Scribd
Upload
174 views2 pages

Veroy v. Layague: Firearms Law Ruling

Spouses Veroy owned a house in Davao that was raided by authorities who found a handgun, bullets, and printed materials. The spouses claimed their rights against unlawful searches and seizures were violated and that Presidential Decree 1866 under which they were charged was repealed by Republic Act 6968. The Supreme Court ruled the spouses' rights were violated but that PD 1866 was not repealed, as the laws addressed different offenses and there was no clear elimination of one by the other.

Uploaded by

Carissa Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
174 views2 pages

Veroy v. Layague: Firearms Law Ruling

Spouses Veroy owned a house in Davao that was raided by authorities who found a handgun, bullets, and printed materials. The spouses claimed their rights against unlawful searches and seizures were violated and that Presidential Decree 1866 under which they were charged was repealed by Republic Act 6968. The Supreme Court ruled the spouses' rights were violated but that PD 1866 was not repealed, as the laws addressed different offenses and there was no clear elimination of one by the other.

Uploaded by

Carissa Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Veroy v.

Layague
G.R. No. 95630. | June 18, 1992 | PARAS, J. | Judicial Construction

PETITIONER: SPOUSES LEOPOLDO and MA. LUISA VEROY,

RESPONDENTS: THE HON. WILLIAM L. LAYAGUE et. al.

SUMMARY: Spouses Veroy owned a house in Davao which iis their former
residence. Capt. Obrero raided the house in Davao because of information that
it is being used as a safehouse of rebel soldiers.

The authorities found a handgun, bullets, printed materials, a book entitled


"Islamic Revolution Future Path of the Nation", and religious pamphlets were
found in the master's bedroom.

The petitioners contend that Sec. 1 PD 1866, under which they are charged, is
considered repealed by RA 6968.

The petitioners also claimed that the officers violated their rights against
searches and seizures. The SC ruled in favor of the petitioner regarding the
violation of their right, but not on the alleged repeal of PD 1866.

DOCTRINE: It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that where the words


and phrases of a statute are not obscure or ambiguous, its meaning and the
intention of the legislature must be determined from the language employed,
and where there is no ambiguity in the words, there is no room for
construction

A perusal of the aforementioned laws would reveal that the legislature provided
for two (2) distinct offenses; (1) illegal possession of Drearms under Presidential
Decree No. 1866; and (2) rebellion, coup d'etat, sedition and disloyalty under
Republic Act 6968; evidently involving different subjects which were not clearly
shown to have eliminated the others.

FACTS:
Just a brief kwento as to what happened in the case
Include the assailed law/provision

ISSUE/s:
Whether or not PD 1866 is considered repealed by RA 6968. - NO

RULING: PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is granted and the criminal


case against the petitioners for illegal possession of firearms is DISMISSED.
The SC ruled in favor of the petitioner regarding the violation of their right, but
not on the alleged repeal of PD 1866.
RATIO:
Likewise, petitioners' contention that Republic Act 6968 has repealed
Presidential Decree No. 1866 is bereft of merit.
It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that where the words and phrases
of a statute are not obscure or ambiguous, its meaning and the intention of the
legislature must be determined from the language employed, and where there
is no ambiguity in the words, there is no room for construction
A perusal of the aforementioned laws would reveal that the legislature provided
for two (2) distinct offenses; (1) illegal possession of Drearms under Presidential
Decree No. 1866; and (2) rebellion, coup d'etat, sedition and disloyalty under
Republic Act 6968;
evidently involving different subjects which were not clearly shown to have
eliminated the others.

You might also like