Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Agote Vs Lorenzo Digest

    Загружено:

    Ricky James Laggui Suyu
    380 просмотров2 страницы
    Vicente Agote was charged with violating Presidential Decree No. 1866 for illegal possession of a firearm and COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 for having a firearm during an election period without a license. While the case was pending, Republic Act No. 8294 was passed which reduced penalties for illegal firearm possession. The trial court convicted Agote under both charges and imposed separate penalties. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) RA 8294 should apply retroactively since it imposes lighter penalties, but could not set aside the PD 1866 conviction since a violation of the COMELEC resolution also occurred; and (2) illegal firearm possession cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance for the COMELEC resolution

    Исходное описание:

    Republic of the Philippines Department of Justice CITY PROSECUTION OFFICE ________________ GUIAMALIA KENENGKO Complainant , -versus- BEDO SINUMPAY Respondent. Docket No: _________ For: Violation of R.A 9262 Violence Against Women and their Children x------------------------------x COMPLAINT – AFFIDAVIT I, GUIAMALIA KENENGKO, of legal age, Filipino, married to the respondent, and a resident of #3 Notre Dame Avenue, Cotabato City, after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state: 1. I am and the same person who is the complainant in the instant case; 2. I know the person of BEDO, being my husband and who is currently in active service in the XXXXXXXXX– Bacolod City, where he may be served with Office summons, notices and processes; 3. That we were married on February 10, 2006 at Regional Trial Court – Branch 13 before the sala of Hon. Judge XXXXXXX. The copy of marriage certificate is hereto attached as Annex “A”; 4. That out of lawful marriage, we begot two(2) children. The first child is XXXXXXXXXXXXXX who was born on June 2, 2006 and our second child XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX was born on February 25, 2009. Our daughter Gianna is Nine (9) years old while our son Corvin is six (6) years old. Copies of their Certificates of Live Birth are hereto attached and marked as Annexes “B” and “C” respectively; 5. That in the beginning of our marriage, we lived harmoniously as husband and wife and parents to our children until later part that the my husband had shown and displayed irrational behaviour not expected from a mature and a responsible husband and father to our children; 6. That while he was in Armed Forces of the Philippines assigned at Camp Bonifacio, Taguig City, he used to regularly go home and visit us; 7. That when he transferred his service to the PNP starting on March 2011, he did not go home already and spare sometime to visit us, worst is he did not even send support to us; 8. That I have sent letter addressed to the former PNP Chief PDG Alan Purisima requesting for sub-allotment of allowances intended for our two (2) children, copy of which is hereto attached as Annex “D”; 9. We both ended up in entering into a Memorandum of Agreement which executed on September 16, 2013 at Manila, Philippines with a stipulation that my husband shall give a total amount of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos per month divided as Two Thousand Five Hundred (P 2,500,00) for every child and additional Two Thousand (P 2,000.00) Pesos for children’s education, copy of the said Memorandum of Agreement is hereto attached and marked as Annex “E”; 10. Despite this agreement, my husband continuously failed to comply to his undertakings because he failed to give the amount agreed upon as a support; 11. I was constrained to seek legal assistance from the Public Attorney’s Office – XXXXXXXXXXXXXX which immediately assisted me by preparing and sending a Demand Letter requesting that the amount Seven Thousand (P 7,000.00) Pesos shall be directly deducted from the net pay of my husband and the amount be sent to me in a form of a check. The same request is not yet acted upon until this very moment, copy of the said letter is hereto attached and marked as Annex “F”; 12. That his act of continuous failure to give support since the year 2011 tantamount to economic abuse which is defined under R.A 9262 or Violence Against Women and their Children as: "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is not limited to the following: 1. Withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code; xxxxxxxxx.” 13. I have been hearing rumors that my husband has been roman

    Оригинальное название

    Agote vs Lorenzo Digest

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Vicente Agote was charged with violating Presidential Decree No. 1866 for illegal possession of a firearm and COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 for having a firearm during an election period without a license. While the case was pending, Republic Act No. 8294 was passed which reduced penalties for illegal firearm possession. The trial court convicted Agote under both charges and imposed separate penalties. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) RA 8294 should apply retroactively since it imposes lighter penalties, but could not set aside the PD 1866 conviction since a violation of the COMELEC resolution also occurred; and (2) illegal firearm possession cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance for the COMELEC resolution

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    380 просмотров2 страницы

    Agote Vs Lorenzo Digest

    Загружено:

    Ricky James Laggui Suyu
    Vicente Agote was charged with violating Presidential Decree No. 1866 for illegal possession of a firearm and COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 for having a firearm during an election period without a license. While the case was pending, Republic Act No. 8294 was passed which reduced penalties for illegal firearm possession. The trial court convicted Agote under both charges and imposed separate penalties. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) RA 8294 should apply retroactively since it imposes lighter penalties, but could not set aside the PD 1866 conviction since a violation of the COMELEC resolution also occurred; and (2) illegal firearm possession cannot be considered an aggravating circumstance for the COMELEC resolution

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 2

    Agote vs.

    Lorenzo
    G.R. No. 142675. July 22, 2005
    Petitioner: Vicente Agote
    Respondents: Hon. Manuel Lorenzo, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 43, Manila and People
    of the Philippines
    Ponente: J. Garcia

    FACTS:

    Petitioner Vicente Agote was charged to have violated Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of
    Firearms) and COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 (Gun Ban) for having in possession one (1) .38 cal. Rev. with four (4)
    live bullets in a public place during the election period without having secured the necessary license and authority
    from the COMELEC. During the pendency of the case, Republic Act No. 8294was approved into law. Eventually,
    the trial court rendered judgment of conviction in both cases wherein separate penalties were imposed respectively.
    Petitioner moved for reconsideration, claiming that the penalty for illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No.
    1866 had already been reduced by the subsequent enactment of Republic Act No. 8294, which the trial court
    subsequently denied. He then filed a petition before the Court of Appeals which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
    2991-UDK, but was likewise dismissed.

    ISSUES:
    1)

    Whether

    or

    not

    Republic

    Act

    No.

    8294

    should

    be

    applied

    retroactively.

    2) Whether or not such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as a special aggravating circumstance.

    HELD:
    1) Yes. The rule is that penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony.
    Republic Act No. 8294 lowers the penalty for illegal possession of firearms depending on the class of firearm
    possessed. The lighter penalty may be imposed to a person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm or ammunition,
    unless no other crime was committed. Moreover, the Court has already ruled in Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals that
    said law must be given retroactive effect in favor of those accused under P.D. No. 1866. But as violation of
    COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 or the Gun Ban was also committed by the petitioner at the same time, the Court
    cannot but set aside petitioners conviction for illegal possession of firearm.

    2) No. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides that any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm or
    ammunition shall be penalized, unless no other crime was committed. It further provides that such use of an
    unlicensed firearm shall be considered only as an aggravating circumstance in cases of homicide or murder. Since
    the crime committed was in violation of COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 or the Gun Ban, illegal possession of
    firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance.

    Вам также может понравиться