GR No. L-30061 (February 27, 1974) People vs. ab!"al
FACTS: Jabinal was found guilty of the crime of Illegal Possession of Firea Firearm rm and Ammunit mmunition ion.. The The accuse accused d admitt admitted ed that that on September ! "#$%! he was in possession of the re&ol&er and the ammuni ammunitio tion n descri described bed in the the compla complaint int!! witho without ut the re'uisite license or permit. (e! howe&er! claimed to be entitled to e)oneration because! although he had no license or permit! he had an appointment as Secret Agent from the Pro&incial *o&ernor *o&ernor of +atangas +atangas and an appointme appointment nt as Confident Confidential ial Agent Agent from from the PC Pro&i Pro&inci ncial al Comma Commande nder! r! and the said said appointme appointments nts e)pressly e)pressly carried carried with them the authority to possess and carry the firearm in 'uestion. The accused contended before the court a 'uo that in &iew of his abo&e, abo&e,men mentio tioned ned appoin appointme tments nts as Secret Secret Agent Agent and Confident Confidential ial Agent! with authority authority to possess possess the firearm firearm sub-ect matter of the prosecution! he was entitled to ac'uittal on the basis of the Supreme Courts decision in People &s. /acarandang0"##1 and People &s. 2ucero0"#31 and and not on the basis of the latest re&ersal and abandonment in People &s. /apa 0"#$41. #$$%&' 5hether or not appellant should be ac'uitted on the basis of the courts rulings in /acarandang and 2ucero! or should his con&ic con&ictio tion n stand stand in &iew &iew of the complete complete re&ers re&ersal al of the /Acarandang and 2ucero doctrine in /apa.
amended! in order to unra&el the legislati&e intent. The grant made by Act 7o. "=$> of the reclaimed land to the City of /anila /anila is a grant grant of a 8publi 8public c nature nature.. Such Such grants grants ha&e always been strictly construed against the grantee because it is a gratuitous donation of public money or resources! which resulted in an unfair ad&antage to the grantee. In the case at bar! the area reclaimed would be filled at the e)pense of the Insular *o&ernment and without cost to the City of /anila. (ence! the letter of the statute should be narrowed to e)clude matters which! if included! would defeat the policy of legislation. /.
aayo ayo v. Gse Gsell ll
F+$' This This is an action action for damage damagess agains againstt the 6efendan 6efendantt for personal in-uries suffered by +raulio Tamayo! Tamayo! "",year old son of the the Plai Plaint ntif iff. f. The The in-u in-ury ry was was attr attrib ibut uted ed to the the boy boyss ine)perience in the wor@ which he had been assigned for the first time and without prior instruction. #$$%&' 5?7 the plaintiff is entitled to reco&er damages under the mployers 2iability Act. &L5' Bes. The 2egislature intended that the measure of damages in personal in-ury cases brought under the mployers 2iability Act to be the same as that in the country from which the Act was ta@en! being of American American origin. 6.
ol! ol!"a "a vs. vs. Ra Rae er ry y
Facts: R%L#NG' 6ecisions of this Court! under Article Article 3 of the 7ew Ci&il Code states that 8Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system 9 . The The settl settled ed rule rule suppor supported ted by numero numerous us author authoriti ities es is a restat restateme ement nt of legal legal ma)im ma)im 8legis 8legis interp interpret retati atio o legis legis &im obtinet ; the interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law.
Appellan Appellantt was appointed appointed as Secret Secret Agent Agent and Confiden Confidential tial Agent Agent and authori
$ "=>$ which which authori! as
". The present case was a rehearing granted to the appellee for a trail court decision on Feb "! "#"3. The petition was granted and oral argument of the motion was permitted. . Jacinto /olina was the owner of &arious fish ponds in +ulacan. (e was re'uired to pay the merchants ta) re'uired by the +ureau of Internal De&enue. De&enue. =. /olina protested that he was an agriculturist and not a merchant and therefore e)empt from the ta)es imposed by the Internal De&enue 2aw upon the gross sales of merchants. %. Point of contention, Plaintiff Plaintiff contends that the fish produced by him are to be regarded regarded as an 8agricultural 8agricultural product within within the meaning of the term used in paragraph paragraph 0c1 of Section %" of Act 7o. ==# 07ow section "%$> of the Administrati&e Administrati&e Code of "#"41! enforced when the disputed ta) was le&ied and that he is e)empt from the percentage ta) on merchants sales established by section %> of Act 7o. ==#. . Paragraph 0c1 of Act 7o. ==# sec. %" reads: In computing the ta) abo&e imposed transactions in the following commodities shall be e)cluded: 0c1 Agricultural Agricultural products when sold b by y the producer or owner of the land where grown! whether in their original state or not $. In the Trial Court! the (onorable Jose Abreu in a carefully prepared decision decision ordered defendant to refund the P4".3" P4".3" paid by plaintiff as internal,re&enue internal,re&enue ta)es and penalties penalties under protest! with with legal interest interest thereon from 7o&ember $! "#"! the date of such payment under protest. III. Issue: ". 5E7 fish produced as were those upon which the ta) in 'uestion was le&ied are an agricultural product I 6ecision: 6ecision set aside. Judgment of lower court affirmed. I. Duling: ". Purpose of legislati&e in establishing the e)emption G e)empting agricultural products from the ta) the farming industry would be fa&ored and the de&elopment of the resources of the country encouraged. . As a conse'uence! it is fairly to be inferred from the statute that the ob-ect and purpose of the 2egislature was to le&y the ta) in 'uestion 0merchants ta)1 upon all persons engaged in
ma@ing a profit upon goods produced by others but to e)empt from the ta) all persons directly producing goods from the land. Products were grouped under 8agricultural products. =. It is also the public interest to encourage the artificial propagation of food. (owe&er! if the artificial production of fish is held not to be included within the e)emption of the statute this conclusion must be based upon the inade'uacy of the language used by the 2egislature to e)press its purpose! rather than the assumption that it was actually intended to e)clude producers of artificially grown fish from the benefits conferred upon producers of other substances brought into the store of national wealth by the arts of husbandry and animal industry. %. Court held that the ponds where the fish were grown is agricultural land within the definitions set b y the Acts of Congress! the Philippine Commission! and the /apa &s. Insular *o&t case. . 5ith regard to the 'uestion that that the fish artificially grown and fed in a confined area are agricultural products and therefore e)empt! the Court loo@ed deeper. It said that a man might culti&ate the surface of a tract of land patented to him under the mining law! but the products of such soil would not for that reason be any the less Hagricultural products.H Con&ersely! the admission that the land upon which these fishponds are constructed is not to be classified as mineral or forest land! does not lead of necessity to the conclusion that e&erything produced upon them is for that reason alone to be deemed an Hagricultural productH within the meaning of the statute under consideration. =. Courts and le)icographers are in accord in holding that the term agricultural products is not limited in its meaning to &egetable growth but includes e&erything which ser&es to satisfy human needs which is grown upon the land! whether it pertains to the &egetable @ingdom or to the animal @ingdom. %. Purpose of agriculture G obtain from the land the products to which it is best adapted and through it will yield the greatest return upon the e)penditure of a gi&en amount of labor and capital. This is similar to the process of enclosing an area for fish production and one of the diets of the products are marine plants rooted at the bottom of the pond. . Another distinction was made between fishermen and the people artificially growing fish in ponds so as to delineate the scope of the occupation ta). Fishermen were made liable to the occupation ta). The ones growing fish in ponds were not included. . As the present case related to S &s 2a)a! the court held that 2a)a wasnt controlling due to e&idence that the fish subsisted solely upon free floating algae in 2a)a while in /olina! the fish subsisted through plants which grow from roots which attach themsel&es to the bottom of the pond! thereby ma@ing /olinas fish in the real sense a product of the land 7. u +o"* &"* v. r!"!a Case 7o. ="4 *.D. 7o. 2,>%4# 0February $! "#1 Chapter I! Page $4! Footnote 7o. 43 F+$' Act #4 prohibited record boo@s of /erchants from being written in a language other than nglish! Spanish! or a local dialect. Bu Cong ng! a Chinese merchant! was penali
of interpreting the Act as a blan@et prohibition against @eeping boo@s in Chinese! it may be interpreted as a directory measure that records pertaining to ta)es must be written or annotated in nglish! Spanish! or a local dialect! or ha&e a duplicate in any of these languages. This liberal interpretation is reasonableand it upholds constitutionality. . rse"!o La8so" vs ar!a"o Roue Petitioner: Arsenio 2acson Despondents: /ADIA7E DEM! as Acting )ecuti&e Secretary! +ADTE2E/ *AT/AITA7! as ice,/ayor of /anila and 6IE7ISIE EJ6A! as Acting Chief of Police of /anila *.D. 7o. 2,$ January ">! "#= Fa8s' The then mayor of /anila! Arsenio 2acson! broadcasted some allegedly defamatory and libelous utterances against a certain -udge 0Judge /ontesa1. /ontesa then filed a libel case against 2acson. A special prosecutor was assigned to the case. The special prosecutor recommended the suspension of 2acson to the President. The President! through acting )ecuti&e Secretary /ariano Do'ue! issued a suspension order against 2acson. #$$%&' 5hether or not the /ayor may be suspended by the president from his post. &L5' 7o. There is neither statutory nor constitutional pro&ision granting the President sweeping authority to remo&e municipal officials. It is true that the President 8shall . . . e)ercise general super&ision o&er all local go&ernments! but super&ision does not contemplate control.
The contention that the President has inherent power to remo&e or suspend municipal officers is not well ta@en. Demo&al and suspension of public officers are always controlled by the particular law applicable and its proper construction sub-ect to constitutional limitations The power of the President to remo&e officials from office as pro&ided for in section $% 0b1 of the De&ised Administrati&e Code must be done 8conformably to lawN and only for disloyalty to the Depublic of the Philippines he 8may at any time remo&e a person from any position of trust or authority under the *o&ernment of the Philippines. Again! this power of remo&al must be e)ercised conformably to law! in this case! the allege libelous act of 2acson cannot be considered as disloyalty.
9. Pasor &"e"8!a vs $aur"!"o 5av! Pe!!o"ers' PASTED /. 767CIA and FD7A76E J*E Respo"e"s' SATD7I7E 6AI6! as Collector of Internal De&enue *.D. 7o. 2,$=,$ August ="! "#= Fa8s' Saturnino 6a&id! the then Collector of Internal De&enue! ordered the ta)ing of Justice Pastor ndencias and Justice Fernando Jugos 0and other -udges1 salary pursuant to Sec. "= of Depublic Act 7o. #> which pro&ides that
7o salary where&er recei&ed by any public officer of the Depublic of the Philippines shall be considered as e)empt from the income ta)! payment of which is hereby declared not to be a diminution of his compensation fi)ed by the Constitution or by law. The -udges howe&er argued that under the case of Perfecto &s /eer! -udges are e)empt from ta)ation G this is also in obser&ance of the doctrine of separation of powers! i.e.! the e)ecuti&e! to which the Internal De&enue reports! is separate from the -udiciaryN that under the Constitution! the -udiciary is
independent and the salaries of -udges may not be diminished by the other branches of go&ernmentN that ta)ing their salaries is already a diminution of their benefits?salaries 0see Section #! Art. III! Constitution1. The Solicitor *eneral! arguing in behalf of the CID! states that the decision in Perfecto &s /eer was rendered ineffecti&e when Congress enacted Depublic Act 7o. #>. #$$%&' 5hether or not Sec "= of DA #> is constitutional. &L5' 7o. The said pro&ision is a &iolation of the separation of powers. Enly courts ha&e the power to interpret laws. Congress ma@es laws but courts interpret them. In Sec. "=! D.A. #>! Congress is already encroaching upon the functions of the courts when it inserted the phrase: 8payment of which Ota) is hereby declared not to be a diminution of his compensation fi)ed by the Constitution or by law.
(ere! Congress is already saying that imposing ta)es upon -udges is not a diminution of their salary. This is a clear e)ample of interpretation or ascertainment of the meaning of the phrase 8which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office! found in Section #! Article III of the Constitution! referring to the salaries of -udicial officers. This act of interpreting the Constitution or any part thereof by the 2egislature is an in&asion of the well,defined and established pro&ince and -urisdiction of the Judiciary. 8The rule is recogni August ="! "#3" Fa8s' Muimpo is the owner of a parcel of land in City of Cagayan 6e Ero 0C6E1 City &alued at >!>>> P in "#$#. The realty ta) for this property is %>>.>> pesos annually payable in % e'ual instalments. (e paid on time for the first = installments amounting to =>>.>> but he defaulted with the last payment and it was only on the 4th of August the ne)t year that he settled the last instalment. (e tried paying to the City Treasurer of C6E for "%.>> inclusi&e of the penalty howe&er the Treasurer declined payment saying that he ought to pay "#$.>> 0">> pesos for the unpaid ta) and #$ pesos representing the penalty1. As such! Muimpo filed action for mandamus with damages against the City Treasurer and consigned "%.>> pesos before the Court of First Instance. (e asserts that he suffered mental anguish caused by the Treasurer thereby praying for "!>>> Peso worth of /oral! Actual and )emplary damages. #ssue' 5E7 the basis for computing the ta) penalty should be the ta) payable for the said year or only theinstallment unpaid
el'
5e rule for the petitioner! following the general rule in the interpretation of ta) statutes that such statutes are construed most strongly against the go&ernment and in fa&or of the ta)payer. /oreo&er! simple logic! fairness and reason cannot countenance an e)action or a penalty for an act faithfully done incompliance with the law. Since petitioner is allowed by law to pay his real estate ta) in four e'ual installments due and payable on four specified dates and ha&ing paid the first three 0=1 instalments faithfully and religiously! it is manifest in-ustice! sheer arbitrariness and abuse of power to penali
that ha&e the effect of law. Therefore! Circular 7o. purports merely to ad&ise employers,members of the System of what! in the light of the amendment of the law! they should include in determining the monthly compensation of their employees upon which the social security contributions should be based! and that such circular did not re'uire presidential appro&al and publication in the Efficial *a
Philippine Islands. At this time the appellant was a few days under " years and = months of age.
12. Res!"s vs. u!or Ge"eral Petitioner: DSI7S! I7CEDPEDAT6 Despondents: A6ITED *7DA2 EF T( P(I2IPPI7S and T( C7TDA2 +A7L EF T( P(I2IPPI7S! *.D. 7o. 2,"4333 Ectober #! "#$3
+asis: Section " of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the nited States reads: All persons born or naturali
Fa8s' Petitioner Desins Inc! as in Casco &. *imene# for the importation of urea and formaldehyde! as separate units! used for the production of synthetic glue! of which it was a manufacturer.
Since the specific language of the Act spea@ of 8urea formaldehyde and petitioner admittedly did import urea and formaldehyde separately! it can be e)empted if the law was construed to read 8urea and formaldehyde. #ssue' 5E7 Desins contention is with merit el' 7o. 8rea formaldehyde is clearly a finished product! which is patently distinct from 8urea and 8formaldehyde as separate articles. Desins contend that the appro&ed Congress bill contained the con-unction 8and and that Congress intended to e)empt urea and formaldehyde separately! citing statements made on the floor of the Senate. Said indi&idual statements do not necessarily reflect the &iew of the Senate! much less of the (ouse of Depresentati&es. It is also well settled that the enrolled bill is conclusi&e upon the courts. If there has been any mista@e in the printing of the bill! the remedy is by amendment or curati&e language not by -udicial decree.
Additionally! refund parta@es of a nature of an e)emption! it cannot be allowed unless granted in the most e)plicit and categorical language. The Court has held that e)emption from ta)ation is not fa&ored and ne&er presumed! so that if granted it must be strictly construed against the ta)payer 0strictissimi -uris1. Petition denied. 13. %P =;R5 ;F R&G&N$ $. %5#;R G&N&RL 19. R; vs #N$%LR +;LL&+;R ;F +%$;$, Pe!!o"er' TDA7MI2I7E DEA! ! Respo"e"' I7S2AD CE22CTED EF CSTE/S! Fa8s' Tran'uilino Doa! was born in the town of 2uculan! /indanao! Philippine Islands! on July $! "33#. (is father was +asilio Doa y Tiong Co! a nati&e of China! and his mother was +asilia Dodrigue>. Subse'uent to the death of his father! in /ay! "#>"! the appellant was sent to China by his mother for the sole purpose of studying 0and always with the intention of returning1 and returned to the Philippine Islands on the steamship Laifong! arri&ing at the port of Cebu Ectober "! "#">! from Amoy! China! and sought admission to the
#ssue' 5hether or not Tran'uilino Doa was a citi! and ne&er ha&ing e)patriated himself! he still remains a citi
The cession of the Philippine Islands definitely transferred the allegiance of the nati&e inhabitants from Spain to the nited States 0articles = and # of Treaty of Paris1. Filipinos remaining in this country who were not nati&es of the Peninsula could not! according to the terms of the treaty! elect to retain their allegiance to Spain. +y the cession their allegiance became due to the nited States and they became entitled to its protection. The nationality of the Islands American instead of Spanish. The appellant was! as we ha&e stated! born in the Philippine Islands in "33#. (is father was a domiciled alien and his mother a nati&e of this country. (is father died in China about the year "#>> while he was still a minor. (is mother sent him to China for the sole purpose of studying and on reaching his ma-ority he returned to the country of his birth and sought admission. From the date of his birth to the time he returned to this country he had ne&er in a legal sense changed his domicile. A minor cannot change his own domicile. As minors ha&e the domicile. As minors ha&e the domicile of their father he may change their domicile by changing his own! and after his death the mother! while she remains a widow! may li@ewise by changing her domicile change the domicile of the minor. The domicile of the children in either case as follows the domicile of their parent. 02amar &s. /iccu! "" .S.! %.1 After the death of the father the widowed mother became the natural guardian of the appellant. The mother before she married was a Spanish sub-ect and entitled to all the rights! pri&ileges and immunities pertaining thereto. pon the death of her husband! which occurred after the Philippine Islands were ceded to the nited States! she! under the rule pre&ailing in the nited States! ipso facto reac'uired the nationality of the Philippine Islands! being that of her nati&e country. 5hen she reac'uired the nationality of the country of her birth the appellant was a minor and neither he nor his mother had e&er left this country 20. People o e P!l!pp!"es v. Ferrer +ase No. 20 G.R. No. L-32613-14 (5e8eber 27, 1972) +aper #, Pa*e 13, Foo"oe No./0
FACTS: Pri&ate Despondents were respecti&ely charged with a &iolation of Depublic Act 7o. "4>>! otherwise @nown as the Anti,Sub&ersion Act. DA "4>> outlaws the Communist Party of the Philippines 0CPP1 and other 8sub&ersi&e associations and punishes any person who 8@nowingly! willfully and by
o&ert acts affiliates himself with! becomes or remains a member of the CPP or any other organi Pe!!o"er' L; . #+;N. Respo"e"s' #& &RNN5&< a" R+&L#N; $R#&N;. Fa8s' Ichong &s. (ernande is entitled HAn Act to Degulate the Detail +usiness.H In effect it nationali> Filipino capitali
Section 3 of Article I of the Constitution. In answer! the Solicitor,*eneral and the Fiscal of the City of /anila contend that: 0"1 the Act was passed in the &alid e)ercise of the police power of the State! which e)ercise is authori
