command 4hich is comp#ete in itse#f and 4hich needs no further uide#ines or imp#ementin #a4s or ru#es for its enforcement. ?rom its $ery 4ords the pro$ision does not reCuire any #e is#ation to put it in operation. It is per se 8udicia##y enforcea!#e. 3hen our Constitution mandates that 6i7n the grant of rights, privileges, an( concessions covering national economy an( patrimony, the "tate shall give preference to 9ualifie( ;ilipinos, it means 8ust that - Cua#ified ?i#ipinos sha## !e preferred. And 4hen our Constitution dec#ares that a ri ht eEists in certain specified circumstances an action may !e maintained to enforce such ri ht not4ithstandin the a!sence of any #e is#ation on the su!8ectD conseCuent#y( if there is no statute especia##y enacted to enforce such constitutiona# ri ht( such ri ht enforces itse#f !y its o4n inherent potency and puissance( and from 4hich a## #e is#ations must ta@e their !earin s. 3here there is a ri ht there is a remedy. $-i .us i-i reme(ium. As re ards our national patrimony, a mem!er of the 1,+- Constitutiona# CommissionJ/2K eEp#ains 'he patrimony of the *ation that shou#d !e conser$ed and de$e#oped refers not on#y to our rich natura# resources !ut a#so to the cu#tura# herita e of our race. It a#so refers to our inte##i ence in arts( sciences and #etters. 'herefore( 4e shou#d de$e#op not on#y our #ands( forests( mines and other natura# resources !ut a#so the menta# a!i#ity or facu#ty of our peop#e. 3e a ree. In its p#ain and ordinary meanin ( the term patrimony pertains to herita e.J/0K 3hen the Constitution spea@s of national patrimony, it refers not on#y to the natura# resources of the Phi#ippines( as the Constitution cou#d ha$e $ery 4e## used the term natural resources( !ut a#so to the cultural heritage of the ?i#ipinos. ;ani#a %ote# has !ecome a #andmar@ - a #i$in testimonia# of Phi#ippine herita e. 3hi#e it 4as restricti$e#y an American hote# 4hen it first opened in 1,12( it immediate#y e$o#$ed to !e tru#y ?i#ipino. ?ormer#y a concourse for the e#ite( it has since then !ecome the $enue of $arious si nificant e$ents 4hich ha$e shaped Phi#ippine history. It 4as ca##ed the Cultural Center of the !3'KAs. It 4as the site of the festi$ities durin the inau uration of the Phi#ippine Common4ea#th. Du!!ed as the #fficial *uest House of the Philippine *overnment it p#ays host to di nitaries and officia# $isitors 4ho are accorded the traditiona# Phi#ippine hospita#ity.J/-K 'he history of the hote# has !een chronic#ed in the !oo@ %he +anila HotelH %he Heart an( +emory of a City .J/1K Durin 3or#d 3ar II the hote# 4as con$erted !y the .apanese ;i#itary Administration into a mi#itary headCuarters. 3hen the American forces returned to recapture ;ani#a the hote# 4as se#ected !y the .apanese to ether 4ith Intramuros as the t4o 627 p#aces for their fina# stand. 'hereafter( in the 1,00As and 1,-0As( the hote# !ecame the center of po#itica# acti$ities( p#ayin host to a#most e$ery po#itica# con$ention. In 1,10 the hote# reopened after a reno$ation and reaped numerous internationa# reco nitions( an ac@no4#ed ment of the ?i#ipino ta#ent and in enuity. In 1,+- the hote# 4as the site of a fai#ed coup (A etat 4here an aspirant for $ice-president 4as Vproc#aimedW President of the Phi#ippine "epu!#ic. ?or more than ei ht 6+7 decades ;ani#a %ote# has !ore mute 4itness to the triumphs and fai#ures( #o$es and frustrations of the ?i#ipinosD its eEistence is impressed 4ith pu!#ic interestD its o4n historicity associated 4ith our stru #e for so$erei nty( independence and nationhood. Veri#y( ;ani#a %ote# has !ecome part of our nationa# economy and patrimony. ?or sure( 01Q of the eCuity of the ;%C comes 4ithin the pur$ie4 of the constitutiona# she#ter for it comprises the ma8ority and contro##in stoc@( so that anyone 4ho acCuires or o4ns the 01Q 4i## ha$e actua# contro# and mana ement of the hote#. In this instance( 01Q of the ;%C cannot !e disassociated from the hote# and the #and on 4hich the hote# edifice stands. ConseCuent#y( 4e cannot sustain respondentsA c#aim that the ;ilipino ;irst Policy pro$ision is not app#ica!#e since what is -eing sol( is only ?!Q of the outstan(ing shares of the corporation, not the Hotel -uil(ing nor the lan( upon which the -uil(ing stan(s. J/+K 'he ar ument is pure sophistry. 'he term 9ualifie( ;ilipinos as used in our Constitution a#so inc#udes corporations at #east -0Q of 4hich is o4ned !y ?i#ipinos. 'his is $ery c#ear from the proceedin s of the 1,+- Constitutiona# Commission '%& P"&SID&*'. Commissioner Da$ide is reco ni9ed. ;". DAVID&. I 4ou#d #i@e to introduce an amendment to the *o##edo amendment. And the amendment 4ou#d consist in su!stitutin the 4ords VB5ALI?I&D ?ILIPI*>SW 4ith the fo##o4in F VCI'IO&*S >? '%& P%ILIPPI*&S >" C>"P>"A'I>*S >" ASS>CIA'I>*S 3%>S& CAPI'AL >" C>*'">LLI*) S'>C= IS 3%>LLY >3*&D :Y S5C% CI'IO&*S.W EEEE

;". ;>*S>D. ;adam President( apparent#y the proponent is a reea!#e( !ut 4e ha$e to raise a Cuestion. Suppose it is a corporation that is +0-percent ?i#ipino( do 4e not i$e it preferenceM ;". DAVID&. 'he *o##edo amendment 4ou#d refer to an indi$idua# ?i#ipino. 3hat a!out a corporation 4ho##y o4ned !y ?i#ipino citi9ensM ;". ;>*S>D. At #east -0 percent( ;adam President. ;". DAVID&. Is that the intentionM ;". ;>*S>D. Yes( !ecause( in fact( 4e 4ou#d !e #imitin it if 4e say that the preference shou#d on#y !e 100-percent ?i#ipino. ;". DAVID&. I 4ant to et that meanin c#ear !ecause VB5ALI?I&D ?ILIPI*>SW may refer on#y to indi$idua#s and not to 8uridica# persona#ities or entities. ;". ;>*S>D. 3e a ree( ;adam President.J/,K EEEE ;". ">D"I)>. :efore 4e $ote( may I reCuest that the amendment !e read a ain. ;". *>LL&D>. 'he amendment 4i## readF VI* '%& )"A*' >? "I)%'S( P"IVIL&)&S A*D C>*C&SSI>*S C>V&"I*) '%& *A'I>*AL &C>*>;Y A*D PA'"I;>*Y( '%& S'A'& S%ALL )IV& P"&?&"&*C& '> B5ALI?I&D ?ILIPI*>S.W And the 4ord V?i#ipinosW here( as intended !y the proponents( 4i## inc#ude not on#y indi$idua# ?i#ipinos !ut a#so ?i#ipino-contro##ed entities or entities fu##y-contro##ed !y ?i#ipinos. J20K 'he phrase preference to 9ualifie( ;ilipinos 4as eEp#ained thus ;". ?>O. ;adam President( I 4ou#d #i@e to reCuest Commissioner *o##edo to p#ease restate his amendment so that I can as@ a Cuestion. ;". *>LL&D>. VI* '%& )"A*' >? "I)%'S( P"IVIL&)&S A*D C>*C&SSI>*S C>V&"I*) '%& *A'I>*AL &C>*>;Y A*D PA'"I;>*Y( '%& S'A'& S%ALL )IV& P"&?&"&*C& '> B5ALI?I&D ?ILIPI*>S.W ;". ?>O. In connection 4ith that amendment( if a forei n enterprise is Cua#ified and a ?i#ipino enterprise is a#so Cua#ified( 4i## the ?i#ipino enterprise sti## !e i$en a preferenceM ;". *>LL&D>. >!$ious#y. ;". ?>O. If the forei ner is more Cua#ified in some aspects than the ?i#ipino enterprise( 4i## the ?i#ipino sti## !e preferredM ;". *>LL&D>. 'he ans4er is Vyes.W ;". ?>O. 'han@ you.J21K &Epoundin further on the ;ilipino ;irst Policy pro$ision Commissioner *o##edo continues P ;". *>LL&D>. Yes( ;adam President. Instead of V;5S'(W it 4i## !e VS%ALL - '%& S'A'& S%ALL )IV& P"&?&"&*C& '> B5ALI?I&D ?ILIPI*>S.W 'his em!odies the so-ca##ed V?i#ipino ?irstW po#icy. 'hat means that ?i#ipinos shou#d !e i$en preference in the rant of concessions( pri$i#e es and ri hts co$erin the nationa# patrimony. J22K 'he eEchan e of $ie4s in the sessions of the Constitutiona# Commission re ardin the su!8ect pro$ision 4as sti## further c#arified !y Commissioner *o##edoJ2/K Para raph 2 of Section 10 eEp#icit#y mandates the VPro-?i#ipinoW !ias in a## economic concerns. It is !etter @no4n as the ?ILIPI*> ?I"S' Po#icy E E E E 'his pro$ision 4as ne$er found in pre$ious Constitutions E E E E

'he term VCua#ified ?i#ipinosW simp#y means that preference sha## !e i$en to those citi9ens 4ho can ma@e a $ia!#e contri!ution to the common ood( !ecause of credi!#e competence and efficiency. It certain#y does *>' mandate the pamperin and preferentia# treatment to ?i#ipino citi9ens or or ani9ations that are incompetent or inefficient( since such an indiscriminate preference 4ou#d !e counterproducti$e and inimica# to the common ood. In the rantin of economic ri hts( pri$i#e es( and concessions( 4hen a choice has to !e made !et4een a VCua#ified forei nerW and a VCua#ified ?i#ipino(W the #atter sha## !e chosen o$er the former.W Last#y( the 4ord 9ualifie( is a#so determina!#e. Petitioner 4as so considered !y respondent )SIS and se#ected as one of the 9ualifie( -i((ers. It 4as pre-Cua#ified !y respondent )SIS in accordance 4ith its o4n uide#ines so that the so#e inference here is that petitioner has !een found to !e possessed of pro$en mana ement eEpertise in the hote# industry( or it has si nificant eCuity o4nership in another hote# company( or it has an o$era## mana ement and mar@etin proficiency to successfu##y operate the ;ani#a %ote#.J22K 'he penchant to try to 4hitt#e a4ay the mandate of the Constitution !y ar uin that the su!8ect pro$ision is not se#f-eEecutory and reCuires imp#ementin #e is#ation is Cuite distur!in . 'he attempt to $io#ate a c#ear constitutiona# pro$ision - !y the o$ernment itse#f - is on#y too distressin . 'o adopt such a #ine of reasonin is to renounce the duty to ensure faithfu#ness to the Constitution. ?or( e$en some of the pro$isions of the Constitution 4hich e$ident#y need imp#ementin #e is#ation ha$e 8uridica# #ife of their o4n and can !e the source of a 8udicia# remedy. 3e cannot simp#y afford the o$ernment a defense that arises out of the fai#ure to enact further ena!#in ( imp#ementin or uidin #e is#ation. In fine( the discourse of ?r. .oaCuin ). :ernas( S...( on constitutiona# o$ernment is apt 'he eEecuti$e department has a constitutiona# duty to imp#ement #a4s( inc#udin the Constitution( e$en !efore Con ress acts pro$ided that there are disco$era!#e #e a# standards for eEecuti$e action. 3hen the eEecuti$e acts( it must !e uided !y its o4n understandin of the constitutiona# command and of app#ica!#e #a4s. 'he responsi!i#ity for readin and understandin the Constitution and the #a4s is not the so#e prero ati$e of Con ress. If it 4ere( the eEecuti$e 4ou#d ha$e to as@ Con ress( or perhaps the Court( for an interpretation e$ery time the eEecuti$e is confronted !y a constitutiona# command. 'hat is not ho4 constitutiona# o$ernment operates.J20K "espondents further ar ue that the constitutiona# pro$ision is addressed to the State( not to respondent )SIS 4hich !y itse#f possesses a separate and distinct persona#ity. 'his ar ument a ain is at !est specious. It is undisputed that the sa#e of 01Q of the ;%C cou#d on#y !e carried out 4ith the prior appro$a# of the State actin throu h respondent Committee on Pri$ati9ation. As correct#y pointed out !y ?r. .oaCuin ). :ernas( S...( this fact a#one ma@es the sa#e of the assets of respondents )SIS and ;%C a Vstate action.W In constitutiona# 8urisprudence( the acts of persons distinct from the o$ernment are considered V state actionW co$ered !y the Constitution 617 4hen the acti$ity it en a es in is a V pu-lic function;W 627 4hen the o$ernment is so si nificant#y in$o#$ed 4ith the pri$ate actor as to ma@e the o$ernment responsi!#e for his actionD and( 6/7 4hen the o$ernment has appro$ed or authori9ed the action. It is e$ident that the act of respondent )SIS in se##in 01Q of its share in respondent ;%C comes under the second and third cate ories of V state action.W 3ithout dou!t therefore the transaction( a#thou h entered into !y respondent )SIS( is in fact a transaction of the State and therefore su!8ect to the constitutiona# command. J2-K 3hen the Constitution addresses the State it refers not on#y to the peop#e !ut a#so to the o$ernment as e#ements of the State. After a##( o$ernment is composed of three 6/7 di$isions of po4er - #e is#ati$e( eEecuti$e and 8udicia#. Accordin #y( a constitutiona# mandate directed to the State is correspondin #y directed to the three 6/7 !ranches of o$ernment. It is undenia!#e that in this case the su!8ect constitutiona# in8unction is addressed amon others to the &Eecuti$e Department and respondent )SIS( a o$ernment instrumenta#ity deri$in its authority from the State. It shou#d !e stressed that 4hi#e the ;a#aysian firm offered the hi her !id it is not yet the 4innin !idder. 'he !iddin ru#es eEpress#y pro$ide that the hi hest !idder sha## on#y !e dec#ared the 4innin !idder after it has ne otiated and eEecuted the necessary contracts( and secured the reCuisite appro$a#s. Since the ;ilipino ;irst Policy pro$ision of the Constitution !esto4s preference on 9ualifie( ;ilipinos the mere tendin of the hi hest !id is not an assurance that the hi hest !idder 4i## !e dec#ared the 4innin !idder. "esu#tant#y( respondents are not !ound to ma@e the a4ard yet( nor are they under o!#i ation to enter into one 4ith the hi hest !idder. ?or in choosin the a4ardee respondents are mandated to a!ide !y the dictates of the 1,+1 Constitution the pro$isions of 4hich are presumed to !e @no4n to a## the !idders and other interested parties.

Adherin to the doctrine of constitutiona# supremacy( the su!8ect constitutiona# pro$ision is( as it shou#d !e( imp#ied#y 4ritten in the !iddin ru#es issued !y respondent )SIS( #est the !iddin ru#es !e nu##ified for !ein $io#ati$e of the Constitution. It is a !asic princip#e in constitutiona# #a4 that a## #a4s and contracts must conform 4ith the fundamenta# #a4 of the #and. 'hose 4hich $io#ate the Constitution #ose their reason for !ein . Para raph V. .. 1 of the !iddin ru#es pro$ides that 6i7f for any reason the Highest 1i((er cannot -e awar(e( the 1loc5 of "hares, *"&" may offer this to other Qualifie( 1i((ers that have vali(ly su-mitte( -i(s provi(e( that these Qualifie( 1i((ers are willing to match the highest -i( in terms of price per share. J21K Certain#y( the constitutiona# mandate itse#f is reason enough not to a4ard the !#oc@ of shares immediate#y to the forei n !idder not4ithstandin its su!mission of a hi her( or e$en the hi hest( !id. In fact( 4e cannot concei$e of a strongerreason than the constitutiona# in8unction itse#f. In the instant case( 4here a forei n firm su!mits the hi hest !id in a pu!#ic !iddin concernin the rant of ri hts( pri$i#e es and concessions co$erin the nationa# economy and patrimony( there!y eEceedin the !id of a ?i#ipino( there is no Cuestion that the ?i#ipino 4i## ha$e to !e a##o4ed to match the !id of the forei n entity. And if the ?i#ipino matches the !id of a forei n firm the a4ard shou#d o to the ?i#ipino. It must !e so if 4e are to i$e #ife and meanin to the ;ilipino ;irst Policy pro$ision of the 1,+1 Constitution. ?or( 4hi#e this may neither !e eEpress#y stated nor contemp#ated in the !iddin ru#es( the constitutiona# fiat is omnipresent to !e simp#y disre arded. 'o i nore it 4ou#d !e to sanction a peri#ous s@irtin of the !asic #a4. 'his Court does not discount the apprehension that this po#icy may discoura e forei n in$estors. :ut the Constitution and #a4s of the Phi#ippines are understood to !e a#4ays open to pu!#ic scrutiny. 'hese are i$en factors 4hich in$estors must consider 4hen $enturin into !usiness in a forei n 8urisdiction. Any person therefore desirin to do !usiness in the Phi#ippines or 4ith any of its a encies or instrumenta#ities is presumed to @no4 his ri hts and o!#i ations under the Constitution and the #a4s of the forum. 'he ar ument of respondents that petitioner is no4 estopped from Cuestionin the sa#e to "enon :erhad since petitioner 4as 4e## a4are from the !e innin that a forei ner cou#d participate in the !iddin is merit#ess. 5ndou!ted#y( ?i#ipinos and forei ners a#i@e 4ere in$ited to the !iddin . :ut forei ners may !e a4arded the sa#e on#y if no ?i#ipino Cua#ifies( or if the Cua#ified ?i#ipino fai#s to match the hi hest !id tendered !y the forei n entity. In the case !efore us( 4hi#e petitioner 4as a#ready preferred at the inception of the !iddin !ecause of the constitutiona# mandate( petitioner had not yet matched the !id offered !y "enon :erhad. 'hus it did not ha$e the ri ht or persona#ity then to compe# respondent )SIS to accept its ear#ier !id. "i ht#y( on#y after it had matched the !id of the forei n firm and the apparent disre ard !y respondent )SIS of petitionerAs matchin !id did the #atter ha$e a cause of action. :esides( there is no time frame for in$o@in the constitutiona# safe uard un#ess perhaps the a4ard has !een fina##y made. 'o insist on se##in the ;ani#a %ote# to forei ners 4hen there is a ?i#ipino roup 4i##in to match the !id of the forei n roup is to insist that o$ernment !e treated as any other ordinary mar@et p#ayer( and !ound !y its mista@es or ross errors of 8ud ment( re ard#ess of the conseCuences to the ?i#ipino peop#e. 'he miscomprehension of the Constitution is re retta!#e. 'hus 4e 4ou#d rather remedy the indiscretion 4hi#e there is sti## an opportunity to do so than #et the o$ernment de$e#op the ha!it of for ettin that the Constitution #ays do4n the !asic conditions and parameters for its actions. Since petitioner has a#ready matched the !id price tendered !y "enon :erhad pursuant to the !iddin ru#es( respondent )SIS is #eft 4ith no a#ternati$e !ut to a4ard to petitioner the !#oc@ of shares of ;%C and to eEecute the necessary a reements and documents to effect the sa#e in accordance not on#y 4ith the !iddin uide#ines and procedures !ut 4ith the Constitution as 4e##. 'he refusa# of respondent )SIS to eEecute the correspondin documents 4ith petitioner as pro$ided in the !iddin ru#es after the #atter has matched the !id of the ;a#aysian firm c#ear#y constitutes ra$e a!use of discretion. 'he ;ilipino ;irst Policy is a product of Phi#ippine nationa#ism. It is em!odied in the 1,+1 Constitution not mere#y to !e used as a uide#ine for future #e is#ation !ut primari#y to !e enforcedD so must it !e enforced. 'his Court as the u#timate uardian of the Constitution 4i## ne$er shun( under any reasona!#e circumstance( the duty of upho#din the ma8esty of the Constitution 4hich it is tas@ed to defend. It is 4orth emphasi9in that it is not the intention of this Court to impede and diminish( much #ess undermine( the inf#uE of forei n in$estments. ?ar from it( the Court encoura es and 4e#comes more !usiness opportunities !ut a$o4ed#y sanctions the preference for ?i#ipinos 4hene$er such preference is ordained !y the Constitution. 'he position of the Court on this matter cou#d ha$e not !een more appropriate#y articu#ated !y Chief .ustice *ar$asa As scrupu#ous#y as it has tried to o!ser$e that it is not its function to su!stitute its 8ud ment for that of the #e is#ature or the eEecuti$e a!out the 4isdom and feasi!i#ity of #e is#ation economic in nature( the Supreme Court has not !een spared criticism for

decisions percei$ed as o!stac#es to economic pro ress and de$e#opment E E E E in connection 4ith a temporary in8unction issued !y the CourtAs ?irst Di$ision a ainst the sa#e of the ;ani#a %ote# to a ;a#aysian ?irm and its partner( certain statements 4ere pu!#ished in a ma8or dai#y to the effect that that in8unction Va ain demonstrates that the Phi#ippine #e a# system can !e a ma8or o!stac#e to doin !usiness here.W Let it !e stated for the record once a ain that 4hi#e it is no !usiness of the Court to inter$ene in contracts of the @ind referred to or set itse#f up as the 8ud e of 4hether they are $ia!#e or attaina!#e( it is its !ounden duty to ma@e sure that they do not $io#ate the Constitution or the #a4s( or are not adopted or imp#emented 4ith ra$e a!use of discretion amountin to #ac@ or eEcess of 8urisdiction. It 4i## ne$er shir@ that duty( no matter ho4 !uffeted !y 4inds of unfair and i##-informed criticism. J2+K Pri$ati9ation of a !usiness asset for purposes of enhancin its !usiness $ia!i#ity and pre$entin further #osses( re ard#ess of the character of the asset( shou#d not ta@e precedence o$er non-materia# $a#ues. A commercia#( nay e$en a !ud etary( o!8ecti$e shou#d not !e pursued at the eEpense of nationa# pride and di nity. ?or the Constitution enshrines hi her and no!#er non-materia# $a#ues. Indeed( the Court 4i## a#4ays defer to the Constitution in the proper o$ernance of a free societyD after a##( there is nothin so sacrosanct in any economic po#icy as to dra4 itse#f !eyond 8udicia# re$ie4 4hen the Constitution is in$o#$ed. J2,K *ationa#ism is inherent in the $ery concept of the Phi#ippines !ein a democratic and repu!#ican state( 4ith so$erei nty residin in the ?i#ipino peop#e and from 4hom a## o$ernment authority emanates. In nationa#ism( the happiness and 4e#fare of the peop#e must !e the oa#. 'he nation-state can ha$e no hi her purpose. Any interpretation of any constitutiona# pro$ision must adhere to such !asic concept. Protection of forei n in$estments( 4hi#e #audi!#e( is mere#y a po#icy. It cannot o$erride the demands of nationa#ism.J00K 'he ;ani#a %ote# or( for that matter( 01Q of the ;%C( is not 8ust any commodity to !e so#d to the hi hest !idder so#e#y for the sa@e of pri$ati9ation. 3e are not ta#@in a!out an ordinary piece of property in a commercia# district. 3e are ta#@in a!out a historic re#ic that has hosted many of the most important e$ents in the short history of the Phi#ippines as a nation. 3e are ta#@in a!out a hote# 4here heads of states 4ou#d prefer to !e housed as a stron manifestation of their desire to c#oa@ the di nity of the hi hest state function to their officia# $isits to the Phi#ippines. 'hus the ;ani#a %ote# has p#ayed and continues to p#ay a si nificant ro#e as an authentic repository of t4entieth century Phi#ippine history and cu#ture. In this sense( it has !ecome tru#y a ref#ection of the ?i#ipino sou# - a place with a history of gran(eur D a most historical setting that has playe( a part in the shaping of a country.J01K 'his Court cannot eEtract rhyme nor reason from the determined efforts of respondents to se## the historica# #andmar@ this *ran( #l( 2ameof hote#s in Asia - to a tota# stran er. ?or( indeed( the con$eyance of this epic eEponent of the ?i#ipino psyche to a#ien hands cannot !e #ess than mephistophe#ian for it is( in 4hate$er manner $ie4ed( a $erita!#e a#ienation of a nationAs sou# for some pieces of forei n si#$er. And so 4e as@F 3hat ad$anta e( 4hich cannot !e eCua##y dra4n from a Cua#ified ?i#ipino( can !e ained !y the ?i#ipinos if ;ani#a %ote# - and a## that it stands for - is so#d to a non-?i#ipinoM %o4 much of nationa# pride 4i## $anish if the nationAs cu#tura# herita e is entrusted to a forei n entityM >n the other hand( ho4 much di nity 4i## !e preser$ed and rea#i9ed if the nationa# patrimony is safe@ept in the hands of a 9ualifie(, 9ea#ous and 4e##-meanin ?i#ipinoM 'his is the p#ain and simp#e meanin of the ;ilipino ;irst Policy pro$ision of the Phi#ippine Constitution. And this Court( heedin the c#arion ca## of the Constitution and acceptin the duty of !ein the e#der#y 4atchman of the nation( 4i## continue to respect and protect the sanctity of the Constitution. AHEREFORE, respondents )>V&"*;&*' S&"VIC& I*S5"A*C& SYS'&;( ;A*ILA %>'&L C>"P>"A'I>*( C>;;I''&& >* P"IVA'IOA'I>* and >??IC& >? '%& )>V&"*;&*' C>"P>"A'& C>5*S&L are directed to C&AS& and D&SIS' from se##in 01Q of the shares of the ;ani#a %ote# Corporation to "&*>*) :&"%AD( and to ACC&P' the matchin !id of petitioner ;A*ILA P"I*C& %>'&L C>"P>"A'I>* to purchase the su!8ect 01Q of the shares of the ;ani#a %ote# Corporation at P22.00 per share and thereafter to eEecute the necessary a reements and documents to effect the sa#e( to issue the necessary c#earances and to do such other acts and deeds as may !e necessary for the purpose. SO OR*ERE*. SOTERA GARCIA *IMAGI A( petitioner( $s. HON. AM ROSIO M. GERAL*E4, Ju"9e, Mun/5/;!. Cou', o2 M!n/.!, '!n5- IV !n" ,-e CIT+ FISCAL OF MANILA( respondents.

LA RA*OR, J.: Certiorari a ainst an order of dismissa# issued !y the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a( and prohi!ition a ainst the ;unicipa# Court of ;ani#a( %on. Am!rosio ;. )era#de9( presidin ( to en8oin it from ta@in co ni9ance ofan information fi#ed !efore it for estafa a ainst the petitioner 6Crimina#Case *o. D-10101-7. >n ;arch 12( 1,00( Assistant ?isca# )re orio ?. Lim of ;ani#a fi#ed aninformation for estafa 6Crimina# Case *o. /01007 a ainst petitioner SoteroDima i!a. 'he information char es that the accused therein( petitioner inthis proceedin s( defrauded( misappropriated( misapp#ied and con$erted( thesum of P200.00( 4hich shou#d ha$e !een de#i$ered to comp#ainant. >n *o$em!er 0( 1,00( after the information had !een read and the accused entered a p#eaof not ui#ty thereto( the court dismissed the information for 4ant of8urisdiction. 'hereafter( on .anuary 11( 1,0-( ?isca# Lim presented anotherinformation a ainst the accused( this time !efore the ;unicipa# Court of ;ani#a. 'he information is a rep#ica of the information fi#ed pre$ious#y inthe Court of ?irst Instance. 5pon the fi#in of this information the accused( petitioner herein( fi#ed a motion to Cuash( a##e in dou!#e 8eopardy. 'he motion 4as denied and upon his fai#ure to o!tain a reconsideration of thedenia# of the motion to Cuash( the accused instituted the present action inthis Court. 'he petitioner c#aim that the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a had 8urisdiction to try the offense char ed in the information fi#ed 4ith it under the authority of the "e$ised Charter of the City of ;ani#a6". A. *o. 20,7( particu#ar#y Section 21( 4hich pro$ides as fo##o4sF S&C. 21. Criminal .uris(iction. H 'he municipa# court sha## ha$e territoria#8urisdiction em!racin the entire po#ice 8urisdiction of the city( and sha## ho#d a dai#y session( Sundays and #e a# ho#idays a#one eEceptedF Pro$ided( ho4e$er( 'hat 4hen a #e a# ho#iday occurs in t4o or more successi$e days or 4hen a Sunday is immediate#y preceded and<or fo##o4ed !y a ho#iday( themunicipa# court may ho#d ni ht session durin said ho#idays. Said courtsha## ha$e 8urisdiction eEc#usi$e of the other courts sittin in the cityo$er a## crimina# cases arisin under the pena# #a4s of the Phi#ippines(4here the offense is committed 4ithin the po#ice 8urisdiction of the cityand the maEimum punishment is !y imprisonment for not more than siE months(or a fine of not more than t4o hundred pesos( or !oth. It sha## a#so concurrent 8urisdiction 4ith the Courts of ?irst Instance o$er a## crimina# cases arisn under the #a4s re#atin to am!#in and mana emant of #otteries( to assau#ts 4here the intent to @i## is not char ed or e$ident upon the tria#( to #arcency( em!e99#ement and estafa 4here the amount of money or property sto#en( em!e99#ed( or other4ise in$o#$ed does not eEceed the sum or $a#ue of t4o hundred pesos( to the sa#e of intoEicatin #iCuors( to fa#se#y impersonatin an officer( to ma#icious mischief( to trespass on )o$ernment or pri$ate property( and to threatenin to ta@e human #ife. It may a#so conduct pre#iminary eEaminations for any offense( 4ithout re ard to the #imits of punishment( and any re#ease( or commit and !ind e$er any person char ed 4ith such offense to secure appearance !efore the proper court. 'he cases of People vs. Palmon( +- Phi#. /00( 21 >.). 2,( and People vs. Colicio( ++ Phi#. 1,- are cited in support of this contention 2C!ro*!. 'he information fi#ed in the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a char esmisappropriation of the sum of P200.00. 'he pena#ty prescri!ed for thisoffense is arresto mayor in its medium and maEimum period 6Art. /10( par. 0("e$ised Pena# Code7. 'he offense char ed( therefore( fa##s 4ithin the eEc#usi$e 8urisdiction of the ;unicipa# Court of ;ani#a in accordance 4ith section 21 of its re$ised charter. :ut it is ar ued that the secondpara raph of the same section( 4hich pro$idesF It sha## a#so ha$e concurrent 8urisdiction 4ith the Courts of ?irst Instanceof ;ani#a o$er a## crimina# cases arisin under the #a4s re#atin to am!#in and mana ement of #otteries( to assau#ts 4here the intent to @i##is not char ed or e$ident upon the tria#( to #arceny( em!e99#ement and estafa 4here the amount of money or propety sto#en( em!e99#ed or other4ise in$o#$ed does not eEceed the sum or $a#ue of t4o hundred pesos( to the sa#eof intoEicatin #iCuors( to fa#se#y impersonatin an officer( to ma#icious mischief( to trespass on )o$ernment or pri$ate property( and to threatenin to ta@e human #ife. . . is a rant of concurrent 8urisdiction to try the same case to the Court of ?irst Instance. 'here are $arious reasons for re8ectin this contention.Section 21 is found in IArtic#e IL - 'he ;unicipa# CourtI of the Charter of;ani#a( and defines the 8urisdiction of the

;unicipa# Court of the City( !othori ina# and concurrent. *o imp#ication may !e made therefrom of a rantconcurrent 8urisdiction to the Court of ?irst Instance. )rants of 8urisdiction cannot !e mere#y imp#ied. 'hen the pro$ision from 4hich the rant is sou ht to !e imp#ied defines the 8urisdiction of the ;unicipa# Court on#y( and cannot possi!#y refer to another court( 4hose 8urisdiction is defined in another #a4 6"epu!#ic Act *o. 2,-7. 'hat the ;unicipa# Court shou#d ha$e concurrent 8urisdiction o$er certain specific crimes tria!#e !ya Court of ?irst Instance is no !ases for the c#aim that the Court of ?irst Instance( con$erse#y( has a#so concurrent 8urisdiction o$er cases tria!#e !y the ;unicipa# Court. Last#y( the Court of ?irst Instance is a court of enera# 8urisdiction and it is unreasona!#e to assume that the Le is#atureintended to rant to it concurrent 8urisdiction o$er minor offenses such as estafa in$o#$in such amounts as may !e #ess than P200.00. 3e ha$e a#so eEamined the cases that ha$e !een cited !y !oth of the partiesto the proceedin s and found out that none of them co$ers the preciseCuestion raised and decided in these proceedin s. 'he petition is here!y denied( 4ith costs a ainst petitioner. 1eng=on, Paras, C.8., Pa(illa, +ontemayor, Reyes, A., 1autista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, 8.1.L., an( n(encia, 88., concur. ).". *o. 1+,20 SHIOJI( petitioner( $s. Hono'!1.e GEO R. HARVE+, Ju"9e o2 F/'0, In0,!n5e o2 M!n/.!, PACIFIC MAIL STEAMSHIP CO. !n" TO+O 8ISEN 8AISHA( respondents. M!.5o.3, J.: '4o Cuestions are presented for decisions in this ori ina# proceedin !y prohi!ition. 'he first Cuestion( pressed !y petitioner( re#ated to the interference on the part of the #o4er court 4ith a 8ud ment of the Supreme Court. 'he second Cuestion( ur ed !y respondents( re#ates to the $a#idity of "u#e 22 6a7 of the Supreme Court. 3hi#e( in our opinion( a reso#ution of the first point is decisi$e of the case( and any discussion of the other point has no more than academic interest( yet ( ha$in in mind the positions of the courtD 4hen one of its o4ner ru#es is assai#ed as Iunconstitutiona#( nu## and $oid(I 4e ha$e decided to i$e serious consideration to !oth Cuestions. In #o ica# seCuence( there fo##o4s a statement of the case and the facts( an opinion on the t4o points a!o$e stated( and the 8ud ment. S'A'&;&*' >? '%& CAS& A*D '%& ?AC'S In cause *o. 1,211 of the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a( 4herein S. Shio8i 4as p#aintiff( and the 'oyo =isen =aisah and the Pacific ;ai# Steamship Co.( 4ere defendants( 8ud ment 4as rendered on >cto!er /1( 1,20( !y .ud e Concepcion presidin in the second !ranch of the court( in fa$or of the p#aintiff and a ainst the defendants 8oint#y and se$era##y for the sum of P1,(0//.2,( 4ith #e a# interest and costs. 'hereafter( the defendants du#y perfected an appea# !y 4ay of !i## of eEceptions( to the Supreme Court of the Phi#ippine Is#ands( and the case 4as doc@eted as ". ). *o. 1+0,2. 1 'he date on 4hich the !i## of eEceptions 4as fi#ed in the office of the c#er@ of the Supreme Court 4as ?e!ruary 1-( 1,22( 4hi#e attorneys for the respecti$e parties recei$ed copies of the same on ?e!ruary 11( 1,22. In accordance 4ith "u#e 21 of the Supreme Court( the appe##ants had thirty days from the receipt of the printed !i## of eEceptions 4ithin 4hich to ser$e and fi#e copies of their !rief. 'his period eEpired on ;arch 1,( 1,22( 4ithout an eEtension of time 4ithin 4hich to present it. Accordin #y( 4hen on ;arch 22 appe##ants fi#ed a motion for an additiona# period( the court( on ;arch 22( 1,22( denied the motion !ecause it 4as fi#ed out of time( and pursuant to "u#e 22 6a7 dismissed the appea#. Su!seCuent order of the court on motions for reconsideration ha$e reaffirmed the order of dismissa#( and ha$e noted the eEception of counse#. 'he re u#ar fifteen-day period fiEed !y the order of the court( of ;arch 22( 1,22( for the issuance of 8ud ment and the return of the records to the #o4er court( ha$in eEpired( on Apri# 12( 1,22( the records 4as transmitted to the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a. &Eecution 4as then issued to enforce the 8ud ment !ut prior to the #e$y the defendants in the case ". ). *o. 1+0,2( fi#ed an action in the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a( doc@et *o. 21,00( !ased principa##y on the a##e ation that the I8ud ment of the

Supreme Court is unconsciona!#e and 4as rendered 4ithout due process of #a4( and that the ru#e 6"u#e 22 JaK7 under 4hich the 8ud ment 4as rendered( is unconstitutiona#( and !ein in conf#ict 4ith #a4 is nu## and $oid(I in 4hich they prayed that a pre#iminary in8unction forth4ith issue en8oinin the respondents from #e$yin any eEecution under the aforesaid 8ud ment and that after hearin the in8unction !e made perpetua#. After 8ud e Concepcion had sin ed and order for the transference of the case to the 8ud e presidin in :ranch III( .ud e %ar$ey issued the pre#iminary in8unction in accordance 4ith the prayer of the comp#aint. 'he countermo$e of the respondents in the in8unction proceedin s pendin the Court of ?irst Instance 4as to fi#e a comp#aint in prohi!ition in the Supreme Court( to compe# the respondent .ud e of ?irst Instance to desist from interferin 4ith the eEecution of the 8ud ment in case *o. 1,211 of the Court of ?irst Instance of ;ani#a and to issue an order re$o@in the pre$ious#y promu# ated !y him. 'he pre#iminary in8unction prayed for as an incident to the comp#aint in prohi!ition 4as immediate#y issued !y the Supreme Court( and has !een comp#ied 4ith !y the respondents herein. Counse# Petitioner herein mo$es for 8ud ment on the p#eadin s. A pu!#ic hearin has !een he#d and the case has !een ar ued 4ith mar@ed a!i#ity !y counse# for !oth parties. 'he attorney for respondents 4as in a particu#ar#y de#icate position( in that he must attac@ the action of the court( !ut it is on#y fair to say that he has maintained to4ard the court the respectfu# attitude 4hich the ethics of his profession reCuires of him. 3e cannot( ho4e$er( fo##o4 counse# into the supercritica# ma9es of his ar ument( and must perforce our opinion to the !i issues. >PI*I>* I. As intimated in the !e innin of this decision( the primary Cuestion raised !y petitioner concerns the action of the .ud e of ?irst Instance in assumin the 8urisdiction to interpret and re$ie4 8ud ment and order of the Supreme Court( and to o!struct the enforcement of the decisions of the appe##ate court. Len thy e#ucidation of the proposition that he on#y function of a #o4er court( 4hen the 8ud ment of a hi h court is returned to its( is the ministeria# one of issuin the order of eEecution( and that #o4er court is 4ithout super$isory 8urisdiction to interpret or to re$erse the 8ud ment of the hi her court( 4ou#d seem to !e superf#uous. A 8ud e of a #o4er court cannot enforce different decrees than those rendered !y the superior court. If each and e$ery Court of ?irst Instance cou#d en8oy the pri$i#e e of o$erru#in decisions of the Supreme Court( there 4ou#d !e no end to #iti ation( and 8udicia# chaos 4ou#d resu#t. Appe##ate 8urisdiction 4ou#d !e a farce if the Supreme Court did not ha$e the po4er of pre$entin inferior courts from medd#in 4ith decisions 4hen sent to them for comp#iance. 3here a cause has !een appea#ed from the Court of ?irst Instance to the Supreme Court of the Phi#ippine Is#ands( and a 8ud ment rendered !y the #atter( no interference there4ith !y the #o4er court can !e to#erated throu h any proceedin s other than such as are directed !y the appe##ate court. 5nti# re$o@ed !y the Supreme Court of the 5nited States( the decision of the Supreme Court of the Phi#ippine Is#ands must stand and !e enforced. 'he inferior court is !ound !y the decree as the #a4 of the case( and must carry it into eEecution accordin to the mandate. 'hey cannot $ary its( or eEamine it for any other purpose than eEecution( or i$e any other or further re#ief( or re$ie4 it upon any matter decided on appea# for error apparent( or intermedd#e 4ith it( further than to sett#e so much as has !een remanded. 'hese are the 4ords of the Supreme Court of the 5nited States in the ear#y case of Si!!a#d $s. 5nited States 6J1+/+K( 12 Pet.( 2++7. 3hen a district court attempted to rant a ne4 tria# su!seCuent to the return of the mandate of the 5nited States Supreme Court( the trite !ut emphatic ru#e of the hi her court 4as that I'he district court had no po4er to set aside the 8ud ment of the Supreme Court( its authority eEtendin on#y to eEecutin the mandate.I 6&E parte Du!uCue N Pacific "ai#road J1+-2K( 1 3a##.( -, See( further( State eE re#. $s. Superior Court J1+,2K + 3ash.( 0,1D State eE. re#. %eirs of )ee $s. Dre4 and 'hompson J1++-K( /+ La. Ann.( 212D In re A#eEander J1,11K( 121 La.( +02.7 3hat has !een said is in 8ustification of the pre#iminary in8unction heretofore ranted orderin .ud e of ?irst Instance %ar$ey to desist from interferin 4ith the eEecution of the 8ud ment in the case of S. Shio8i $s. 'oyo =isen =aisha( et a#.( and reCuirin him to re$o@e the in8unction order pre$ious#y issued. 3e ou ht proper#y to stop here( !ecause an attac@ on the $a#idity of the ru#es of the Supreme Court shou#d not !e initiated !y co##atera# proceedin s in a #o4er court( !ut as !efore eEp#ained( 4e 4ai$e this phase of the case so as to do fu## 8ustice the comp#ainant and so as to ma@e a definite ru#in on the point 4hich he raises. II. 'he Supreme Court of the Phi#ippine Is#and is eEpress#y authori9ed !y statute to ma@e ru#es for re u#ation of its practice and

the conduct of its !usiness. Section 2+ of the .udiciary Act 6*o. 1/-7( rants to the mem!ers of the Supreme Court the po4er to Ima@e a## necessary ru#es for order#y procedure in Supreme Court . . . in accordance 4ith the pro$isions of the Code of Ci$i# Procedure( 4hich ru#es sha## !e . . . !indin upon the se$era# courts.I 'he Code of Ci$i# Procedure( in turn( pro$ides in its section -( as fo##o4sF 'he 8ud es of the Supreme Court sha## prepared ru#es re u#atin the conduct of !usiness in the Supreme Court and in the Courts of ?irst Instance. 'he ru#es sha## !e uniform for a## Courts of ?irst Instance throu hout the Is#ands. Such ru#es( 4hen du#y made and promu# ated and not in conf#ict 4ith the #a4s of the 5nited States or of the Phi#ippine Is#ands( sha## !e !indin and must !e o!ser$ed( !ut no 8ud ement sha## !e re$ersed !y reason of a fai#ure of the court to comp#y 4ith such ru#es un#ess the su!stantia# ri hts of a party ha$e !een impaired !y such fai#ure. 'he ru#es of the Supreme Court of the Phi#ippines( drafted principa##y !y ;r. .ustice 3i##ard( 4ere promu# ated soon after the or ani9ation of the court of American occupation of the Phi#ippines. Amendments of the ru#es 4ere announced from time to time. In 1,+1( a specia# committee of three mem!ers of the Supreme Court 4as appointed !y the court( to compi#e and re$ise the ru#es of court( and the after #on study( and after a num!er of pu!#ic hearin s( a craft 4as presented( 4hich 4as adopted !y the court on >cto!er 2( 1,1+. 'hese are ru#es 4hich( 4ith a fe4 minor amendments( are no4 in force. 'he ru#es of the Supreme Court and the ru#es of the Courts of ?irst Instance a#i@e contain pro$isions intended to faci#itate the pro ress of 8udicia# !usiness. >f this nature( and of particu#ar interest here( are ru#es 21( 22( 2/( and 22 of the Supreme court. 'he first mentioned ru#e( 21( pro$ides in mandatory #an ua e that I3ithin thirty days from the receipt of the printed record on appea# or !i## of eEception the appe##ant sha## ser$e upon the appe##ee errors and fi#e thirty copies thereof 4ith the c#er@.I 'he fo##o4in ru#e assi n a simi#ar period of time for the ser$in and fi#in of the !riefs of the appe##e. "u#e 2/( #i@e4ise in mandatory #an ua e( pro$ides that I;otions for eEtension of time for fi#in of !riefs must !e presented !efore the eEpiration of the time mentioned in ru#es 21 and 22( or 4ithin a time fiEed !y specia# order of the court. *o such eEtension 4i## !e a##o4ed eEcept on notice to the opposite party in accordance 4ith "u#e 1/( and for ood and sufficient cause sho4n. &Etensions may a#so !e ranted upon stipu#ation of counse#( 4ithin reasona!#e #imits.I In rea#ity( this 4as the ru#e 4hich appe##ants fai#ed to o!ser$e. 'hen comes "u#e 22 6a7 specifica##y cha##en ed in these proceedin s( readin as fo##o4sF IIf the appe##ant( in any ci$i# case( fai#s to ser$e his !rief 4ithin the time prescri!ed !y these ru#es the court may( on motion of the appe##ee and notice to the appe##ant( or on its o4n motion( dismiss the !i## of eEceptions or the appea#.I 'he #ater ru#e( it may !e o!ser$ed( !y the use of the 4ord ImayI( and in #an ua e Cuite simi#ar to "u#e 0( under I:riefsI( of the "u#es of the Supreme Court of the 5nited States( confirms the discretionary po4er of the court to dismiss actions for 4ant of prosecution. 'he practice of the court in the enforcement of its ru#es has !een uniform. 'he court has one upon the assumption that a#thou h it retains the po4er of amendment( ne$erthe#ess( its is the duty of the court to enforce its ru#es( to the !est if its 8ud ment( irrespecti$e of the case( the parties or the counse#. &Etensions of time for the fi#in of !riefs are dai#y ranted. 'he first eEtension ordinari#y is for fifteen days( the second for ten days( and the third for fi$e daysD !ut an un$aryin prereCuisite is that motions !e presented !efore the eEpiration of the period. 'his means that attorneys can ha$e a fu## period of siEty days for the preparation of their !riefs( and in eEtraordinary cases( for ood and sufficient reason( e$en this period 4i## !e en#ar ed. :ut if the !rief of the appe##ant is not fi#ed 4ithin the thirty-day period( or if a motion for an eEtensions of time is not fi#ed !efore the eEpiration of this period( then such cases are remo$ed from the ca#endar( either on motion of appe##e( or on the courtGs o4n motion.( 'he Supreme Court is( of course( primari#y the !est 8ud e of its o4n ru#es. It is( accordin #y( of interest to note 4hat the court has heretofore said of the ru#es. In Paterno $s. City of ;ani#a 6J1,10K( 11 Phi#.( 2-7( ru#es 1, and 20 4ere he#d $a#id and the appea# 4as dismissed. In the course of the decision( ;r. .ustice 'rent( spea@in for the court( said that I'hat ru#es of this court are fe4 and simp#e. 'hey are the #a4s of the court and must !e o!eyed unti# repea#ed( un#ess it can !e sho4n that they are in conf#ict 4ith the #a4s of the 5nited States or of the Phi#ippine Is#ands. . . . 'hese ru#es mean somethin ( other4ise they 4ou#d not ha$e !een promu# ated.I ;r. .ustice ?isher( 4ho drafted the ne4 ru#es of the Supreme Court( in su!mittin the ru#es for consideration( a$e as principa# chan e( Ithe discoura ement of di#atory tactics !y imposin upon the mo$in party the duty of proceedin prompt#y under pena#ty of dismissa# of the appea#.I In Sa#a$eria $s. A#!indo 6J1,1,K( /0 Phi#.( ,227( it 4as saidF 'he "u#es of the Supreme Court of the Phi#ippine Is#ands effecti$e after the first day of .anuary( nineteen hundred and nineteen( 4ere drafted 4ith the primary o!8ect of eEpeditin 8ustice. . . . >n the supposition that the Supreme Court 4as( as it is a court of appea#( period of time 4ere fiEed 4ithin 4hich attorneys must act( not to ur e on the s#u ard and the di#atory. If certain pro$isions of the ru#es 4ere not fo##o4ed automatica##y the appea# 4ou#d disappear.

'he interpretation of the "u#es of the Supreme Court of the Phi#ippine Is#ands is in su!stantia# accord 4ith the interpretation of correspondin ru#es !y the other courts. "u#es of court prescri!in the time 4ithin 4hich certain acts must !e done( or certain he#d as a!so#ute#y indispensa!#e to the pre$ention of need#ess de#ays and to the order#y and speedy dischar e of !usiness. 'he num!er of instances in 4hich courts ha$e( !y ru#e( fi##ed out the terms of the statutes can !e rea#i9ed on turnin to the encyc#opedias. 'he reason for ru#es of this nature is !ecause the dispatch of !usiness !y courts 4ou#d !e impossi!#e( and into#era!#e de#ays 4ou#d resu#ts( 4ithout ru#es o$ernin practice( and desi ned to eEpedite the transaction of !usiness. Such ru#es are necessary incident to the proper( efficient and order#y dischar e of 8udicia# functions. 6See 212 A. S. ".( -/,( notes.7 In other 8urisdictions( there has !een no dou!t of the $a#idity of such ru#es( and that fai#ure to comp#y 4ith them may depri$e the appe##ant of his ri ht to the 8ud ement of the appe##ate court. ?or eEamp#e( 4here the record 4as not fi#ed !y the appe##ant 4ithin the time prescri!ed !y the "u#es of the 5nited States Supreme Court( and the appe##ee fi#ed a copy of it( the appea# 4as dismissed upon his motion 65. S. $s. ?remont J1+00K( 1+ %o4.( /0.7 A ain( 4here a ru#e of the Supreme Court of ?#orida #imited the time to ten days after the return day of 4rits of error( 4ithin 4hich a motion to stri@e the records or a part thereof( can !e made( and 4hen a motion 4as made after the #apse of such #imited time( the court he#d that it cou#d not entertain or consider it. 6;c"ae $s. Preston J1,01K( 02 ?#a.( 1++. "u#es of court( promu# ated !y authority of #a4( ha$e the force and effect of #a4( if not in conf#ict 4ith positi$e #a4. 6Inchausti N Co. $s. De Leon J1,1/K( 22 Phi#.( 222.7 'he ru#e is su!ordinate to the statute( and( in case of conf#ict( the statute 4i## pre$ai#. An instance is 4here Con ress eEpress#y ena!#ed the courts to ma@e esta!#ish a## necessary ru#es for the order#y conduct of !usiness( pro$ided such ru#es 4ere not repu nant to the #a4s of the 5nited States( in the reat case of 3ayman $s. Southard 6J1+20K( 10 3heat.( 17( made the remar@ that Ithese section i$e the court fu## po4er o$er a## matters of practice. . . .I "ecurrin no4 to section 2+ of the .udiciary La4( and section - of the Code of Ci$i# Procedure( 4hich constitute the #e is#ati$e authority for the promu# ation of ru#es !y the Supreme Court of the Phi#ippine Is#ands( it is to !e noted( in the first p#ace( that the court is i$en the po4er to ma@e a## necessary ru#es for order#y procedure in the court( and for re u#atin the conduct of !usiness in the court. 3e apprehend that 4ithin this #an ua e 4ou#d !e inc#uded re u#ations ha$in to do 4ith the preparation and fi#in of !riefs. 'he #a4 a#so pro$ides that such ru#es sha## !e !indin and must !e o!ser$ed. 'he enera# #imitation is( that the ru#es must not !e in conf#ict 4ith #a4s of the 5nited States or of the Phi#ippine Is#ands. 'he specific #imitation is that no 8ud ment sha## !e re$ersed !y reason of the fai#ure of the court to comp#y 4ith such ru#es( un#ess the su!stantia# ri hts of the party ha$e !een impaired !uy such fai#ure. As the specific #imitation in section - of the Code of Ci$i# Procedure is not here in Cuestion( since the Supreme Court is affirmin and not re$ersin a 8ud ment( the 4ho#e case comes do4n to a determination of 4hether or not "u#e 22 6a7 is in conf#ict 4ith any #a4 of the 5nited States or of the Phi#ippine Is#ands. "espondents point out no pro$ision of a federa# statute 4hich !ears on the issue( and 4e @no4 of none. In addition to emphasi9in that the ru#es prepared !y the Supreme Court sha## !e Iin accordance 4ith the pro$ision of the Code of Ci$i# Procedure(I counse# specifica##y re#ies on sections 2( 000( 002 and 00/ of the Code. A portion of section 2 of the Code of Ci$i# Procedure is Cuoted !y respondents( !ut 4e prefer to set forth the entire section. It readsF I'he pro$isions of this Code( and the proceedin s under it( sha## !e #i!era##y construed( in order to promote its o!8ect and assist the parties in o!tainin speedy 8ustice.I 3e can concei$e of no direct app#ica!i#ity of this pro$ision of #a4( un#ess it !e that ru#es of court sha## !e #i!era##y construed( and that the construction sha## !e such as to assist the parties in o!tainin speedy 8ustice. In rea#ity( it 4as the #atter purpose 4hich the court had in mind 4hen it #aid do4n definite period for the fi#in of !riefs( and he#d !oth the parties and the court to a comp#iance there4ith. Portions of sections 000(002 and 00/ of the Code of Ci$i# Procedure are a#so Cuoted !y respondents. :ut it 4i## !e noticed in this connection( that these $arious sections spea@ of the dismissa# of !i##s of eEceptions. 'here is no such Cuestion !efore us. "espondents undou!ted#y ha$e a perfect#y ood !i## of eEceptions. 3here they fai#ed 4as in ta@in the neEt step seasona!#y( 4ith the resu#t that the 8ud ment of the tria# court stands. It is our ho#din that "u#e 22 6a7 is not in conf#ict 4ith any #a4 of the 5nited States or of the Phi#ippines( !ut is a necessary ru#e for order#y procedure and for re u#atin the conduct of !usiness in Supreme Court. It is a ru#e 4hich re#ates to a matter of practice

and procedure o$er 4hich the Le is#ature has not eEercised its po4er. It is a ru#e 4hich does not operate to depri$e a party of any statutory ri ht. It is a ru#e in harmony 4ith 8udicia# practice and procedure o$er 4hich the Le is#ature has not eEercised its po4er. It is a ru#e 4hich does not operate to depri$e a party of any statutory ri ht. It is a ru#e in harmony 4ith 8udicia# practice and procedure and essentia# to the eEistence of the courts. And( fina##y( it is a ru#e 4hich must !e enforced accordin to the discretion of the court E;>E81. Independent of any statutory pro$ision( 4e assert that e$ery court has inherent po4er to do a## thin s reasona!#y necessary for the administration of 8ustice 4ithin the scope of its 8urisdiction. Any mis i$in s one mi ht entertain 4ith the reference to the 8ustice of this decision must disappear 4hen it !rou ht to mind that the respondents herein a#ready ha$e had a day in courtD that the presumption of the Code on 4hich they p#ace so much re#iance is a#4ays in fa$or of the correctness of the 8ud ment of the #o4er court( that an appea# is neither an inherent ri ht nor a necessary e#ement of due process or #a4D that !oth !ench and !ar must !e he#d to strict accounta!i#ity for the speedy administration of 8usticeD that the sta!i#ity of the 4ho#e 8udicia# structure 4ou#d !e sha@en !y the appe##ate court comp#acent#y permittin an inferior court to re$erse the 8ud ment of the formerD and that for the Supreme Court to pur e counse# of his ne #i ence and to reinstate his cause 4ou#d !e mere#y to in$ite char es of fa$oritism and 4ou#d #ead to ne$er-endin confusion. Counse# for the respondents spea@s incidenta##y of his desire to ha$e the $a#idity of the "u#es of the Supreme Court of the Phi#ippine Is#ands and !y the Supreme Court of the 5nited States. A#thou h 4e are a4are of no constitutiona# Cuestion in$o#$ed( in order a ain to i$e counse# a## the #atitude possi!#e( 4e 4i## say that ( on proper motion( and on presentation of a sufficient supersedeas !ond( the instant proceedin s 4i## !e stayed in order to a##o4 counse#( if he desire( to ta@e the case to the Supreme Court of the 5nited States dh'1&=y>iB. In corro!oration of the fore oin ( the 4rit prayed for is ranted( and the pre#iminary in8unction is made permanent. 3ithout specia# findin s as to costs( it is so ordered. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, p#aintiff-appe##ee( $s. ERNESTO LA8AN*ULA ( 4APANTA, defendant-appe##ant CONCEPCION, JR., J.: ;A*DA'>"Y "&VI&3 of the death sentence imposed !y the Circuit Crimina# Court of Pasi ( "i9a#( upon the accused &rnesto La@andu#a y Oapanta in Crimina# Case *o. CCC-VII--2-Ca#oocan City. 'he said accused( &rnesto La@andu#a y Oapanta 4as char ed( to ether 4ith .ohn Doe alias Dominador :e#tran and Peter Doe alias 'omas ;a no( 4ith "o!!ery 4ith %omicide( in an information dated .anuary 1,( 1,-+ and fi#ed 4ith the Court of ?irst Instance of "i9a#( Ca#oocan City :ranch( on .anuary 2/(1,-+( committed as fo##o4sF 'hat on or a!out the 1-th day of Decem!er( 1,-1( in Ca#oocan City( Phi#ippines and 4ithin the 8urisdiction of this %onora!#e Court( the a!o$e-named accused( conspirin to ether and mutua##y he#pin one another( 4ith intent of ain and !y means of force( $io#ence and intimidation( that is !y sta!!in one ?ernando Saya 'an( did then and there 4i#fu##y( un#a4fu##y and fe#onious#y ta@e( ro! and carry a4ay cash amountin to P200.00 !e#on in to :enito 'an( to the dama e and pre8udice of the o4ner thereof( in the aforementioned amount of P200.00D and as a further conseCuence of said force( $io#ence and intimidation emp#oyed on the person of ?ernando Saya 'an( the #atter 4as sta!!ed on the $ita# parts of the !ody( there!y inf#ictin upon him serious physica# in8uries 4hich caused his instantaneous death. >n#y the accused &rnesto La@andu#a y Oapanta 4as apprehended( and 4hen arrai ned on ?e!ruary 1( 1,-+( he entered a p#ea of I*ot )ui#ty.I :ut( for reasons( most#y due to reCuests for postponement !y counse# for the accused on the round that he 4as not ready for tria# and the a!sence of the tria# 8ud e( the case 4as not heard unti# after the case 4as transferred to the Circuit Crimina# Court of Pasi ( "i9a#. .ud ment 4as rendered on the case 4here!y the said accused 4as sentenced( under the char e aforesaid( to

suffer the death pena#ty and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased ?ernando Saya 'an in the amount of P12(000.00( and :enito 'an in the amount of P1+2.00( 4ithout su!sidiary imprisonment in case of inso#$ency( and to pay the costs of suit. 'he Peop#eGs $ersion of the incident is as fo##o4sF &ditha de #a "osa( dau hter-in-#a4 of :ernardo 'an( o4ner of a sari-sari store #ocated at 200- /rd A$enue( Ca#oocan City( dec#ared that on Decem!er 1-( 1,-1 at a!out ,F/0 oGc#oc@ p.m.( she 4as the one attendin to the store customers 6 p. !K, t.s.n., 8uly !!, !3437. She noticed four persons standin near!y the store. >f these four persons( she reco ni9ed one of them !y face 6 p. !!, t.s.n.7. .ust then( a !oy came in to ma@e a purchase and as she turned around to et the !oyGs chan e( &rnesto La@andu#a and a companion #ater Identified to !e Dominador :e#tran rushed into the store. &rnesto La@andu#a ra!!ed the money !oE 6 p. !!, t.s.n., &(7. Instincti$e#y she shouted G"o!!ersG and at this instance Visaya( referrin to the deceased ?ernando Saya 'an( 4ho an adopted son of her mother-in-#a4( came in from the @itchen and chased the t4o men as far as the storeGs iron s#idin door 6 p. !!, t.s.n., &(7. &rnesto La@andu#a fe##ed ?ernando Saya 'an 4ith a fist !#o4 to his chest 6p. 11( t.s.n.7. ?ernando ot up and as he prepared to rush at the accused( the #atter he#d his 6SayaGs7 arms and simu#taneous#y uttered the 4ords of his companion G "a5sa5in mo na, lumala-an.R Bp. !/, t.s.n., &(C. GAdorG sta!!ed ?ernando 4ith a 10 inch @nife hittin the #atter on the #eft side of the !reast near the armpit 6p. !/7 6P#s. see &Ehi!it G)G( p. 212( rec.7. After the sta!!in ( the accused and his companion ran a4ay. 6 p. !/, t.s.n., &(7. ?ernando Saya 'an as@ed for he#p 6p. 1/( t N ;7. &ditha to ether 4ith others 4ho #end succor( !rou ht ?ernando to the @itchenD ?ernando 4as #ater on !rou ht to the *orth )enera# %ospita# 4here he died. 6pp. 1/-12( t.s.n.( &(.7 &ditha further dec#ared that the money !oE contained a!out P200.00 pesos 4hen she counted the sa#es at a!out 1F00 p.m. that e$enin and that the t4o ro!!ers 4ere a!#e to ra! the money !oE as she 4as ta@in some chan e for the !oy 4ho made a purchase. 6p. !? t.s.n. 7. She 4as !rou ht to the municipa# !ui#din the neEt mornin 4here her 4ritten statement &Ehi!it G)G 4as ta@en. 6p. 1-( t.s.n. 7 S t. Di9on( detecti$e "amon I nacio and Venancio :anto 4ho responded to a te#ephone ca## reportin the ro!!ery( eEecuted their 8oint affida$it &Ehi!it G&G 6p. /!K, rec.7 4herein they narrated that it 4as ;a8or ;arce#o >ro9co 4ho informed them of the incident that happened at the corner of /rd St. and +th A$enue( Ca#oocan City( and that the comp#ainants 4ere then at the #atterGs house. 'hey first fetched the comp#ainants from ;a8or >ro9coGs house and thereafter repaired to the p#ace of the incident 4here they conducted an on the spot in$esti ation. In &Ehi!it G&G( they stated that se$era# pieces of coins amountin to P-.00 4ere found !y them scattered on the f#oor. 'hey a#so found &Ehi!it G:G( the sca!!ard and the ha#f pair of s#ipper( &Ehi!it GCG( 4hich accordin to &ditha de #a "osa 'an 4ere #eft !y a certain .ohn Doe GAdorGD that &ditha pointed to &rnesto La@andu#a and "o e#io ;endo9a as amon the four 4ho 4ere responsi!#e for the ro!!ery and sta!!in of ?ernando Saya 'an and 4hen they apprehended the t4o suspects( they admitted their participation in the offense( !ut imp#icated .ohn Doe GAdorG as the one 4ho sta!!ed the $ictim. 'hey a#so stated in &Ehi!it G:G that they 4ere a!#e to reco$er part of the #oot in the amount of P 1+.00 from the 4ife of &rnesto La@andu#a. B )h. M M, p. /!K, Rec.C. S t. ;endo9a further dec#ared that 4hen they 4ere in$esti atin the t4o suspects at the po#ice department( they admitted that 4hen the $ictim resisted( &rnesto to#d his companion Dominador :e#tran( G "a5sa5in mo na, lumala-anG and Dominador :e#tran did sta! the deceased. 6pp. 3-!K, t.s.n., 8uly 3,!3437. :ernarda 'an( dec#ared that after the incident( the 4ife of &rnesto La@andu#a( on t4o occasions( p#eaded 4ith her to ha$e the case sett#ed amica!#y. She offered her P +00.00 in sett#ement of the case( !ut she refused. 6 pp. /'-/0, t.s.n., 8uly !?,!3437. Dr. &rnesto I!arro#a( ;edico-Le a# >fficer of the *:I conducted a post-mortem eEamination of the $ictim and his findin s 4ere contained in his *ecropsy "eport *o. *-1-1+00. 6 )h. MAM, p. /K,?, Rec.; p. ', t.s.n., 8uly J, !3437. %e confirmed( on the 4itness stand( that the deceased died due to a sta! 4ound on the #eft chest 4hich cou#d ha$e !een caused !y a sin #e !#aded instruments. 6p. 4, t.s.n., 8uly J,!3437.

'he accused( &rnesto La@andu#a y Oapanta( on the other hand( 4hi#e admittin that he 4as near the scene of the crime 4hen it 4as committed( denied participation in its commission. %e a#so denied that he to#d IAdorI to sta! the deceased ?ernando Saya 'an. %e dec#ared that at a!out ,F/0 oGc#oc@ to 10F00 oGc#oc@ in the e$enin of Decem!er 1-( 1,-1( he 4ent to the store of :enito 'an to !uy some ci arettes. 3hen he arri$ed at the store( he met ?e#iE Itchon and &fren &sCui$e# 4ho 4ere drin@in !eer and ta#@ed 4ith them. Itchon 4as particu#ar#y interested in securin a dri$erGs #icense and as@ed for his assistance in securin one. 3hi#e they 4ere thus con$ersin ( Dominador :e#tran( nic@named IAdorI( came to the store to !uy !eer. :ut( :enito 'an( the storeo4ner( refused to se## him !eer. As a resu#t( an a#tercation ensued. Sudden#y( the I!oyI of :enito 'an( the deceased ?ernando Saya 'an( appeared and !oEed IAdorI on the face( causin the #atter to fa##. 'he deceased 4ent to4ards IAdorI to hit him a ain( !ut IAdorI stood up( dre4 a @nife from his 4aist!and( and sta!!ed the deceased. 'hen( IAdorI ran a4ay. So did ?e#iE Itchon and &fren &sCui$e#. 'hen( he heard unfire and sa4 :enito 'an ho#din a un in his hands. %e to#d :enito 'an not to fire a ain as they 4ere many peop#e around and he mi ht hit some!ody. %e then he#d the deceased !y the shou#ders and he#ped him to his feet. :ut( :enito 'an ordered him to put the deceased do4n 61itiwan mo yan.7 So( he re#eased the deceased. :enito 'an as@ed him 4ho the assai#ants 4ere( !ut he to#d 'an that he did not @no4 them. :enito 'an( ho4e$er( 4as insistent and 4arned him that IIf you 4i## not point them to me( I 4i## inc#ude you(I !ut he stuc@ to his ans4er that he did not @no4 4ho the persons 4ere. 1 %e 4ent home( and #ater that e$enin he 4as arrested !y "amon I nacio and )audencio Di9on( mem!ers of the Ca#oocan City Po#ice Department and !rou ht to the po#ice headCuarters 4here he 4as made to si n a confession( 2 after he 4as ma#treated !y the said po#icemen. $ 'o support his c#aim( the accused presented the testimony of ?e#iE Itchon and &fren &sCui$e#( as 4e## as the medica# certificate issued !y the medico-#e a# officer of the Ca#oocan City )enera# %ospita# 4ho eEamined him in the afternoon of Decem!er 11(1,-1. ) 'he tria# court ho4e$er( re8ected the defense and found that the accused did in fact participate in the commission of the crime comp#ained of. 3e ha$e eEamined the records of the case 4ith reat care and find no co ent reason to distur! the findin s of fact of the tria# court. 'he a#i!i of the accused that he 4as outside the store of :enito 'an 4hen the crime 4as committed is ne ated !y &ditha de #a "osa 'an 4ho cate orica##y dec#ared that the accused entered the store and too@ a4ay the cash !oE 4hich contained their sa#es for the dayD that it 4as the accused 4ho !oEed the deceased ?ernando Saya 'an on the chest( he#d him !y the hands( and directed Dominador :e#tran to sta! him !ecause he 4as fi htin !ac@. &ditha 'an @ne4 the accused persona##y so that there 4as no possi!i#ity of her committin an error in Identifyin the accused as one of the ma#efactors( and the appe##ant fai#ed to sho4 that she had any possi!#e moti$e to fa#se#y imp#icate him in the commission of the offense. :esides( in order to accept a#i!i as a meritorious defense( it must !e sho4n that it 4as physica##y impossi!#e for the accused to !e at the scene of the crime 4hen it 4as committed. In the instant case( ho4e$er( the accused admitted that he 4as in the store of :enito 'an 4hen the crime 4as committed and e$en he#d the hands of the deceased in order to he#p him up( so that it 4as not impossi!#e for him to ha$e committed the crime as testified to !y the prosecution 4itness. ;oreo$er( as the #o4er court said( the 4ife of the appe##ant offered to pay :ernarda 'an( the adopti$e parent of the deceased( the amount of P+00.00( as sett#ement of the case( an act 4hich constitutes an imp#ied admission of ui#t. % 3e a#so find no merit in the appe##antGs c#aim that the #o4er court erred in assumin 8urisdiction o$er the case. 'he appe##ant ar ues that the transfer of the case from the Court of ?irst Instance of "i9a# to the Circuit Crimina# Court( in accordance 4ith Administrati$e >rder *o. 202 issued !y the Secretary of .ustice on ;ay 2-( 1,-,( 4as not made in the interest of the administration of 8ustice( as stated in said Administrati$e >rder( !ecause the accused and his 4itnesses 4ere made to tra$e# more than 22 @i#ometers to Pasi ( "i9a#( instead of commutin a short distance from the City .ai# of Ca#oocan City( 4here he had !een detained since his arrest( to the City %a## AnneE( 4here the Court of ?irst Instance ho#ds sessionsD that( e$en assumin that the Secretary of .ustice can #e a##y issue Administrati$e >rder *o. 202( ne$erthe#ess( he cannot authori9e the transfer or reassi nment of cases arisin from municipa#ities other than those mentioned in said Administrati$e >rderD and that "ep. Act *o. 011,( 4hich created the circuit crimina# courts( does not authori9e the transfer of cases 4hich are pendin and ha$e !een part#y tried !y the Courts of ?irst Instance( as in this case 4here the accused had a#ready !een arrai ned.

3e find no 8ustification( ho4e$er( to sustain the appe##antGs c#aim that this case 4as transferred to the Circuit Crimina# Court of Pasi ( "i9a#( !y $irtue of( and pursuant to( Administrati$e >rder *o. 202 of the Department of .ustice. 'he said Administrati$e >rder reads( as fo##o4sF In the interest of the administration of 8ustice and upon 8oint petition of the ;unicipa# ;ayors of ParaTaCue( Las PiTas( ;untin #upa( ;onta#!an( San ;ateo( ;ari@ina( ;a#a!on( and *a$otas( "i9a#( 4hich is fa$ora!#y indorsed !y the Pro$incia# )o$ernor( a## cases arisin from the aforesaid municipa#ities are here!y transferred effecti$e immediate#y from the !ranches of the Court of ?irst Instance of the pro$ince to 4hich they are present#y assi ned to the !ranches of said Court 4ith officia# station at Pasi ( 4ith the eEception of those cases the tria# of 4hich ha$e a#ready !een !e un !y the .ud es to 4hich they are present#y assi ned. A## administrati$e orders of this Department 4hich are in conf#ict here4ith are here!y re$o@ed. As cou#d !e seen therefrom( on#y cases arisin from the municipa#ities of ParaTaCue( Las PiTas( ;untin #upa( ;onta#!an( San ;ateo( ;ari@ina( ;a#a!on( and *a$otas( "i9a#( 4ere directed to !e transferred to the !ranches of the Court of ?irst Instance of "i9a# 4ith officia# station at Pasi ( "i9a#. *o mention 4hatsoe$er is made of cases arisin from the City of Ca#oocanD hence( the transfer of the case to the Circuit Crimina# Court cou#d not ha$e !een effected pursuant to said Administrati$e >rder *o. 202. :ut( since this case had !een transferred( 3e can on#y assume( as the So#icitor )enera# stated( that( in the a!sence of any other sho4in in the records( the transfer of the case to the Circuit Crimina# Court 4as effected in accordance 4ith the #on standin practice fo##o4ed !y 8ud es of mo$in cases from one !ranch to another !ranch of the same court( if they are a reed that such a step 4ou#d !est promote the ends of 8ustice( as in this case( 4hich had !een pendin for a #on period of time in the Court of ?irst Instance 4ithout !ein heard a#thou h the accused 4as detained. 'hus( in the case of People vs. *utierre=( 6 the Court 8ustified the transfer of a crimina# case from the Court of ?irst Instance of I#ocos Sur to the Circuit Crimina# Court of the Second .udicia# District( sayin F .... 'he Constitution has $ested the .udicia# Po4er in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as may !e esta!#ished !y #a4 6Artic#e VII( Section 1/7( and such 8udicia# po4er connotes certain incidenta# and inherent attri!utes reasona!#y necessary for the effecti$e administration of 8ustice. 'he courts Gcan !y appropriate means do a## thin s necessary to preser$e and maintain e$ery Cua#ity needfu# to ma@e the 8udiciary an effecti$e institution of o$ernmentG. 6:orromeo $s. ;ariano( 21 Phi#. /227. >ne of these incidenta# and inherent po4ers of courts is that of transferrin the tria# of cases from one court to another of eCua# ran@ in a nei h!orin site( 4hene$er the imperati$e of securin a fair and impartia# tria#( or of pre$entin a miscarria e of 8ustice( so demands. At any rate( since the appe##ant entered tria# in the Circuit Crimina# Court 4ithout raisin any o!8ection to such transfer( he cannot no4 !e heard to protest such transfer on appea#. I* VI&3 >? ALL '%& ?>"&)>I*)( the 8ud ment appea#ed from shou#d !e( as it is here!y( A??I";&D. %o4e$er( for #ac@ of the necessary $otes( the accused-appe##ant 4ho has !een a detention prisoner for more than fifteen 6107 years( is here!y sentenced to reclusion perpetua 3ith costs. S> >"D&"&D @G.R. No. L#%996. June 2&, 19%6.G RAFAEL A. *INGLASAN, ET AL., &etitioners, =0. LEE UN TING, ANG CHIA, /n -e' 5!;!5/,( !0 >/"o> o2 ,-e "e5e!0e" Lee L/on9, !0 >e.. !0 ?u"/5/!. !"3/n/0,'!,'/E o2 ,-e ;'o;e',/e0 o2 0!/" "e5e!0e", !n" CLARO LEE, Respondents.

LA RA*OR, J.: 'his is an appea# !y certiorari a ainst a 8ud ment of the Court of Appea#s( affirmin that of the Court of ?irst Instance of Capi9. 'he facts found in the Court of Appea#s( 4hich are pertinent to this appea# are as fo##o4sFchanro!#es$irtua##a4#i!rary In the month of ;arch( 1,/- Petitioners-Appellants so#d to Lee Lion ( a Chinese citi9en( predecessor in interest of Respon(ents- Appellees( a parce# of #and situated on the corner of "oEas A$enue and Pa$ia Street( Capi9 6no4 "oEas City7( Capi9( desi nated as #ot /,+ and co$ered !y ori ina# Certificate of 'it#e *o. //+,. 'he cost 4as P-(000 and soon after the sa#e Lee Lion constructed thereon a concrete !ui#din 4hich he used as a p#ace for his #um!er !usiness and in part as residence for himse#f and fami#y. Petitioners had contended that the sa#e 4as a conditiona# sa#e( or one 4ith the ri ht of repurchase durin the three #ast years of a ten-year period( !ut !oth the tria# court and the Court of Appea#s found that the sa#e 4as an a!so#ute one. Another contention of the Petitioners-Appellants is that the sa#e is nu## and $oid as it 4as made in $io#ation of the pro$ision contained in the Constitution 6Artic#e LIII( section 07( !ut the Court of Appea#s found that the purchaser 4as not a4are of the constitutiona# prohi!ition 4hi#e Petitioners-Appellants 4ere !ecause the ne otiations for the sa#e 4ere conducted 4ith the @no4#ed e and direct inter$ention of .ud e "afae# Din #asan( one of the Plaintiffs( 4ho 4as at that time an assistant attorney in the Department of .ustice. And it he#d that e$en if Lee Lion had @no4n of the prohi!ition( the suit 4ou#d not #ie !ecause of the princip#e of pari de#icto( that courts 4i## not aid either party to an i##e a# contract if !oth are eCua##y ui#ty !ut 4i## #ea$e them 4here they find them( citin "e##osa $s. )a4 Chee %un( ,/ Phi#.( +21( promu# ated ;arch 1+( 1,21( and artic#es 1/02( 1/00 and 1/0- of the Ci$i# Code. 'he Court of Appea#s saidFchanro!#es$irtua##a4#i!rary V:y the same to@en( 4e ho#d that Appellants cannot no4 retrie$e the #ot in Cuestion. Z;oney paid under an a reement 4hich is eEecuted( 4hether as the consideration or in performance of the promise( cannot !e reco$ered !ac@ 4here the parties are in pari de#icto. And oods de#i$ered or #ands con$eyed under an i##e a# a reement are su!8ect to the same ru#e 611 C.8.S. -0-( -0+--0,( --07. :y this ho#din 4e are not sanctionin or #e a#i9in the transaction in Cuestion. 3e mere#y refuse to aid either party to an i##e a# a reement. As stated in Corpus .uris Secundum 6Vo#. 11( p. -0,7( the Zpari de#icto ru#eA is made for the protection of the pu!#ic and not for the !enefit of the partiesD chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!raryits o!8ect in refusin re#ief to either party 4here the contract is eEecuted is not to i$e $a#idity to the transaction !ut to depri$e the parties of a## ri ht to ha$e either enforcement of( or re#ief from( the i##e a# a reement. In such cases the defense of i##e a#ity pre$ai#s( not as a protection to 2efen(ant( !ut as a disa!i#ity in Plaintiff. 'he court does not i$e effect to the contract( !ut mere#y refuses its aid to undo 4hat the parties ha$e a#ready done. 3hi#e it may not a#4ays seem an honora!#e thin to do( yet a party to an i##e a# a reement is permitted to set up the i##e a#ity as a defense( e$en thou h it may !e a##e in his o4n turpitude.W V5pon the other hand there is a preponderatin 4ei ht of 8udicia# authorities ho#din that an a#ien can ta@e !y deed and can ho#d #and unti# office found or unti# the #and is ta@en !y the State( and he had fu## capacity to ho#d a ainst a## the rest of the 4or#d 62 C.8. 1001- 1002D chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!rary2 Am. .ur. 21-D chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!raryA!rams $s. State( 20 3ash. /21( )oon )an $s. "ichardson( 22 P. 1-2( 1- 3ash. /1/( >re on ;ort . Co. )arstens( 21 P. 221( 1- 3ash. 1-0( /0 L. ". A. +217D chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!rarythat !efore an ad8udication of escheat the tit#e of an a#ien rantee is unaffectedD chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!raryhe has comp#ete dominion o$er the property acCuired !y purchaseD chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!raryand he can ho#d #and e$en a ainst the State itse#f 61, Am. .ur. /,1D chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!rary2 Am. .ur. 21--211D chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!rary2/ A. L. ". 1222-12207D chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!raryand that the one deedin the #and to an a#ien retains no ri ht( tit#e or interest therein( a#thou h the Constitution pro$ides that con$eyance to an a#ien sha## !e $oid 6A!rams $s. State of 3ashin ton( 20 3ash. /21( , L. ". A. ;S 1+-D chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!rary2 Am. .ur. 2,0-2,1D chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!rary/ C.8. S. 0007(W pp. /1 to /2( Court of Appea#s decision( contained in pp. -1--+( "ecord on Appea#.7 >n this appea# it is contended that as the sa#e to Lee Lion is prohi!ited !y the Constitution( tit#e to the #and did not pass to said a#ien !ecause the sa#e did not produce any 8uridica# effect in his fa$or and that the constitutiona# prohi!ition shou#d !e deemed se#f-eEecutin in character( in order to i$e effect to the Constitutiona# mandate. In ans4er 4e state that rantin the sa#e to !e nu## and $oid and cannot i$e tit#e to the $endee( it does not necessari#y fo##o4 therefrom that the tit#e remained in the $endor( 4ho had a#so $io#ated the constitutiona# prohi!ition( or that he 6$endor7 has the ri ht to reco$er the tit#e of 4hich he had di$ested himse#f !y his act in i norin the prohi!ition. In such contin ency another princip#e of #a4 sets in to !ar the eCua##y ui#ty $endor from reco$erin the tit#e 4hich he had $o#untari#y con$eyed for a consideration( that of pari de#icto. 3e ha$e app#ied this princip#e as a !ar to the present action in a series of cases( thusFchanro!#es$irtua##a4#i!rary V'he neEt Cuestion to !e determined is 4hether Plaintiff-Appellant can maintain the present action of annu#ment and reco$er the property considerin the effect of the #a4 o$ernin rescission of contractsD chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!raryor( stated in another 4ay( 4hether he can reco$er the property not4ithstandin the share he had in the eEecution of the sa#e 4hich is @no4n to !e tainted

*ECISION

4ith in$a#idity. >ur ans4er must of necessity !e in the ne ati$e fo##o4in the doctrine #aid do4n in the case of 'rinidad )on9a a de Ca!auatan et a#. $s. 5y %oo( et a#.( ).". *o. L-2201( 4herein 4e made the fo##o4in pronouncementFchanro!#es$irtua##a4#i!rary V3e can( therefore( say that e$en if the Plaintiffs can sti## in$o@e the Constitution( or the doctrine in the =ri$en@o case( to set aside the sa#e in Cuestion( they are no4 pre$ented from doin so if their purpose is to reco$er the #ands that they ha$e $o#untari#y parted 4ith( !ecause of their ui#ty @no4#ed e that 4hat they 4ere doin 4as in $io#ation of the Constitution. 'hey cannot escape the #a4. As this Court 4e## saidFchanro!#es$irtua##a4#i!rary A party to an i##e a# contract cannot come into a court of #a4 and as@ to ha$e his i##e a# o!8ects carried out. 'he #a4 4i## not aid either party to an i##e a# a reementD chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!raryit #ea$es the parties 4here it finds them.A 'he ru#e is eEpressed in the maEimsFchanro!#es$irtua##a4#i!rary Z&E do#o ma#o non oritur actioA( and ZIn pari de#icto potior est conditio defendentis.A 6:ou h and :ou h $s. Canti$eros and %anopo#( 20 Phi#.( 210( 21-.7AV 6Cai#e $s. Yu Chiaco Pen ( 2, >ff. )a9. 6107 2/20D chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!rary,/ Phi#.( +-1D chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!rarySee a#so "e##osa $s. Ya4 Chee %un( 2, >ff. )a9. 6107( 2/21D chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!rary"icamara $s. * o =i( ,2 Phi#.( 10+2( Apri# 2,( 1,0/D chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!raryAram!u#o $s. Chua So( et a#.( ,0 Phi#.( 12,.( Au ust /1( 1,02D chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!rary'a#ento( et a#. $s. ;a@i@i( et a#.( ,/ Phi#.( +00( Septem!er 2,( 1,0/ and Cortes $s. > Po Poe( ,/ Phi#.( 1111( >cto!er /0( 1,0/.7 It is not necessary for us to re-eEamine the doctrine #aid do4n !y us in the a!o$e cases. 3e must add in 8ustification of the adoption of the doctrine that the scope of our po4er and authority is to interpret the #a4 mere#y( #ea$in to the proper co-ordinate !ody the function of #ayin do4n the po#icy that shou#d !e fo##o4ed in re#ation to con$eyances in $io#ation of the constitutiona# prohi!ition and in imp#ementin said po#icy. 'he situation of these prohi!ited con$eyances is not different from that of homestead so#d 4ithin fi$e years from and after the issuance of the patent( 6Section 11+( C. A. 121( other4ise @no4n as the Pu!#ic Land La47( for 4hich situation the #e is#ature has adopted the po#icy( not of returnin the homestead so#d to the ori ina# homesteader( !ut of forfeitin the homestead and returnin it to the pu!#ic domain a ain su!8ect to disposition in accordance 4ith #a4. 6Section 122( Id.7 'he doctrine of in pari de#icto !ars Petitioners-Appellants from reco$erin the tit#e to the property in Cuestion and renders unnecessary the consideration of the other ar uments presented in AppellantsA !rief. 'here is one other cause 4hy PetitionersA remedy cannot !e entertained( that is the prescription of the action. As the sa#e occurred in ;arch( 1,/-( more than ten years had a#ready e#apsed from the time the cause of action accrued 4hen the action 4as fi#ed 61,2+7. 3e ta@e this occasion to ca## the attention of the #e is#ature to the a!sence of a #a4 or po#icy on sa#es in $io#ation of the ConstitutionD chan ro!#es$irtua#a4#i!rarythis Court 4ou#d ha$e fi##ed the $oid 4ere 4e not a4are of the fact that the matter fa##s !eyond the scope of our authority and proper#y !e#on s to a coordinate po4er. 'he petition for certiorari is here!y denied 4ith costs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLAN*S, p#aintiff-appe##ee( $s. VENANCIO CONCEPCION, defendant-appe##ant. MALCOLM, J.: :y te#e rams and a #etter of confirmation to the mana er of the Aparri !ranch of the Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@( Venancio Concepcion( President of the Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@( !et4een Apri# 10( 1,1,( and ;ay 1( 1,1,( authori9ed an eEtension of credit in fa$or of IPuno y Concepcion( S. en C.I in the amount of P/00(000. 'his specia# authori9ation 4as essentia# in $ie4 of the memorandum order of President Concepcion dated ;ay 11( 1,1+( #imitin the discretiona# po4er of the #oca# mana er at Aparri( Ca ayan( to rant #oans and discount ne otia!#e documents to P0(000( 4hich( in certain cases( cou#d !e increased to P10(000. Pursuant to this authori9ation( credit a re atin P/00(000( 4as ranted the firm of IPuno y Concepcion( S. en C.(I the on#y security reCuired consistin of siE demand notes. 'he notes( to ether 4ith the interest( 4ere ta@en up and paid !y .u#y 11( 1,1,.

IPuno y Concepcion( S. en C.I 4as a copartnership capita#i9ed at P100(000. Anac#eto Concepcion contri!uted P0(000D C#ara Vda. de Concepcion( P0(000D ;i ue# S. Concepcion( P20(000D C#emente Puno( P20(000D and "osario San A ustin( Icasada con )ra#. Venancio Concepcion(I P00(000. ;em!er ;i ue# S. Concepcion 4as the administrator of the company. >n the facts recounted( Venancio Concepcion( as President of the Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@ and as mem!er of the !oard of directors of this !an@( 4as char ed in the Court of ?irst Instance of Ca ayan 4ith a $io#ation of section /0 of Act *o. 2121. %e 4as found ui#ty !y the %onora!#e &nriCue V. ?i#amor( .ud e of ?irst Instance( and 4as sentenced to imprisonment for one year and siE months( to pay a fine of P/(000( 4ith su!sidiary imprisonment in case of inso#$ency( and the costs. Section /0 of Act *o. 2121( effecti$e on ?e!ruary 20( 1,1+( 8ust mentioned( to 4hich reference must hereafter repeated#y !e made( reads as fo##o4sF I'he *ationa# :an@ sha## not( direct#y or indirect#y( rant #oans to any of the mem!ers of the !oard of directors of the !an@ nor to a ents of the !ranch !an@s.I Section 2, of the same Act pro$idesF IAny person 4ho sha## $io#ate any of the pro$isions of this Act sha## !e punished !y a fine not to eEceed ten thousand pesos( or !y imprisonment not to eEceed fi$e years( or !y !oth such fine and imprisonment.I 'hese t4o sections 4ere in effect in 1,1, 4hen the a##e ed un#a4fu# acts too@ p#ace( !ut 4ere repea#ed !y Act *o. 2,/+( appro$ed on .anuary /0( 1,21. Counse# for the defense assi n ten errors as ha$in !een committed !y the tria# court. 'hese errors they ha$e ar ued adroit#y and eEhausti$e#y in their printed !rief( and a ain in ora# ar ument. Attorney-)enera# Vi##a-"ea#( in an eEceptiona##y accurate and comprehensi$e !rief( ans4ers the proposition of appe##ant one !y one. 'he Cuestion presented are reduced to their simp#est e#ements in the opinion 4hich fo##o4sF I. 3as the rantin of a credit of P/00(000 to the copartnership IPuno y Concepcion( S. en C.I !y Venancio Concepcion( President of the Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@( a I#oanI 4ithin the meanin of section /0 of Act *o. 2121M Counse# ar ue that the documents of record do not pro$e that authority to ma@e a #oan 4as i$en( !ut on#y sho4 the concession of a credit. In this statement of fact( counse# is correct( for the eEhi!its in Cuestion spea@ of a I cre(itoI 6credit7 and not of a I prestamoI 6#oan7. 'he IcreditI of an indi$idua# means his a!i#ity to !orro4 money !y $irtue of the confidence or trust reposed !y a #ender that he 4i## pay 4hat he may promise. 6Donne## vs. .ones J1+2+K( 1/ A#a.( 2,0D :ou$ierGs La4 Dictionary.7 A I#oanI means the de#i$ery !y one party and the receipt !y the other party of a i$en sum of money( upon an a reement( eEpress or imp#ied( to repay the sum #oaned( 4ith or 4ithout interest. 6Payne vs. )ardiner J1+-2K( 2, *. Y.( 12-( 1-1.7 'he concession of a IcreditI necessari#y in$o#$es the rantin of I#oansI up to the #imit of the amount fiEed in the Icredit(I II. 3as the rantin of a credit of P/00(000 to the copartnership IPuno y Concepcion( S. en C.(I !y Venancio Concepcion( President of the Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@( a I#oanI or a IdiscountIM Counse# ar ue that 4hi#e section /0 of Act *o. 2121 prohi!its the rantin of a I#oan(I it does not prohi!it 4hat is common#y @no4n as a Idiscount.I In a #etter dated Au ust 1( 1,1-( %. Par@er 3i##is( then President of the *ationa# :an@( inCuired of the Insu#ar Auditor 4hether section /1 of Act *o. 2-12 4as intended to app#y to discounts as 4e## as to #oans. 'he ru#in of the Actin Insu#ar Auditor( dated Au ust 11( 1,1-( 4as to the effect that said section referred to #oans a#one( and p#aced no restriction upon discount transactions. It !ecomes materia#( therefore( to disco$er the distinction !et4een a I#oanI and a Idiscount(I and to ascertain if the instant transaction comes under the first or the #atter denomination. Discounts are fa$ored !y !an@ers !ecause of their #iCuid nature( ro4in ( as they do( out of an actua#( #i$e( transaction. :ut in its #ast ana#ysis( to discount a paper is on#y a mode of #oanin money( 4ith( ho4e$er( these distinctionsF 617 In a discount(

interest is deducted in ad$ance( 4hi#e in a #oan( interest is ta@en at the eEpiration of a creditD 627 a discount is a#4ays on dou!#ename paperD a #oan is enera##y on sin #e-name paper. Concedin ( 4ithout decidin ( that( as ru#ed !y the Insu#ar Auditor( the #a4 co$ers #oans and not discounts( yet the conc#usion is ine$ita!#e that the demand notes si ned !y the firm IPuno y Concepcion( S. en C.I 4ere not discount paper !ut 4ere mere e$idences of inde!tedness( !ecause 617 interest 4as not deducted from the face of the notes( !ut 4as paid 4hen the notes fe## dueD and 627 they 4ere sin #e-name and not dou!#e-name paper. 'he facts of the instant case ha$in re#ation to this phase of the ar ument are not essentia##y different from the facts in the :ina#!a an &state case. .ust as there it 4as dec#ared that the operations constituted a #oan and not a discount( so shou#d 4e here #ay do4n the same ru#in . III. 3as the rantin of a credit of P/00(000 to the copartnership( IPuno y Concepcion( S. en C.I !y Venancio Concepcion( President of the Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@( an Iindirect #oanI 4ithin the meanin of section /0 of Act *o. 2121M Counse# ar ue that a #oan to the partnership IPuno y Concepcion( S. en C.I 4as not an Iindirect #oan.I In this connection( it shou#d !e reca##ed that the 4ife of the defendant he#d one-ha#f of the capita# of this partnership. In the interpretation and construction of statutes( the primary ru#e is to ascertain and i$e effect to the intention of the Le is#ature. In this instance( the purpose of the Le is#ature is p#ain#y to erect a 4a## of safety a ainst temptation for a director of the !an@. 'he prohi!ition a ainst indirect #oans is a reco nition of the fami#iar maEim that no man may ser$e t4o masters H that 4here persona# interest c#ashes 4ith fide#ity to duty the #atter a#most a#4ays suffers. If( therefore( it is sho4n that the hus!and is financia##y interested in the success or fai#ure of his 4ifeGs !usiness $enture( a #oan to partnership of 4hich the 4ife of a director is a mem!er( fa##s 4ithin the prohi!ition. Various pro$isions of the Ci$i# ser$e to esta!#ish the fami#iar re#ationship ca##ed a con8u a# partnership. 6Artic#es 1/10( 1/,/( 1201( 1201( 120+( and 1212 can !e specia##y noted.7 A #oan( therefore( to a partnership of 4hich the 4ife of a director of a !an@ is a mem!er( is an indirect #oan to such director. 'hat it 4as the intention of the Le is#ature to prohi!it eEact#y such an occurrence is sho4n !y the ac@no4#ed ed fact that in this instance the defendant 4as tempted to min #e his persona# and fami#y affairs 4ith his officia# duties( and to permit the #oan P/00(000 to a partnership of no esta!#ished reputation and 4ithout as@in for co##atera# security. In the case of Lester and 3ife vs. %o4ard :an@ 6J1+10K( // ;d.( 00+D / Am. "ep.( 2117( the Supreme Court of ;ary#and saidF 3hat then 4as the purpose of the #a4 4hen it dec#ared that no director or officer shou#d !orro4 of the !an@( and Iif any director(I etc.( Isha## !e con$icted(I etc.( Iof direct#y or indirect#y $io#atin this section he sha## !e punished !y fine and imprisonmentMI 3e say to protect the stoc@ho#ders( depositors and creditors of the !an@( a ainst the temptation to 4hich the directors and officers mi ht !e eEposed( and the po4er 4hich as such they must necessari#y possess in the contro# and mana ement of the !an@( and the #e is#ature un4i##in to re#y upon the imp#ied understandin that in assumin this re#ation they 4ou#d not acCuire any interest hosti#e or ad$erse to the most eEact and faithfu# dischar e of duty( dec#ared in eEpress terms that they shou#d not !orro4( etc.( of the !an@. In the case of Peop#e vs. =napp 6J1,12K( 20- *. Y.( /1/7( re#ied upon in the :ina#!a an &state decision( it 4as saidF 3e are of opinion the statute for!ade the #oan to his copartnership firm as 4e## as to himse#f direct#y. 'he #oan 4as made indirect#y to him throu h his firm.

IV. Cou#d Venancio Concepcion( President of the Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@( !e con$icted of a $io#ation of section /0 of Act *o. 2121 in re#ation 4ith section 2, of the same Act( 4hen these portions of Act *o. 2121 4ere repea#ed !y Act *o. 2,/+( prior to the findin of the information and the rendition of the 8ud mentM As noted a#on to4ard the !e innin of this opinion( section 2, of Act *o. 2121( in re#ation to section /0 of the same Act( pro$ides a punishment for any person 4ho sha## $io#ate any of the pro$isions of the Act. It is contended( ho4e$er( !y the appe##ant( that the repea# of these sections of Act *o. 2121 !y Act *o. 2,/+ has ser$ed to ta@e a4ay the !asis for crimina# prosecution. 'his same Cuestion has !een pre$ious#y su!mitted and has recei$ed an ans4er ad$erse to such contention in the cases of $nite( "tate( vs. Cuna 6J1,0+K( 12 Phi#.( 2217D People vs. Concepcion 6J1,22K( 2/ Phi#.( -0/7D and >n Chan 3in and =4on ?o@ vs. 5nited States 6J1,10K( 21+ 5. S.( 212D 20 Phi#.( 102-7. In other 4ords( it has !een the ho#din ( and it must a ain !e the ho#din ( that 4here an Act of the Le is#ature 4hich pena#i9es an offense( such repea#s a former Act 4hich pena#i9ed the same offense( such repea# does not ha$e the effect of thereafter depri$in the courts of 8urisdiction to try( con$ict( and sentenced offenders char ed 4ith $io#ations of the o#d #a4. V. 3as the rantin of a credit of P/00(000 to the copartnership IPuno y Concepcion( S. en C.I !y Venancio Concepcion( President of the Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@( in $io#ation of section /0 of Act *o. 2121( pena#i9ed !y this #a4M Counse# ar ue that since the prohi!ition contained in section /0 of Act *o. 2121 is on the !an@( and since section 2, of said Act pro$ides a punishment not on the !an@ 4hen it $io#ates any pro$isions of the #a4( !ut on a person $io#atin any pro$isions of the same( and imposin imprisonment as a part of the pena#ty( the prohi!ition contained in said section /0 is 4ithout pena# sanction.lawphRl.net 'he ans4er is that 4hen the corporation itse#f is for!idden to do an act( the prohi!ition eEtends to the !oard of directors( and to each director separate#y and indi$idua##y. 6Peop#e vs. Concepcion( supra.7 VI. Does the a##e ed ood faith of Venancio Concepcion( President of the Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@( in eEtendin the credit of P/00(000 to the copartnership IPuno y Concepcion( S. en C.I constitute a #e a# defenseM Counse# ar ue that if defendant committed the acts of 4hich he 4as con$icted( it 4as !ecause he 4as mis#ed !y ru#in s comin from the Insu#ar Auditor. It is furthermore stated that since the #oans made to the copartnership IPuno y Concepcion( S. en C.I ha$e !een paid( no #oss has !een suffered !y the Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@. *either ar ument( e$en if conceded to !e true( is conc#usi$e. 5nder the statute 4hich the defendant has $io#ated( crimina# intent is not necessari#y materia#. 'he doin of the inhi!ited act( inhi!ited on account of pu!#ic po#icy and pu!#ic interest( constitutes the crime. And( in this instance( as pre$ious#y demonstrated( the acts of the President of the Phi#ippine *ationa# :an@ do not fa## 4ithin the pur$ie4 of the ru#in s of the Insu#ar Auditor( e$en concedin that such ru#in s ha$e contro##in effect. ;orse( in his 4or@( :an@s and :an@in ( section 120( saysF It is fraud for directors to secure !y means of their trust( and ad$anta e not common to the other stoc@ho#ders. 'he #a4 4i## not a##o4 pri$ate profit from a trust( and 4i## not #isten to any proof of honest intent. .5D);&*' >n a re$ie4 of the e$idence of record( 4ith reference to the decision of the tria# court( and the errors assi ned !y the appe##ant( and 4ith reference to pre$ious decisions of this court on the same su!8ect( 4e are irresisti!#y #ed to the conc#usion that no re$ersi!#e error 4as committed in the tria# of this case( and that the defendant has !een pro$ed ui#ty !eyond a reasona!#e

dou!t of the crime char ed in the information. 'he pena#ty imposed !y the tria# 8ud e fa##s 4ithin the #imits of the puniti$e pro$isions of the #a4. .ud ment is affirmed( 4ith the costs of this instance a ainst the appe##ant. So ordered

You might also like