US. v. Go Chico GR. No, 4963, September 15, 1909 FACTS: or i about August 4, 1908, Is Store, No 89 Calle upon which fans ae used during 1 to epee the identify those in armed insurrection against the United e F to aforementioned, ‘of which the medallions formed part, at a pre made under authority of the sheriff of the city of Manila. On in form of small buttons, lacing them in his showcase and in one of the windows of his store, ainst the display of the Sec. 1 - Any person who shall expose, or cause or permit to be exposed, to public view on his own pre ‘or who shall expose, or cause to be exposed, to public view, either on his own premises or elsewhere, any flag, banner, emblem, or device used during the late insurrection of the Philippine Islands to designate ‘or identify those in armed rebellion against the United States, or any flag, banner, emblem, or device used or adopted at any time by the public enemies of the United States in the Philippine islands for the purposes of public disorder or of rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States in the banners, devices, or embl ion by those in arme The cht the lon respi of smite, constitutes he ine statute may lead to an absurdi the legislature.1. Was thet issi re an act or omission committed by the appellant? 2. Was the act performed ei rfc or the omission incurred by means of deceit or fault? ‘Advertisements RULING HELD: No 1. The witness failed to i = appellant in the killing eae a definite and specific act committed, or contributed, by the performed by the pee euceecerrads, There is paucity of proof as to what act was Fefined under Article 3 of the Revise = ot satis the element of “act or “omission” as 2. There i i i aS ene ea He a evidence of the prosecution which can categorize the criminal eRe revised & pt as a principal by direct participation under Article 17, paragraph 1 oO evised Penal Code. The prosecution failed to prove his involvement by inducement, under paragraph 2 of the same Article 17, or by indispensable cooperation under paragraph 3 thereof. 3, Huntoria’s credibility as 2 witnt testify eight months after the inci threatened by the accused or by any! witness provided him with economic ess is tarnished by the fact that he only came out to ident for fear of his life. There is no showing that he was body. As a tenant of the victim, his involvement as 2 favors from the victim's family.People of the Philippines vs Gonzales, et. al. G.R. No. 80762 G.R. No. 80762 | March 19, 1990 FACTS At around 9:00 o'clock in the evenin Barangay Captain Bartol Murdered Lloyd Pefiacerrada, their landlord, after the latter attempted to rape her. Augusto Headquarters in Sara, lloilo. Two days after the incident, Augusto voluntarily surrendered to Ajuy Police Sub-station for detention and Protective custody and requested to be detained with his wife in Sara, lloilo. Eight months after the incident, Jose Huntoria who claimed to have witnessed the killing, presented himself to the victim's widow. He testified for the prosecution and accused additional suspects, namely Custodio Gonzales, Sr., Custodio Gonzales, Jr., Nerio Gonzales, and Rogelio Lanida. He stated that at around 8:00 o'clock at the night of the incident, he passed at the vicinity of the Gonzales spouses’ house and heard cries for help. Hidden in a clump of banana some 15 to 20 meters away from the source of the shouts, he alle Se | the accused ganging upon and takings tums in stabbing and hacking V or threshing platform. He recognized all the accused as the place light, but was unable to distinguish their individual acts. Huntoria lifted the victim's body and carried it to house of the Gonzales 10 to 25 meters away. Huntoria went home and relayed what he lis wife. He did not immediately report to the police authorities li for the crime of murder?US V Pablo Oct. 7, 1916 Appeal from judgment of cri Facts: ae 2clnateitinony pee tee ani Malics| and Rodrigo, when he and his partner raided a justeng game. ++ Inthe lack of penal sanction for perjury or false testimony under Act No, 1697, repealing Ar 21@ and 324 which contained the terms for: perjury, may Pablo's acts go ‘unpunished? NO. The punishment for such acts were provided for but not yet applied. Although Act No. 1697 was enacted, it did not expressly repeal the punishment terms of the said crime. As the act is contrary to legislative will and such ___ repeals were never expressly said, itis still in force and properly applicable. eee day imprisonment, 1,000 pesetas, and the cost of both instances. ares Fe eee. ae 8 mister © pea gta na gtoCRIMINAL Law 1 Prospective (Article 21 and 22, RPC) EFI EFFECTS OF REPEAL) — Article 7 of the New Civil Code. People of the Phili G.Rno.1-41423 March 19, 1935, Hull, J. ippine Island Vs. Crisanto Tamayo Appellant moved for dismissal of action ay gainst him on account of the r¢ al of the tion of the municipal ordinance under which he had been convicted. eae FACTS: 1. Appellant was convicted in Justice of Peace Court Magsingal, llocos Sur for violation of Section 2 Municipal Ordinance No. 5 Series of 1932 2. Upon appeal to Court of First instance of Ilocos Sur, conviction resulted and a fine was imposed. 3. While appeal was pending, Municipal Council repealed Section 2 in question. Repeal was approved by Provincial Board, and the act complained of has now become legal in that municipality. ISSUE: “WON the appellant, Mr. Tamayo is still iable for violation of that ordinance which has been repealed and is now legal” | the cases ‘of US vs Cuna (12 Phil, 241) and Wing vs US (218 U.S 272) Doctrine was ‘in the Philippines repeal of a Criminal Act by its reenactment, even without a saving ot destroy criminal liability. However, not a single sentence in either decision yy desire to hold a person convicted, prosecuted and punished for acts no the repeal was absolute and not a reenactment, repeal by implication, Jative intent as shown by the action of the municipal council is no longer deemed criminal, and would be illogical for for an offense that no longer exists. The proceedings Scanned with CamScanner8/14/22, 5:35 PM People v Pastor - Case Digest [People of the Philippines, plaintiff and appellant, vs Pastor and Pastor, defendants and | appellees GR. No, 335, February 12, 1947 En Bane Tepe ‘Absolute Repeal (express or implied) Ponente Fila, 3 Facts Geronima Sindiong de Pastor and Santos Pastor, herein defendants-appellees, owners, managers and administrator of the “magazine Centger”, an establishment devoted to the selling of newspapers, magazines and stationery, were charged by the Provincial Fiscal of Negros Oriental with 2 violation of sections 1458 and 1459 of the Revised Administrative Code, in relation with Act 3243, and section 2723 of the same Code. The Information alleges that the Pastors, during the period between 1936 and 1938, being such owners, managers and administrators of said *Magazine Center’, with deliberate purpose to evade the payment of the percentage tax upon their receipts, voluntarily, legally, and criminally neglected to make a return of their sales within the time prescribed by law. The herein defendants-appellees waved their right to a preliminary investigation, whereupon the proper information was lodged against them with the Court of First Instance of the province on in July 1941, No further proceedings were taken unt January 1946, wen they fled a motion to quash. Late, the court passed upon the motion to quash on the ground that the kind of business the herein defendants-appellees are engaged is no longer subject to the payment of percentage tax since itis no longer within the penal provisions of section 209 of the Internal Revenue Code which supersedes the provisions of section 2725 of the Revised Administrative Code, The government, through its counsel, admitted the fact that without the enactment of amendatory Act 503, the conclusion reached by the trial court would be correct, because under Commonwealth Act 465, only the manufacturer, producer or importer is liable for the payment of the percentage tax. But with 1138/14/22, 5:35 PM People v Pastor - Case Digest the enactment of Act 503, the intention of the legislature to subject all merchants to the payment of the privilege tax, in the seme way they were subject thereto under the provisions of the Revised Administrative Code, becomes perfectly clear However, the amendatory Commonwealth Act 503, was enacted in only in 1939. Therefore, the sales made by the present defendants between 1936 and 1938 were not covered by the provisions of Sec.5 of said amendatory Act. 503 which was notin existence when they took place. Hence, this appeal, Tesve{s) T. Whether oF not violations of the provisions of the repeated acts, while they were in force, could be legally prosecuted after the repeal but also after the enactment of the Repealing Act. Ruling NO. In the case of US vs Cuna, as cited in the brief of the Government's counsel, the Court ruled that the enactment of new penal laws, notwithstanding the fact that they contain general repealing clause, does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence persons charged with violations of the old law, prior to the date when the repealing law goes into effect, unless the new law wholly falls to penalze the acts which constituted the offense defined and penalized in the repealed law. ‘The Court adopted the said doctrine, where the repealing law Wholly falls to penalize the acts which constituted the offense defined and penalized in the repealed law, the repeal carsies with it the deprivation of the courts of jurisdiction to try, convict, and sentence persons charged with the violations of the old law prior to the appeal ‘The Court affirmed the appeal 2138/14/22, 5:35 PM People v Pastor - Case Digest Dissenting/Concurring Opinions 3/3