City of Baguio v. Marcos G.R. No. L-26100.

February 28, 1969

Facts: In April 12, 1912, the director of lands in the CFI of Baguio INSTITUTED the reopening of cadastral
proceedings. In November 13, 1922, a decision was RENDERED. The land involved was the Baguio
Townsite which was declared public land. In July 25, 1961, Belong Lutes petitioned to reopen the civil
case on the following grounds: 1) he and his predecessors have been in continuous possession and
cultivation of the land since Spanish times; 2) his predecessors were illiterate Igorots, thus, were not
able to file their claim. On the contrary, F. Joaquin Sr., F. Joaquin Jr., and Teresita Buchholz opposed
Lutes’ reopening on the following grounds: 1) the reopening was filed outside the 40-year period
provided in RA 931; 2) the petition to reopen the case was not published; and 3) as lessees of the land,
they have standing on the issue.

Issue: Whether or not the reopening of the peririon was filed outside the 40-year period provided in RA
931, which was ENACTED on June 20, 1953

Held: The Supreme Court grabted the reopening of cadastral proceedings

Ratio: The title of RA 931 was “An Act to Authorize the Filing in Proper Court under Certain Conditions,
of Certain Claims of Title to Parcels of Land that have been Declared Public Land, by Virtue of Judicial
Decisions RENDERED within the 40 Years Next Preceding the Approval of this Act.” Section 1 of the Act
reads as “..in case such parcels of land, on account of their failure to file such claims, have been, or
about to be declared land of the public domain by virtue of judicial proceedings INSTITUTED within the
40 years next preceding the approval of this act.”  If the title is to be followed, November 13, 1922 is the
date which should be followed, hence, would allow the reopening of the case. If Section 1 is to be
followed, the date of the institution of reopening of the case which was April 12, 1912, the petition
would be invalid.

StatCon maxim: The title is an indispensable part of a statute, and what may inadequately be omitted in
the text may be supplied or remedied by its title.
People vs. Purisima (Statutory Construction)

Facts:

These twenty-six (26) Petitions for Review filed by the People of the Philippines represented,
respectively, by the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Samar, and
joined by the Solicitor General, are consolidated in this one Decision as they involve one basic question
of law.

The respondent-courts are: CFI of Manila Branches VII and XVIII and CFI of Samar

Several informations were filed before the abovementioned courts charging the accused of Illegal
Possession of Deadly Weapon in violation of Presidential Decree #9. The counsel of the defense filed
motions to quash the said informations after which the respondent-courts passed their own orders
quashing the said informations on common ground that the informations did not allege facts
constituting ang offense penalized until PD#9 for failure to state an essential element of the crime,
which is, that the carrying outside of the accused’s residence of a bladed, pointed, or blunt weapon is in
furtherance or on the occasion of, connected with, or related to to subversion, insurrection, or rebellion,
organized lawlessness or public disorder. 

The respondent courts stand that PD#9 should be read in the context of Proc.1081 which seeks to
maintain law and order in the country as well as the prevention and suppression of all forms of lawless
violence. The non-inclusion of the aforementioned element may not be distinguished from other
legislation related to the illegal possession of deadly weapons. Judge Purisima, in particular, reasoned
that the information must allege that the purpose of possession of the weapon was intended for the
purposes of abetting the conditions of criminality, organized lawlessness, public disorder. The
petitioners said that the purpose of subversion is not necessary in this regard because the prohibited act
is basically a malum prohibitum or is an action or conduct that is prohibited by virtue of a statute. The
City Fiscal also added in cases of statutory offenses, the intent is immaterial and that the commission of
the act is voluntary is enough.

Issue: 

Are the informations filed by the people sufficient in form and substance to constitute the offense of
“Illegal possession of deadly weapon” penalized under Presidential Decree No. 9?

Held:

1. It is the constitutional right of any person who stands charged in a criminal prosecution to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

2. Under Sec. 5 Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, for a complaint or information to be sufficient, it must
state the designation of the offense by the statute and the acts or omissions complained of as
constituting the offense. This is essential to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford him the
opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly.

3. The supreme court says that the preamble of PD#9 states that the intention of such decree is to
penalize the acts which are related to Proc.1081 which aim to suppress lawlessness, rebellion,
subversive acts, and the like. While the preamble is not a part of the statute, it implies the intent and
spirit of the decree. The preamble and whereas clauses also enumerate the facts or events which justify
the promulgation of the decree and the stiff sanctions provided.

The petition is DISMISSED.

People v. Subido G.R. No. L-21734. September 5, 1975

Facts: The CFI found Subido guilty of liber. Therefore, he was sentenced of 3 months of arresto mayor
with the accessory penalties of the law, pay the fine of P500.00, indemnify the offended party, Mayor
Arsenio Lacson, of P10,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
However, the Court of Appeals modified the judgment by removing the penalty of arresto mayor,
reducing the indemnity amount from P10,000 to P5,000 and mentioned nothing of the subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency. As a result, Subido filed with the trial court to recognize the decision
of the Court of Appeals and to cancel his appeal bond.

Issue: Whether or not, the accused-appellant can be required to serve the fine and indemnity prescribed
in the judgment of the Court of Appeals in form of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency?

Held: Yes

Ratio:  The use of a comma (,) in the part of the sentence is to make “the subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency” refer not only to non-payment of the indemnity, but also to non-payment of the fine.