Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • 86177172!

    Загружено:

    rain06021992
    6 просмотров3 страницы
    Ty vs. NBI Supervising Agent De Jemil Arnel U. Ty, MARIE ANTONETTE TY, JASON ONG, WILLY DY, and ALVIN TY, vs. NBI SUPERVISING AGENT MARVIN E. DE JEMIL, PETRON GASUL DEALERS ASSOCIATION, and TOTALGAZ DEALERS ASSOCIATION G.R. No. 182147 | December 15, 2010 | Velasco, Jr.,J.: Facts: Petitioners are stockholders of Omni Gas Corporation ("Omni"). They are being suspected of engaging in illegal trading of petroleum products and underfilling of branded LPG cylinders in violation of B.P. 33, as amended by P.D. 1865. NBI Agents Marvin De Jemil and Edgardo Kawada conducted surveillance operations on Omni. On 15 April 2004, the NBI Agents carried out a test-buy. Using eight branded LPG cylinders from Shell, Petron and Total, they went to Omni for refilling. Omni refilled the cylinders. The NBI agents paid more than P1500. LPG Inspector Noel Navio found that the LPG cylinders were without LPG valve seals and one of the cylinders was actually underfilled. On 28 April 2004, Agent De Jemil obtained a search warrant from Pasig RTC branch 167. The NBI seized several items from Omni's premises. Subsequently, Agent De Jemil filed his Complaint-Affidavit before the DOJ. The Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasig found probable cause for violation of BP 33. This was later approved by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuno. Petitioners appealed the decision to the Secretary of Justice, who later reversed the decision of the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor. NBI Agent De Jemil moved for reconsideration. Denied. He thus filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of Secretary of Justice. It later reversed itself and reinstated the Resolution of the Chief State Prosecutor. Issues: (1) Whether the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals was proper even if Agent De Jemil did not appeal to the Office of the President? (2) Whether probable cause exists against petitioners for violations of Sec. 2 (a) and (c) of BP 33, as amended? (3) Whether petitioners can be held liable therefor? Held: (1) YES. The determination of probable cause by the public prosecutor, and, later on, by the Secretary of Justice, is subject to judicial review where it is established that grave abuse of discretion tainted the determination. The aggrieved party need not resort to the Office of the President before availing of judicial remedies because the Secretary of Justice is an alter ego of the President who may opt to exercise or not to exercise his or her power of review over the former’s determination in criminal investigation cases. Also, under the doctrine of qualified political agency, the determination of probable cause by the Secretary of Justice is presumably that of the Chief Executive unless disapproved or reprobated by the latter. (2) YES. The test-buy conducted on 15 April 2004 tends to show that Omni illegally refilled the eight branded cylinders. Such act is a clear violation of Sec. 2 (a), in relation to Secs. 3 (c) and 4 of BP 33, as amended. Omni has no authority to refill LPG cylinders as shown by the certifications provided by Shell, Petron and Total. The seized items also show that Omni has no authority to refill the cylinders. It shows that Omni really refilled branded cylinders without authorization. Omni’s unauthorized refilling of branded LPG cylinders, contrary to Sec. 2 (a) in relation to Sec. 3 (c) of BP 33, as amended. Granting arguendo that the customers already owned the LPG cylinders, such fact does give Omni authority to refill the cylinders without authorization from the brand owners. Only the duly authorized dealers and refillers of the brand owners may refill the branded LPG cylinders. The offense of refilling a branded LPG cylinder without the written consent of the brand owner constitutes the offense regardless of the buyer or possessor of the branded LPG cylinder. Petitioner's contention that they are not liable because the

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Ty vs. NBI Supervising Agent De Jemil Arnel U. Ty, MARIE ANTONETTE TY, JASON ONG, WILLY DY, and ALVIN TY, vs. NBI SUPERVISING AGENT MARVIN E. DE JEMIL, PETRON GASUL DEALERS ASSOCIATION, and TOTALGAZ DEALERS ASSOCIATION G.R. No. 182147 | December 15, 2010 | Velasco, Jr.,J.: Facts: Petitioners are stockholders of Omni Gas Corporation ("Omni"). They are being suspected of engaging in illegal trading of petroleum products and underfilling of branded LPG cylinders in violation of B.P. 33, as amended by P.D. 1865. NBI Agents Marvin De Jemil and Edgardo Kawada conducted surveillance operations on Omni. On 15 April 2004, the NBI Agents carried out a test-buy. Using eight branded LPG cylinders from Shell, Petron and Total, they went to Omni for refilling. Omni refilled the cylinders. The NBI agents paid more than P1500. LPG Inspector Noel Navio found that the LPG cylinders were without LPG valve seals and one of the cylinders was actually underfilled. On 28 April 2004, Agent De Jemil obtained a search warrant from Pasig RTC branch 167. The NBI seized several items from Omni's premises. Subsequently, Agent De Jemil filed his Complaint-Affidavit before the DOJ. The Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasig found probable cause for violation of BP 33. This was later approved by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuno. Petitioners appealed the decision to the Secretary of Justice, who later reversed the decision of the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor. NBI Agent De Jemil moved for reconsideration. Denied. He thus filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of Secretary of Justice. It later reversed itself and reinstated the Resolution of the Chief State Prosecutor. Issues: (1) Whether the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals was proper even if Agent De Jemil did not appeal to the Office of the President? (2) Whether probable cause exists against petitioners for violations of Sec. 2 (a) and (c) of BP 33, as amended? (3) Whether petitioners can be held liable therefor? Held: (1) YES. The determination of probable cause by the public prosecutor, and, later on, by the Secretary of Justice, is subject to judicial review where it is established that grave abuse of discretion tainted the determination. The aggrieved party need not resort to the Office of the President before availing of judicial remedies because the Secretary of Justice is an alter ego of the President who may opt to exercise or not to exercise his or her power of review over the former’s determination in criminal investigation cases. Also, under the doctrine of qualified political agency, the determination of probable cause by the Secretary of Justice is presumably that of the Chief Executive unless disapproved or reprobated by the latter. (2) YES. The test-buy conducted on 15 April 2004 tends to show that Omni illegally refilled the eight branded cylinders. Such act is a clear violation of Sec. 2 (a), in relation to Secs. 3 (c) and 4 of BP 33, as amended. Omni has no authority to refill LPG cylinders as shown by the certifications provided by Shell, Petron and Total. The seized items also show that Omni has no authority to refill the cylinders. It shows that Omni really refilled branded cylinders without authorization. Omni’s unauthorized refilling of branded LPG cylinders, contrary to Sec. 2 (a) in relation to Sec. 3 (c) of BP 33, as amended. Granting arguendo that the customers already owned the LPG cylinders, such fact does give Omni authority to refill the cylinders without authorization from the brand owners. Only the duly authorized dealers and refillers of the brand owners may refill the branded LPG cylinders. The offense of refilling a branded LPG cylinder without the written consent of the brand owner constitutes the offense regardless of the buyer or possessor of the branded LPG cylinder. Petitioner's contention that they are not liable because the

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    6 просмотров3 страницы

    86177172!

    Загружено:

    rain06021992
    Ty vs. NBI Supervising Agent De Jemil Arnel U. Ty, MARIE ANTONETTE TY, JASON ONG, WILLY DY, and ALVIN TY, vs. NBI SUPERVISING AGENT MARVIN E. DE JEMIL, PETRON GASUL DEALERS ASSOCIATION, and TOTALGAZ DEALERS ASSOCIATION G.R. No. 182147 | December 15, 2010 | Velasco, Jr.,J.: Facts: Petitioners are stockholders of Omni Gas Corporation ("Omni"). They are being suspected of engaging in illegal trading of petroleum products and underfilling of branded LPG cylinders in violation of B.P. 33, as amended by P.D. 1865. NBI Agents Marvin De Jemil and Edgardo Kawada conducted surveillance operations on Omni. On 15 April 2004, the NBI Agents carried out a test-buy. Using eight branded LPG cylinders from Shell, Petron and Total, they went to Omni for refilling. Omni refilled the cylinders. The NBI agents paid more than P1500. LPG Inspector Noel Navio found that the LPG cylinders were without LPG valve seals and one of the cylinders was actually underfilled. On 28 April 2004, Agent De Jemil obtained a search warrant from Pasig RTC branch 167. The NBI seized several items from Omni's premises. Subsequently, Agent De Jemil filed his Complaint-Affidavit before the DOJ. The Assistant City Prosecutor of Pasig found probable cause for violation of BP 33. This was later approved by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zuno. Petitioners appealed the decision to the Secretary of Justice, who later reversed the decision of the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor. NBI Agent De Jemil moved for reconsideration. Denied. He thus filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of Secretary of Justice. It later reversed itself and reinstated the Resolution of the Chief State Prosecutor. Issues: (1) Whether the petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals was proper even if Agent De Jemil did not appeal to the Office of the President? (2) Whether probable cause exists against petitioners for violations of Sec. 2 (a) and (c) of BP 33, as amended? (3) Whether petitioners can be held liable therefor? Held: (1) YES. The determination of probable cause by the public prosecutor, and, later on, by the Secretary of Justice, is subject to judicial review where it is established that grave abuse of discretion tainted the determination. The aggrieved party need not resort to the Office of the President before availing of judicial remedies because the Secretary of Justice is an alter ego of the President who may opt to exercise or not to exercise his or her power of review over the former’s determination in criminal investigation cases. Also, under the doctrine of qualified political agency, the determination of probable cause by the Secretary of Justice is presumably that of the Chief Executive unless disapproved or reprobated by the latter. (2) YES. The test-buy conducted on 15 April 2004 tends to show that Omni illegally refilled the eight branded cylinders. Such act is a clear violation of Sec. 2 (a), in relation to Secs. 3 (c) and 4 of BP 33, as amended. Omni has no authority to refill LPG cylinders as shown by the certifications provided by Shell, Petron and Total. The seized items also show that Omni has no authority to refill the cylinders. It shows that Omni really refilled branded cylinders without authorization. Omni’s unauthorized refilling of branded LPG cylinders, contrary to Sec. 2 (a) in relation to Sec. 3 (c) of BP 33, as amended. Granting arguendo that the customers already owned the LPG cylinders, such fact does give Omni authority to refill the cylinders without authorization from the brand owners. Only the duly authorized dealers and refillers of the brand owners may refill the branded LPG cylinders. The offense of refilling a branded LPG cylinder without the written consent of the brand owner constitutes the offense regardless of the buyer or possessor of the branded LPG cylinder. Petitioner's contention that they are not liable because the

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 3

    FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES


    First Regular Session
    SENATE

    Senate Bill No.

    1160

    INTRODUCED BY HON. MANNY VILLAR

    EXPLANATORY NOTE

    Apart from the tuition fee, our students and their parents are saddled with
    other expenses such as transportation, school supplies, books, medical and dental
    fees, and also, admission fees to galleries, museums and stage theatres.
    Indeed, the cost of education has considerably increased over the years. At
    present, only a fortunate handful is able to go to school and actually finish college.
    Such scenario has been detrimental to our national development as many of
    our young people drop out of school.
    This proposed bill seeks. to ease the pressure of very high educational cost
    on parents and students by granting them additional privileges.
    In view of the foregoing, immediate passage of this bill is earnestly sought.

    FIFTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE


    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
    First Regular Session

    SENATE

    Senate Bill No,

    '1<:('''I1,n::1) pv,

    ,,~~_'''~

    116 a

    INTRODUCED BY HON. MANNY VILLAR

    AN ACT
    GRANTING PRIV~LEGES TO STUDENTS AT ALL LEVELS ON
    BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines


    in Congress assembled:

    SECTION 1. Title - This Act shall be known as the "Student Privilege Act"
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8

    SECTION 2. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act, the term "student" shall
    mean any resident citizen of the Philippines, regardless of age, and duly enrolled in
    the elementary, secondary or tertiary level in any public, or private academic
    institution recognized by the Qepartment of Education and the Commission on
    Higher Education,

    9
    10
    11

    SECTION 3. Benefits and Privileges - Upon presentation of identification


    card duly issued and validated by a recognized Philippine School, the student shall
    be entitle to the following;

    12
    13
    14

    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21

    a. A grant of twenty percent (20%) discount on transportation fares in all


    public utility vehicles, ships or airplanes; Provided, that the fare discount
    shall be availed of only during school seasons;
    b, A grant of ten percent (10%) discount of medical and medical service in
    government as well as private clinics;
    c, A grant of ten percent (10%) discount on admission fees in museums, art
    galleries, libraries and stage theaters; and
    d. A grant of ten percent (10%) discount on basic school supplies, to be
    availed of at enrollment time,

    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28

    SECTION 4. For the purpose of this Act, the schools, colleges, universities
    and other educational institutions shall issue an identification card to their students
    duly signed and validated by their heads, The identification card shall properly
    identify the stUdent and contain the list of privileges granted by this Act The
    identification card is non-transferable and violation hereof shall be a ground for the
    forfeiture of the privileges.

    29
    30
    31

    SECTION 5. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or abOlish


    existing privileges granted by other laws to the students,
    2

    2
    3
    4

    SECTION 6. All establishments and institution concerned, shall post or


    caused to be posted, in conspicuous places within their premises, notices indicating
    the benefits provided for under this Act.

    s
    6

    8
    9
    10
    11
    12

    13

    SECTION 7. Violation of any provision of this Act shall be punished


    according to the following:
    a. First and second violations shall be punishable by imprisonment of not
    exceeding one (1) month or a fine of not more than One Thousand Pesos
    (P1 ,000.00) or both atthe discretion of the Court;
    b. Third violation shall be punishable by the same penalty and in addition,
    revocation of license or permit to operate the business or establishment.

    14

    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23

    24
    25

    26

    In case of partnership, corporation, association, or group, the penalty shall be


    imposed on the President, Treasurer, Secretary, or any other person responsible for
    the violation.
    If the offender is an alien, he shall after service of sentence, be deported
    immediately without further proceedings by the Bureau of Immigration.
    SECTION 8. Implementing Rules - The Department of Education and the
    Commission on Higher Educatfon, in consultation with the Department of Finance,
    Department of Transportation and Communication, and other concerned private and
    public agencies, shall issue the implementing rules and regulation to ensure the
    effective implementation of this Act.

    27
    28

    29
    30
    31
    32
    33
    34

    SECTION 9. Repealing Clause - All provisions of laws, orders, decrees,


    including rules and regulations inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed and/or
    modified accordingly.
    SECTION 10. Separability Clause - If any part or provision of this Act shall
    be held unconstitutional or invalid, other provisions hereof which are not affected
    thereby shall continue to be in full force and effect.

    35
    36

    SECTION 11. Effectivity - This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

    37
    38

    Approved,

    Вам также может понравиться