STATCON-CHAPTER 9
modification.
7. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JAVIER
MORILLA Y AVELLANO
FACTS:
- On October 15, 2001, Morilla, Mayor Mitra, Yang
and Dequilla were charged of the crime of illegal
transport of metamphetamine hydrochloride/shabu.
-They all belong to an organized syndicate crime
group and conspired, for purposes of gain in the
transport of illegal drugs by means of two motor
vehicles.
- RTC convicted Morilla and Mayor Mitra. However,
it absolved Dequilla and Yang due to the
prosecution's failure to present sufficient evidence to
convict them.
- RTC held that both Morilla and Mayor Mitra are
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of P10,000. - CA affirmed RTC's ruling
ISSUE: W/N the penalty is Life Imprisonment
RULING:
- No. SC modified the penalty imposed by the trial
court as affirmed by CA.
- RECLUSION PERPETUA is the penalty to be
imposed according to SC.
RULE: Criminal statutes with a favorable effect to
the accused have, as to him, a retroactive effect.
- Originally, under Sec. 15 of RA 6425, the penalty
for illegal transportation of shabu was prision mayor
with a fine ranging from P6,000 to P12,000 - then,
pursuant to PD 1683, the penalty was amended to life
imprisonment to death and fine from P20,000-
P30,000. - The penalty was further amended in RA
7659 where the penalty was changed to Reclusion
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from P500,000
to 10 million pesos
- SC sustain the imposed penalty of fine of P10,000
but amend the penalty to reclusion perpetua
following the provision of RA 7659 and the principle
of retroactive application of a lighter penalty.
- Petition denied, decision of the CA affirmed with
8. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs
PROCULO MEJECA Y MONTALLANA,
BALDOMERO QUINTINA, ROMEO
SOLARTE, DIOSECORO NARCISO, ADLINA
NARCISO, NICOLAS PICACHE JR, JULIE
HILARIO, ARNOLD NARCISO and DANTE
ARAS
FACTS:
- Lita Berinias, the vault custodian of JTC Pawnshop
in Marikina, was fatally shot by several armed men
who barged into the shop and stole assorted jewelry.
- Arnold Narciso et al were accused and convicted of
the crime of Robbery with Homicide penalized under
Art 294(1) of the RPC with the aggravating
circumstances of the use of unlicensed firearm and in
band and is sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty
of Death by lethal injection
ISSUE: W/N RA 8294, which took effect on July 6,
1997, can be applied against the accused.
RULING: NO
- RA 8294 took effect on July 6, 1997 while the crime
imputed to the accused was committed on July 11,
1996.
- It is fundamental that laws shall have no retroactive
effect, unless the contrary is provided. - Also, Penal
laws are construed liberally in favor of the accused.
RULE: thus, insofar as RA 8294 is not beneficial to
the accused because it unduly aggravates the crime,
such new law will not be given retroactive
application, lest it acquire the character of an ex post
facto law.
- Thus, RA 8294 which considers the use of an
unlicensed firearm in the killing of a victim as an
aggravating circumstance, CANNOT be given
retroactive effect because to do so would be
unfavorable to the accused.
9. ANICETO OCAMPO vs COURT OF RULE: statutes regulating the procedure of the court
APPEALS will be construed as applicable to actions pending
and undetermined at the time of their passage.
FACTS:
PROCEDURAL LAWS ARE RETROSPECTIVE in
- Petitioner Aniceto Ocampo was charged for that sense and to that extent. - Thus, the amendment
violation of PD 772 (Anti-squatting law). Upon to sec 15 rule 119 of the 1985 rules on criminal
arraignment, petitioner pleaded "not guilty" procedure would apply in this case.

- After prosecution rested its case, petitioner waived - In the case at bar, no records showed that the
the presentation of his evidence and instead filed a petitioner's demurrer to evidence was filed with prior
motion to dismiss (demurrer to evidence) on the leave of court, the retroactive effect of the
ground that the prosecution did not present Transfer amendment would therefore work against herein
Certificate of Title to prove ownership of the land in petitioner.
question.
- By moving to dismiss on the ground of
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss for lack insufficiency of evidence, accused-petitioner waives
of merit - On October 7, 1985, RTC found the his right to present evidence and in effect submits the
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable of the offense case for judgment on the basis of the evidence for the
charged prosecution. - This exactly what the petitioner did
and he cannot now claim denial of his right to adduce
- Accused appealed to CA alleging that the trial court his own evidence. - Petition denied.
erred in:
(a) applying sec 15, Rule 119 of the 1985 rules of
criminal procedure (b) convicting appellant on the
basis of evidence which does not measure to the
degree of proof as required by law (c) not applying
the principle of presumption of innocence in favor of
appellant
- CA affirmed the decision of the lower court
ISSUE: W/N the motion to dismiss filed by accused-
petitioner is a bar for him to present evidence.
RULING: YES
- Sec 15 (Demurrer to Evidence) Rule 19 of the rules
on criminal procedure (took effect on October 1,
1998), as amended, provides that after the
prosecution rested its case, the court may dismiss the
case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence on
motion of the accused filed with prior leave of court.
If the court denies the motion for dismissal, the
accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When
the accused filed such motion to dismiss without
express leave of court, he waives the right to present
evidence and submits the case for judgment on the
basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
10. YAKULT PHILIPPINES and LARRY - Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity
SALVADO vs COURT OF APPEALS under the RPC and damages under Arts 32, 33, 34
and 2176 of the CC.
FACTS:
- Although the incident in question and the actions
- On December 24, 1982, a five year old boy, Roy
arising therefrom were instituted BEFORE the
Camaso, while standing on the sidewalk was
promulgation of the 1985 rules of criminal
sideswiped by a Yamaha motorcycle owned by
procedure, its provisions which are PROCEDURAL
Yakult Philippines and driven by Larry Salvado
may apply retrospectively to the present case.
(driver)
RULE: Procedural laws have retroactive application.
- Salvado was charged with crime of reckless
imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries in an - In this case, the civil action was filed in the court
information filed on January 6, 1983 before the presentation of the evidence for the
prosecution in the criminal action of which the judge
- On October 19, 1984, a complaint for damages was
presiding on the criminal case was duly informed, so
filed by the father of Roy against Yakult Phils and
that in the disposition of the criminal action no
Salvado.
damages was awarded.
- A decision was rendered in the civil case ordering
- The aforecited revised rule requiring previous
defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff
reservation also covers quasi delict as defined under
the sum of P13,006 for actual damages and attorney's
Art 2176 of the CC arising from same act or omission
fees
of the accused in the present case.
- Defendants appealed the judgment and filed a
- Petition denied.
petition for certiorari in CA challenging the
jurisdiction of the trial court over the civil case
- Petitioner alleged that the civil action for damages
arising from criminal negligence of Salvado cannot
be filed independently of the criminal action under
Art 33 of the civil code.
- Further, Under sec 1, Rule 3 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure such as separate civil action may
not be filed unless reservation is expressly made.
- CA dismissed the petition. MR also denied. Hence
this petition.
ISSUE: W/N a civil action instituted after the
criminal action was filed would prosper even if there
was no reservation to file a separate civil action.
RULING: YES
- Section 1 rule 3 of the 1985 rules of criminal
procedure provides that when a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil
liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal
action unless the offended party ...................or
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
10. TEOFILO MARTINEZ vs PEOPLE OF THE access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
PHILIPPINES adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty"
FACTS:
- Resolution set aside, Petitioner allowed to litigate
- On August 23, 1994, petitioner filed before the CA
as pauper.
a motion to litigate as a pauper attaching supporting
affidavits executed by the petitioner himself and by
two disinterested person attesting to the petitioner's
eligibility to avail himself of this privilege.
- CA denied the motion and directing the petitioner
to remit the docketing fees within five days from
notice
- Petitioner filed a MR but also denied. - Petitioner
then filed a Manifestation through his counsel that he
was transmitting the docket fees required of his client
under protest and this was attached to the Motion to
Litigate as Pauper. - CA dismissed petition citing
petitioner's failure to pay the required docket fee. -
Petitioner moved for reconsideration however, CA
denied the latest motion. Hence this petition.
ISSUE: W/N a motion to litigate as pauper can be
entertained by an appellate court.
RULING: YES
- When petitioner filed on August 23, 1994, the
applicable rule was the 2nd paragraph of Sec 16 Rule
41 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court which
provides that a petition to be allowed to appeal as a
pauper shall not be entertained by the appellate court.
- When the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure came into
effect on July 1, 1997, the provision above
mentioned was not reenacted.
RULE: Statutes regulating the procedure of the
courts will be construed as applicable to actions
pending and undetermined at the time of their
passage.
- In that sense and to that extent, procedural laws are
retroactive.
- Thus, A motion to litigate as an indigent can be
made even before the appellate courts.
(Additional lang, ang ganda e) SC believes that this
interpretation of the present rules is more in keeping
with the Bill of Rights, which decrees that "free
12. JAIME TAN VS. CA AND MAGDANGAL As a general rule, rules on procedure should be given
retroactive effect.
FACTS:
However, Section 1, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules on
 RTC’s Ruling: Procedure should not be given retroactive effect in
1. The contract between the parties is not an this case as it would result in great injustice to the
absolute sale but an equitable mortgage. petitioner.
2. Petitioner Tan should pay to the respondents
Magdangal within 120 days after the Petitioner definitely followed the procedural rule
finality of this decision. then existing as well as the redemption period given
 CA affirmed the said decision. Both parties by the court in its decision (120 days). Unfortunately,
received the decision of CA on October 5, the rule was changed by the 1997 Revised Rules on
1995. Procedure which if applied retroactively, would
 On March 13, 1996 the clerk of court of the cause the petitioner to lose his right of redemption
CA entered the decision in the Book of over the subject lot.
Entries of Judgment. RULE: Section 1, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of
 Respondents filed with the trial court a Procedure should not be given retroactive effect in
motion for consolidation and writ of this case as it would result in great injustice to the
possession. They alleged that the 120-day petitioner.
period of redemption of the petitioner
expired. (they reckoned the date from Oct.5,
1995)
 On the other hand, the petitioner filed a
motion for execution and on April 17, 1996
petitioner deposited with the clerk of court
the repurchase price of the lot as ordered by
the decision.
 Trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner
stating that the 120-day redemption period
should be reckoned from March 13, 1996-
the date of entry of judgment. However, CA
ruled in favor of the respondents and applied
Section 1, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of
Civil procedure.
“Section 1- Execution upon the judgment or
final order- Execution shall issue as a matter
of right, on motion, upon the judgment or
order that disposes of the action or
proceeding upon the expiration of the period
to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been
duly perfected. “
ISSUE:
W/N Section 1, Rule 39 of the Revised Ruled of Civil
Procedure should be given retroactive effect
RULING:
NO.
13. DIU VS. CA
FACTS:
 Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of money
against the private respondents.
 When the matter was brought before the
Baranggay Chairman of Naval, the parties
failed to reach an amicable settlement. The
Baranggay Chairman then issued a
certification to file action.
 CA dismissed the case on the ground that
there was no compliance with PD NO. 1508
because no Pangkat Tagapagkasundo was
constituted after the parties failed to reach an
amicable settlement through the Baranggay
Captain’s efforts.
ISSUE:
W/N the confrontations before the Baranggay
Chairman of Naval satisfied the requirement in PD
NO. 1508
RULING:
YES.
PD NO. 1508 has been repealed by the LGC of 1991
while the case was still pending in the court.
In this case, although there was no pangkat
constituted, the parties did not deny that they have
met at the office of the Baranggay Chairman,
however they failed to reach an amicable settlement.
Under Section 412 of LGC, the confrontation before
the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat is sufficient
compliance with the precondition for filing the case
in the court.
As a rule, the procedural provisions of the LGC are
applicable in this case. Statutes regulating procedure
in courts are applicable to actions pending and
undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural
laws are retrospective in that sense.
RULE: Procedural provisions of LGC are
retrospective.
14. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN NARCISO, RULING:
QUEZON VS. HON. ANTONIO V, MENDEZ
The power to create political subdivisions is a
FACTS: function of the legislature. Congress did just that
when it has incorporated Section 442(d) in the Code.
 Pres. Carlos P. Garcia issued EO NO. 353
creating the municipal district of San Andres, Curative laws, which in essence are retrospective,
Quezon, by segregating from the and aimed at giving “validity to acts done that
municipality of San Narciso of the same would have been complied with,” are validly
province. accepted in this jurisdiction, subject to the usual
 Thereafter, EO NO. 174 issued by Pres. qualification against impairment of vested rights.
Diosdado Macapagal, the municipal district (RULE)
of San Andres was recognized as a first class
municipality by operation of Section 2 of RA
No. 1515.
 The Municipality of San Narciso then filed a
petition for quo warranto with RTC and
sought the declaration of nullity of EO No.
353. According to them, the presidential act
of issuing such PD was a clear violation of
principle of separation of powers.
 Hence, the officials of the municipal district
of San Andres had no right to exercise the
duties and functions of their respective
offices as such offices belong to the
municipality of San Narciso.
 Municipality filed a motion to dismiss
alleging the case is moot and academic due to
the enactment of LGC (Act No. 7160).
Section 442(d) of such code provides:
“Section 442- Requisites for creation
(d) Municipalities existing as of the date of the
effectivity of this Code shall continue to exist and
operate as such. Existing municipal districts
organized pursuant to presidential issuances or
executive orders and which have their respective
set of elective municipal officials holding office
at the time of the effectivity of this Code shall
continue henceforth be considered as regular
municipalities.”
 The lower court dismissed the petition stating
that whatever the defects present in the
creation of municipal districts by the
President (PD’s and EO’s) were cured by the
enactment of LGC.
15. BRIAD AGRO-DEVELOPMENT RULING:
CORPORATION VS. HON. DIONISIO DELA
EO NO. 111, which amended Art. 128 of Labor
CERNA
Cod, is a curative law. It was intended to remedy
FACTS: a defect. According to the legislature, the said
amendment was meant to make both the
 Trade Union of the Phils. and Allied Services secretary of labor (or several regional directors)
(TUPAS) WFTU Local Chapter filed a case and the labor arbiters share jurisdiction.
against respondent agricultural firm for
alleged: EO NO. 111 was enacted to widen worker’s
o Underpayment/nonpayment of access to the government for redress of
minimum wage grievances.
o ECOLA
RULE:
o Overtime pay
o Legal holiday pay Curative statutes have retrospective effect.
o Night shift differential pay
o 13th month pay
o Service incentive leave pay
 Director Balbin ruled in favor of the
employees for failure of the respondent firm
to submit evidence despite due notice.
 In its appeal to the NLRC, Briad Agro-
Development contended that the regional
director has no authority over money claims
as it is within the jurisdiction of labor
arbiters.
 NLRC dismissed the appeal based on EO
NO. 111 amending Art 28 of the Labor Code.
The petitioner reiterated the same issue upon
its appeal.
 SolGen on the other hand relies on the
provisions of EO No. 111 which amended
Art. 28, par. b of Labor code which states
that:
 15. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
DONALD BALLAGAN
FACTS:
Appellant Ballagan was convicted of Sec. 4, Art
2 of RA NO. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, as amended) in the RTC of Baguio.
RA NO. 6425 was further amended by RA NO.
7659. The court explicitly states therein that the
beneficent provisions of the law shall be given
retrospective effect, specifically the provision
which bases the penalties imposed upon the
quantity of the regulated drugs involved. Said
provisions were applied in various cases.
Section 20 RA NO. 6425, as amended by RA
NO. 7659, provides the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from
500,000-10,000,000 in violation of such act- if
the marijuana involved is 750 grams or more.
In this case, the marijuana transported was more
than 750 grams.
RA NO. 7659 further amended section 27 of the
RPC where duration of Reclusion perpetua is set
as 20 yrs and 1 day-40 yrs. This penalty also
carries with it certain accessory penalties as
provided in Art. 41 of RPC.
On the other hand, the penalty of Life
imprisonment, which was correctly imposed on
the appellant, carries no fixed duration.
Under section 4, Art 2 of RA 6425- the penalty is
life imprisonment to death with a fine ranging
from 20,000-30.000.
Which of the 2 penalties is favorable to the
accused?
- Based on the following comparisons, the
penalty of Life Imprisonment is more
beneficial to the accused.
Life imprisonment Reclusion Perpetua
Does not carry any Carries with it accessory
accessory penalty penalties
Minimum imposable Minimum imposable
penalty- 20,000 penalty- 500,000