You are on page 1of 3

Non allegata, non probata

Anna Lerima Patula vs. People of the Philippines GR no. 164457 April 11, 2012 699
Scra 135
The petitioner, Anna Patula is an employee of a shoe outlet
Whether the accused

. Sunday or Holiday. The construction is not in accordance with the legislative intent. 1992 Facts: The Civil Service Act of 1959 conferred upon the commissioner of the Civil Service to prescribe. Held: No. The petitioner questioned the said administrative interpretation. When the law does not distinguish. are not required by law to work on weekends and holidays and thus they cannot be declared absent and should not be deprived of their salary just because of their absent without pay on the day immediately prior to. Civil Service Commission GR no. the Civil Service Commission’s interpreted provision is valid and constitutional. amend and enforce suitable rules and regulation for carrying into effect the provisions of the Civil Service Law. the general rule vis-à-vis legislation is that an unconstitutional act is not a law. it creates no office. it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed. The petitioner. The fact remains that government employees. Sunday or Holiday.Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus Peralta vs. he is also considered on leave of absence without pay on such Saturday. Maynard Peralta is affected by interpreted provisions of the Civil Service Commission from the Republic Act no. it imposes no duties. 95832 August 10. we ought not to distinguish. Issue: Whether or not. whether or not they have accumulated leave credits. it confers no rights. The law speaks of the granting of the right and the law does not provide for a distinction between those who have accumulated leave credits and those who have exhausted their leave credits in order to enjoy such right. it affords no protection. or after said non-working days. 2625 amending the Revised Administrative Code and adopted a policy that when an employee who was on leave of absence without pay on a day before or on a day time immediately preceding a Saturday.

Art. Together with Nicolas Lachion. the petition is granted. the accused Lachion married the offended party. not retrospective. the principles underlying our laws granting to the accused in certain cases an exception to the general rule that laws shall not be retroactive when the law in question favors the accused. Magdalena de Ocampo and he was freed under the provisions of Section 2 of Act no.Lex Prospicit. 446 of the Old Penal Code then in forced. as to what legal maxim’s Lex prospicit. 1932 . but the herein petitioner continued to serve his sentence because he was not covered by said provision. Sources: Clemente Laceste vs. non respicit Laceste vs. has evidently been carried out over into the Revised Penal Code at force in the Philippines through Article 22 of the said code. Paulino Santos GR no. Therefore. such benefits are accorded to him by virtue of the last paragraph of the said article. non respicit all about. 22 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable to the petitioner. This is an exemption to the general rule that all laws are prospective. writ shall be granted to the petitioner. prays the court to set him at liberty through the writ of habeas corpus. Later. Clemente Laceste. Issue: Whether or not. However. when the Penal code took effect in the Philippines until 1931. Clemente Laceste Held: It may be clearly seen way back 1884. under the Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code now in force. -L36886 February 1. 1773 and Art. Santos February 1. was prosecuted and convicted of the crime of rape. 1932 Facts: The petitioner.