CORPORATIONS*

*
30.*HOME*INSURANCE*vs*EASTERN*SHIPPING*LINES**
!
FACTS:!
!
On! or! about! January! 13,! 1967,! S.!
Kajikita!&!Co.!on!board!the!SS!Eastern!Jupiter,!
which! is! owned! by! the! respondent,! from! Osaka,!
Japan! coils! of! Black! Hot! Rolled! Copper! Wires!
Rods.!The!shipment!was!covered!by!Bill!of!Lading!
with! arrival! notice! to! the! Phelps! Dodge! Copper!
Products! Corporation,! the! consignee.! It! was! also!
insured! with! the! plaintiff! against! all! risks! in!
the!amount!of!P1,580,105.06.!!
!
The! coils! discharged! from! the! vessel!
were!in!bad!order,!consisting!of!loose!and!partly!
cut! coils! which! had! to! be! considered! scrap.! The!
plaintiff! paid! the! consignee! under! insurance! the!
amount! of! P3,260.44! for! the! loss/damage! suffered!
by! the! cargo.! Plaintiff,! a! foreign! insurance!
company! duly! authorized! to! do! business! in! the!
Philippines,! made! demands! for! payment! of! the!
aforesaid! amount! against! the! carrier! and!
transportation! company! for! reimbursement! of! the!
aforesaid! amount,! but! each! refused! to! pay! the!
same.!The!Eastern!Shipping!Lines!filed!its!answer!
and! denied! the! allegations! of! Paragraph! I! which!
refer!to!the!plaintiffs!capacity!to!sue!for!lack!
of!knowledge!or!information!sufficient!to!form!a!
belief! as! to! the! truth! thereof.! Angel! Jose!
Transportation,! on! the! other! hand,! admitted! the!
jurisdictional!averments!in!paragraphs!1,!2!and!3!
of!the!heading!parties.!
!!!
The! Court! of! First! Instance! dismissed!
the! complaint! on! the! ground! that! the! appellant!
had! failed! to! prove! its! capacity! to! sue.! The!
petitioner! then! filed! a! petition! for! review! on!
certiorari.!
!
ISSUE:!Whether!or!not!that!the!trial!court!erred!
in! dismissing! the! finding! that! plaintiff_
appellant!has!no!capacity!to!sue.!!
!
RULING:!
!
The!court!held!that!the!objective!of!the!
law!is!to!subject!the!foreign!corporation!to!the!
jurisdiction! of! our! court.! The! Corporation! Law!
must! be! given! reasonable,! not! an! unduly! harsh!
interpretation! which! does! not! hamper! the!
development! of! trade! relations! and! which! fosters!
friendly!commercial!intercourse!among!countries.!
Counsel! for! appellant! contends! that! at!
the!time!of!the!service!of!summons,!the!appellant!
had!not!yet!been!authorized!to!do!business.!But,!
the!lack!of!capacity!at!the!time!of!the!execution!
of! the! contracts! was! cured! by! the! subsequent!
registration! is! also! strengthened! by! the!
procedural!aspects!of!the!case.!
!
The! court! find! the! general! denials!
inadequate! to! attack! the! foreign! corporations!
lack! of! capacity! to! sue! in! the! light! of! its!
positive!averment!that!it!is!authorized!to!do!so.!
Section!4,!Rule!8!requires!that!"a!party!desiring!
to! raise! an! issue! as! to! the! legal! existence! of!
any!party!or!the!capacity!of!any!party!to!sue!or!
be!sued!in!a!representative!capacity!shall!do!so!
by! specific! denial,! which! shall! include! such!
supporting!particulars!as!are!particularly!within!
the! pleader's! knowledge.! At! the! very! least,! the!
private!
respondents!
should!
have!
stated!
particulars! in! their! answers! upon! which! a!
specific! denial! of! the! petitioner's! capacity! to!

sue! could! have! been! based! or! which! could! have!

supported! its! denial! for! lack! of! knowledge.! And!
yet,!even!if!the!plaintiff's!lack!of!capacity!to!
sue! was! not! properly! raised! as! an! issue! by! the!
answers,! the! petitioner! introduced! documentary!
evidence! that! it! had! the! authority! to! engage! in!
the! insurance! business! at! the! time! it! filed! the!
complaints.!
!
The! Supreme! Court! granted! the! petition,!
reversing!the!decision!of!the!lower!court.!
!
!
!
PROBATION*LAWS*
*
31.*PABLO*vs*CASTILLO***
*
FACTS:! Alejandra! Pablo! was! convicted! of! a!
violation! of! Batas! Pambansa! Bilang! 22.! She!
applied!for!probation!and!was!later!denied.!!
!
ISSUE:! Whether! or! not! the! he! should! be! denied!
probation! on! the! ground! of! disqualification! from!
probation!under!Section!9!of!P.D.!968.!
!
HELD:!The!Court!ruled!that!under!Section!9!of!the!
Probation! Law,! P.D.! 968,! the! following! offenders!
cannot!avail!of!the!benefits!of!probation:!
a)! those! sentenced! to! serve! a! maximum! term! of!
imprisonment!of!more!than!six!years;!
b)! those! convicted! of! subversion! or! any! crime!
against! the! national! security! or! the! public!
order;!
c)! those! who! have! previously! been! convicted! by!
final! judgment! of! an! offense! punished! by!
imprisonment! of! not! less! than! one! month! and! one!
day! and/or! fine! of! not! less! than! two! hundred!
pesos!;!
d)! those! who! have! been! once! on! probation! under!
the!provisions!of!this!Decree;!and!
e)!those!who!are!already!serving!sentence!at!the!
time! the! substantive! provisions! of! this! Decree!
became!applicable!pursuant!to!Section!33!hereof.!
!
The! National! Probation! Office! denied! petitioners!
application! for! probation! under! Section! 9!
paragraph!(c)!P.D.!968!because!a!prior!conviction!
was! entered! against! the! petitioner! on! June! 21,!
1995!in!Criminal!Case!No.!94_0199,!penalizing!her!
with! a! fine! of! P4,648.00;! thereby! placing! her!
within! the! ambit! of! disqualification! from!
probation! under! Section! 9! paragraph! (c)! of! P.D.!
968.!
!
It!is!a!basic!rule!of!statutory!construction!that!
if! a! statute! is! clear,! plain! and! free! from!
ambiguity,! it! must! be! given! its! literal! meaning!
and! applied! without! any! interpretation.! Not! only!
that;!in!the!matter!of!interpretation!of!laws!on!
probation,! the! Court! has! pronounced! that! "the!
policy!of!liberality!of!probation!statutes!cannot!
prevail!against!the!categorical!provisions!of!the!
law."!!
!
Section! 9! paragraph! (c)! is! in! clear! and! plain!
language,! to! the! effect! that! a! person! who! was!
previously! convicted! by! final! judgment! of! an!
offense! punishable! by! imprisonment! of! not! less!
than! one! month! and! one! day! and/or! a! fine! of! not!
less!than!two!hundred!pesos,!is!disqualified!from!
applying!for!probation.!This!provision!of!law!is!

definitive! and! unqualified.! There! is! nothing! in!

Section! 9,! paragraph! (c)! which! qualifies!
"previous! conviction"! as! referring! to! a!
conviction! for! a! crime! which! is! entirely!
different! from! that! for! which! the! offender! is!
applying!for!probation!or!a!crime!which!arose!out!
of! a! single! act! or! transaction! as! petitioner!
would!have!the!court!to!understand.!
!
It!is!well_settled!that!the!probation!law!is!not!
a!penal!statute;!and!therefore,!the!principle!of!
liberal! interpretation! is! inapplicable.! And! when!
the! meaning! is! clearly! discernible! from! the!
language! of! the! statute,! there! is! no! room! for!
construction!or!interpretation.!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
INTERPRETATION*OF*PENAL*STATUES*
*
32.*US*vs*GO*CHICO*(1909)*
!
The! defendant! is! charged! with! the! violation! of!
section! 1! of! Act! No.! 1696! of! the! Philippine!
Commission,!which!reads!as!follows:!
Any$ person$ who$ shall$ expose,$ or$ cause$ or$ permit$
to$ be$ exposed,$ to$ public$ view$ on$ his$ own$
premises,$ 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$ in$
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$Island$for$
the$purpose$of$public$disorder$or$of$rebellion$or$
insurrection$ against$ the$ authority$ of$ the$ United$
States$ in$ the$ Philippine$ Islands,$ or$ any$ flag,$
banner,$ emblem,$ or$ device$ of$ the$ Katipunan$
Society,$ or$ which$ is$ commonly$ known$ as$ such,$
shall$be$punished$by$a$fine$of$not$less$that$five$
hundred$pesos$for$more$than$five$thousand$pesos,$
or$by$imprisonment$for$not$less$than$three$months$
nor$ more$ than$ five$ years,$ or$ by$ both$ such$ fine$
and$imprisonment,$in$the$discretion$of$the$court.$
$
The$appellant$argues$that$the$prohibition$of$the$
law$is$directed$against$the$use$of$the$identical$
banners,$devices,$or$emblems$actually$used$during$
the$ Philippine$ insurrection$ by$ those$ in$ armed$
rebellion$against$the$United$States.$
!
It!is!impossible!that!the!Commission!should!have!
intended! to! prohibit! the! display! of! the! flag! or!
flags!actually!used!in!the!insurrection,!and,!at!
the! same! time,! permit! exact! duplicates! thereof!
(saving,! perhaps,! size)! to! be! displayed! without!
hindrance.!!
!

In!the!case!at!bar,!to!say!that!the!display!of!a!
certain!banner!is!a!crime!and!that!the!display!of!
its! exact! duplicate! is! not! is! to! say! nonsense.!
The! rules! governing! the! interpretation! of!
statutes! are! rules! of! construction! not!
destruction.!To!give!the!interpretation!contended!
for!by!the!appellant!would,!as!to!this!particular!
provision,!nullify!the!statute!altogether.!
!
The! words! used! during! the! late! insurrection! in!
the! Philippine! Islands! to! designate! or! identity!
those! in! armed! rebellion! against! the! United!
States! mean! not! only! the! identical! flags!
actually! used! in! the! insurrection,! but! any! flag!
which! is! of! that! type.! This! description! refers!
not!to!a!particular!flag,!but!to!a!type!of!flag.!
That!phrase!was!used!because!there!was!and!is!no!
other!way!of!describing!that!type!of!flag.!While!
different! words! might! be! employed,! according! to!
the! taste! of! the! draftsman,! the! method! of!
description! would! have! to! be! the! same.! There! is!
no! concrete! word! known! by! which! that! flag! could!
be! aptly! or! properly! described.! There! was! no!
opportunity,! within! the! scope! of! a! legislative!
enactment,! to! describe! the! physical! details.! It!
had! no! characteristics! whatever,! apart! from! its!
use! in! the! insurrection,! by! which! it! could,! in!
such!enactment,!be!identified.!The!great!and!the!
only! characteristic! which! it! had! upon! the! which!
the! Commission! could! seize! as! a! means! of!
description! and! identification! was! the! fact! that!
it! was! used! in! the! insurrection.! There! was,!
therefore,! absolutely! no! way! in! which! the!
Commission! could,! in! the! Act,! describe! the! flag!
except!by!reciting!where!and!how!it!was!used.!It!
must!not!be!forgotten!that!the!Commission,!by!the!
words! and! phrases! used,! was! not! attempting! to!
describe! a! particular! flag,! but! a! type! of! flag.!
They! were! not! describing! a! flag! used! upon! a!
particular! field! or! in! a! certain! battle,! but! a!
type!of!flag!used!by!an!army!!a!flag!under!which!
many! persons! rallied! and! which! stirred! their!
sentiments! and! feelings! wherever! seen! or! in!
whatever!form!it!appeared.!It!is!a!mere!incident!
of! description! that! the! flag! was! used! upon! a!
particular!field!or!in!a!particular!battle.!They!
were! describing!the!flag! not!a!flag.! It! has! a!
quality!and!significance!and! an!entity!apart!from!
any!place!where!or!form!in!which!it!was!used.!
Language$ is$ rarely$ so$ free$ from$ ambiguity$ as$ to$
be$ incapable$ of$ being$ used$ in$ more$ than$ one$
sense,$ and$ the$ literal$ interpretation$ of$ a$
statute$ may$ lead$ to$ an$ absurdity$ or$ evidently$
fail$to$give$the$real$intent$of$the$legislature.$
When$ this$ is$ the$ case,$ resort$ is$ had$ to$ the$
principle$ that$ the$ spirit$ of$ a$ law$ controls$ the$
letter,$ so$ that$ a$ thing$ which$ is$ within$ the$
intention$ of$ a$ statute$ is$ as$ much$ within$ the$
statute$ as$ if$ it$ were$ within$ the$ letter,$ and$ a$
thing$ which$ is$ within$ the$ letter$ of$ the$ statute$
is$not$within$the$statute$unless$it$be$within$the$
intention$ of$ the$ makers,$ and$ the$ statute$ should$
be$ construed$ as$ to$ advance$ the$ remedy$ and$
suppress$ the$ mischief$ contemplated$ by$ the$
framers.$$
The$ intention$ of$ the$ legislature$ and$ the$ object$
aimed$ at,$ being$ the$ fundamental$ inquiry$ in$
judicial$construction,$are$to$control$the$literal$
interpretation$ of$ particular$ language$ in$ a$
statute,$ and$ language$ capable$ of$ more$ than$ one$
meaning$ is$ to$ be$ taken$ in$ that$ sense$ which$ will$
harmonize$ with$ such$ intention$ and$ object,$ and$
effect$the$purpose$of$the$enactment.$$

A!law!punishes!the!display!of!flags!used!during!
the! insurrection! against! the! US! may! not! be! so!
construed!as!to!exempt!from!criminal!liability!a!
person! who! displays! a! replica! of! said! flag!
because!said!replica!is!not!the!one!used!during!
the! rebellion,! for! to! so! construe! it! is! to!
nullify!the!statute!together!
!
Go! Chico! is! liable! though! flags! displayed! were!
just! replica! of! the! flags! used! during!
insurrection!against!US!
!
Acts!mala$in$se!and!mala$prohibita!
Actus$non$facit$reum$nisi$mens$sit$rea$$the!act!
itself! does! not! make! a! man! guilty! unless! his!
intention!were!so!
Actus$ me$ invite$ factus$ non$ est$ meus$ actus$ !an!
act!done!by!me!against!my!will!is!not!my!act!
*

*
*
!
33.*US*vs*ESTAPIA*(1917)*
!
The!defendants!took!part,!either!as!principals!or!
as!spectators,!in!an!ihaway,!the!local!name!for!a!
kind!of!cockfight!in!which!it!is!agreed!that!the!
losing! cock! is! to! be! divided! between! the! two!
owners!of!the!two!birds!engaged!in!the!fight.!The!
owners,! with! a! few! of! their! friends,! were! seen!
carrying! the! gamecocks! to! a! grove! of! buri! palms!
near! a! recently! constructed! house;! and! were!
surprised!by!the!police.!There!is!nothing!in!the!
record!which!tends!to!indicate!that!the!grove!of!
buri! palms! where! the! fight! took! place! had! ever!
been!used!for!such!a!purpose!on!any!occasion;!or!
that!on!wager!or!bet!was!made!on!the!fight,!other!
than!the!agreement!that!the!losing!bird!should!be!
killed! and! eaten! by! the! owners! of! both! cocks.!
Upon! proof! of! these! facts,! judgment! was! entered!
in!the!court!below!convicting!the!defendants!of!a!
violation! of! the! provisions! of! section! 1! of! Act!
No.! 480.! This! statute! does! not! penalize! all!
unlicensed! cockfighting,! but! merely! unlicensed!
cockfighting! in! a! cockpit.! The! statute! does! not!
impose! penalties! on! those! "who! shall! engage! in!
cockfighting,"! but! on! those! who! "shall! engage!
cockfighting! in! a! cockpit."! It! does! not! direct!
that! the! prescribed! penalty! shall! be! imposed! on!
one! "who! shall! attend! as! a! spectator! of!
cockfighting,"! but! on! any! person! who! "shall!
attend! as! spectator! of! cockfighting! in! a!
cockpit."!
ISSUE:!
Whether! or! not! the! defendants! violated! Act! No.!
480!
!
HELD:!
While! it! appears! that! the! accused! were!
participants! in,! or! spectators! at! an! unlicensed!

cockfight,! nevertheless,! the! evidence! of! the!

record! fails! utterly! to! sustain! a! finding! that!
this! cockfight! took! place! in! a! cockpit.! The!
Attorney_General! suggests! that! the! term! cockpit!
as! used! in! the! statute! should! be! construed! to!
mean!any!place!at!which!a!cockfight!takes!place.!
But! this! contention! runs! counter! to! the! plain!
language! of! the! statute! and! cannot! be! supported!
by! any! sound! rule! of! statutory! construction.! It!
violates!the!elementary!rule!that,!when!possible,!
all! the! words! of! a! statute! are! to! be! given! some!
meaning!so!that!when!the!legislator!makes!use!of!
words!of!limitation,!he!must!be!presumed!to!have!
intended! to! limit! and! restrict.! Further,! the!
penal!provisions!of!a!statute!are!to!be!construed!
strictly! ! a! rule! of! construction! which!
emphatically! forbids! any! attempt! to! hold! that!
when! the! legislator! penalizes! the! commission! of!
an!act!on!certain!specific!occasions,!he!intends!
to! penalize! it! on! all! occasions.! In! construing!
particular!words!or!terms!used!in!a!statute,!due!
regard! should! be! had! for! the! context! (verba!
accipienda! sunt! secundum! materiam).! The!
provisions! of! the! statute! with! relation! to! the!
maintenance! of! unlicensed! cockpits,! and! the!
taking! part! in! games! of! chance! in! cockpits,!
licensed!or!not,!quite!clearly!indicate!that!when!
the! legislator! made! use! of! the! word! cockpit,! he!
had! in! mind! some! place! especially! designed! for!
use!by!cockfighters,!or!used!by!cockfighters!more!
or! less! frequently! as! the! scene! of! their!
encounters;!and!not!merely!a!place!at!which!upon!
a! single! occasion,! and! without! special!
preparation,! a! single! encounter! takes! place!
between!two!birds.!!
Hence,! the! accused! should! be! acquitted! of! the!
offense.!
34.*US*vs*ABAD*SANTOS**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
INTERNAL! REVENUE! LAW;! RESPONSIBILITY! OF! MASTER!
FOR! FAILURE! OF! SERVANT! TO! COMPLY! WITH!
PROVISIONS._!
Courts! will! not! hold! one! person! criminally!
responsible! for! the! acts! of! another! committed!
without!his!knowledge!or!consent,!unless!there!is!
a!statute!requiring!it!so!plain!in!its!terms!that!
there! is! no! doubt! of! the! intention! of! the!
Legislature.!
!
Criminal! statutes! are! to! be! strictly! construed;!
no! person! should! be! brought! within! their! terms!
who! is! not! clearly! within! them,! nor! should! any!
act! be! pronounced! criminal! which! is! not! clearly!
made.!
!
35.*PEOPLE*vs*PURISIMA**
!

There! are! 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.!!
Before! those! courts,! Informations! were! filed!
charging! the! respective! accused! with! "illegal!
possession! of! deadly! weapon"! in! violation! of!
Presidential! Decree! No.! 9.! On! a! motion! to! quash!
filed!by!the!accused,!the!three!Judges!mentioned!
above!issued!in!the!respective*cases!filed!before!
them! ! the! details! of! which! will! be! recounted!
below! ! an! Order! quashing! or! dismissing! the!
Informations,! on! a! common! ground,! viz,! that! the!
Information!did!not!allege!facts!which!constitute!
the! offense! penalized! by! Presidential! Decree! No.!
9! because! it! failed! to! state! one! essential!
element!of!the!crime.!!!
!
ISSUE:!
WON!the!Informations!filed!by!the!petitioners!are!
sufficient! in! form! and! substance! to! constitute!
the! offense! of! illegal! possession! of! deadly!
weapon!penalized!under!PD!No.!9.!
!
There!are!two!elements!to!the!the!offense:!first,!
the! carrying! outside! one's! residence! of! any!
bladed,! blunt,! or! pointed! weapon,! etc.! not! used!
as! a! necessary! tool! or! implement! for! a!
livelihood;!and!second,!that!the!act!of!carrying!
the! weapon! was! either! in! furtherance! of,! or! to!
abet,! or! in! connection! with! subversion,!
rebellion,! insurrection,! lawless! violence,!
criminality,!chaos,!or!public!disorder.!
!
The!petitioner!by!having!one!particular!stand!of!
the! carrying! of! any! dangerous! weapon! outside! of!
the! residence! w/o! regard! to! motive! or! intent!
makes!this!a!case!of!statutory!construction.!
!
HELD:!
!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.!
!
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.!
!
We! hold! that! the! offence! carries! two! elements:!
first,! the! carrying! outside! ones! residence! of!
any! bladed,! blunt,! or! pointed! weapon,! etc.! not!
used! as! a! necessary! tool! or! implement! for! a!
livelihood;!and!second,!that!the!act!of!carrying!
the! weapon! was! either! in! furtherance! of,! or! to!
abet,! or! in! connection! with! subversion,!
rebellion,! insurrection,! lawless! violence,!
criminality,!chaos,!or!public!disorder.!It!is!the!
second!element!which!removes!the!act!of!carrying!
a! deadly! weapon,! if! concealed,! outside! of! the!
scope! of! the! statute! or! the! city! ordinance!
mentioned!above.!In!other!words,!a!simple!act!of!
carrying! any! of! the! weapons! described! in! the!
presidential!decree!is!not!a!criminal!offense!in!
itself.!What!makes!the!act!criminal!or!punishable!

under! the! decree! is! the! motivation! behind! it.!

Without!that!motivation,!the!act!falls!within!the!
purview! of! the! city! ordinance! or! some! statute!
when!the!circumstances!so!warrant.!
That! there! is! ambiguity! in! the! presidential!
decree! is! manifest! from! the! conflicting! views!
which! arise! from! its! implementation.! When!
ambiguity! exists,! it! becomes! a! judicial! task! to!
construe!and!interpret!the!true!meaning!and!scope!
of! the! measure,! guided! by! the! basic! principle!
that! penal! statutes! are! to! be! construed! and!
applied! liberally! in! favor! of! the! accused! and!
strictly! against! the! state.! In! the! construction!
or! interpretation! of! a! legislative! measurea!
presidential! decree! in! these! casesthe! primary!
rule! is! to! search! for! and! determine! the! intent!
and!spirit!of!the!law.!Legislative!intent!is!the!
controlling! factor,! for! in! the! words! of! this!
Court! in! Hidalgo! v.! Hidalgo,! per! Mr.! Justice!
Claudio! Teehankee,! whatever! is! within! the! spirit!
of!a!statute!is!within!the!statute,!and!this!has!
to!be!so!if!strict!adherence!to!the!letter!would!
result!
in!
absurdity,!
injustice!
and!
contradictions.!
Because!of!the!problem!of!determining!what!acts!
fall!within!the!purview!of!P.D.!9,!it!becomes!
necessary!to!inquire!into!the!intent!and!spirit!
of!the!decree!and!this!can!be!found!among!others!
in!the!preamble!or!whereas!clauses!which!
enumerate!the!facts!or!events!which!justify!the!
promulgation!of!the!decree!and!the!stiff!
sanctions!stated!therein.!
!
From! the! above! it! is! clear! that! the! acts!
penalized! in! P.D.! 9! are! those! related! to! the!
desired! result! of! Proclamation! 1081! and! General!
Orders!Nos.!6!and!7.!General!Orders!Nos.!6!and!7!
refer!to!firearms!and!therefore!have!no!relevance!
to! P.D.! 9! (3)! which! refers! to! blunt! or! bladed!
weapons.! x! x! x! It! follows! that! it! is! only! that!
act! of! carrying! a! blunt! or! bladed! weapon! with! a!
motivation! connected! with! or! related! to! the!
afore_quoted! desired! result! of! Proclamation! 1081!
that! is! within! the! intent! of! P.D.! 9! (3),! and!
nothing!else.!
!
It! is! a! salutary! principle! in! statutory!
construction! that! there! exists! a! valid!
presumption! that! undesirable! consequences! were!
never!intended!by!a!legislative!measure,!and!that!
a! construction! of! which! the! statute! is! fairly!
susceptible! is! favored,! which! will! avoid! all!
objectionable,!
mischievous,!
indefensible,!
wrongful,!evil,!and!injurious!consequences.!It!is!
to! be! presumed! that! when! P.D.! 9! was! promulgated!
by! the! President! of! the! Republic! there! was! no!
intent! to! work! a! hardship! or! an! oppressive!
result,! a! possible! abuse! of! authority! or! act! of!
oppression,! arming! one! person! with! a! weapon! to!
impose!hardship!on!another,!and!so!on.!
!
American! jurisprudence! sets! down! the! reason! for!
this! rule! to! be! the! tenderness! of! the! law! for!
the! rights! of! individuals;! the! object! is! to!
establish! a! certain! rule! by! conformity! to! which!
mankind!would!be!safe,!and!the!discretion!of!the!
court! limited.! The! purpose! is! not! to! enable! a!
guilty! person! to! escape! punishment! through! a!
technicality! but! to! provide! a! precise! definition!
of!forbidden!acts.!
The!two!elements!of!the!offense!covered!by!P.D.!9!
(3)! must! be! alleged! in! the! information! in! order!

that! the! latter! may! constitute! a! sufficiently!

valid! charge.! The! sufficiency! of! an! Information!
is! determined! solely! by! the! facts! alleged!
therein.! Where! the! facts! are! incomplete! and! do!
not! convey! the! elements! of! the! crime,! the!
quashing! of! the! accusation! is! in! order.! Section!
2(a),! Rule! 117! of! the! Rules! of! Court! provides!
that! the! defendant! may! move! to! quash! the!
complaint! or! information! when! the! facts! charged!
do!not!constitute!an!offense.!
!
!
36.*GAANAN*vs*INTERMEDIATE*APPELATE*COURT*(IAC)*
!
Atty.!Tito!Pintor!and!his!client!Manuel!Montebon!
were! discussing! the! terms! for! the! withdrawal! of!
the! complaint! for! direct! assault! filed! with! the!
Office! of! the! City! Fiscal! of! Cebu! against!
Leonardo!Laconico!after!demanding!P!8,000.00!from!
him.! This! demand! was! heard! by! Atty.! Gaanan!
through! a! telephone! extension! as! requested! by!
Laconico! so! as! to! personally! hear! the! proposed!
conditions! for! the! settlement.! Atty.! Pintor! was!
subsequently! arrested! in! an! entrapment! operation!
upon! receipt! of! the! money.! since! Atty.! Gaanan!
listened! to! the! telephone! conversation! without!
complainant's!consent,!complainant!charged!Gaanan!
and! Laconico! with! violation! of! the! Anti_!
Wiretapping!Act!(RA!4200)!!which!states!that!!it!
shall! be! unlawful! for! any! person,! not! being!
authorized! by! all! the! parties! to! any! private!
communication! or! spoken! word! to! tap! any! wire! or!
cable! or! by! using! any! other! device! or!
arrangement,! to! secretly! overhear,! intercept,! or!
record!such!communication!or!spoken!word!by!using!
such!device!commonly!known!as!dictagraph!
ISSUE:!
WON! an! extension! telephone! is! among! the!
prohibited!devices!in!Sec.!1!of!RA!4200!such!that!
its!use!to!overheard!a!private!conversation!would!
constitute!
an!
unlawful!
interception!
of!
communication! between! two! parties! using! a!
telephone!line.!
!
It$ should$ not$ be$ construed$ in$ isolation.$ Rather$
it$should$be$interpreted$in$relation$to$the$other$
words$ (tap,$ to$ overhear)$ thus$ party$ line$ or$
telephone$ extension$ is$ not$ included$ because$ the$
words$ in$ the$ provision$ limit$ it$ to$ those$ that$
have$a$physical$interruption$through$a$wiretap$or$
the$ deliberate$ installation$ of$ device$ to$
overhear.$
!
A! perusal! of! the! Senate! Congressional! Record!
shows! that! our! lawmakers! intended! to! discourage,!
through! punishment,! persons! such! as! government!
authorities! ! or! representatives! of! organized!
groups!from!installing!devices!in!order!to!gather!
evidence! for! use! in! court! or! to! intimidate,!
blackmail!or!gain!some!unwarranted!advantage!over!
the! telephone! users.! Consequently,! the! mere! act!
of! listeneing! ,! in! order! to! be! punishable! must!
strictly! be! with! the! use! of! the! enumerated!
devices!in!RA!4200!or!other!similar!nature.!
We!are!of!the!view!that!an!extension!telephone!is!
not!among!such!devices!or!arrangements!
!
There! is! no! question! that! the! telephone!
conversation!between!complainant!Atty.!Pintor!and!
accused!Atty.!Laconico!was!"private"!made!between!
one! person! and! another! as! distinguished! from!
words! between! a! speaker! and! a! public;! the!
affirmance! of! the! criminal! conviction! would,! in!
effect,! mean! that! a! caller! by! merely! using! a!
telephone!line!can!force!the!listener!to!secrecy!

no!matter!how!obscene,!criminal,!or!annoying!the!
call! may! be.! It! would! be! the! word! of! the! caller!
against! the! listener's.! Such! that! ".! An! unwary!
citizzen!who!happens!to!pick!up!his!telephone!and!
who! overhears! the! details! of! a! crime! might!
hesitate!to!inform!police!authorities!if!he!knows!
that! he! could! be! accused! under! Rep.! Act! 4200! of!
using!his!own!telephone!to!secretly!overhear!the!
private!communications!of!the!would!be!criminals.!
Surely! the! law! was! never! intended! for! such!
mischievous!results.!
!
Telephones! or! extension! telephones! are! not!
included! in! the! enumeration! of! "commonly! known"!
listening! or! recording! devices,! nor! do! they!
belong!to!the!same!class!of!enumerated!electronic!
devices! contemplated! by! law.! Telephone! party!
lines! were! intentionally! deleted! from! the!
provisions!of!the!Act.!
!
What! the! law! refers! to! is! a! "tap"! of! a! wire! or!
cable!or!the!use!of!a!"device!or!arrangement"!for!
the!
purpose!
of!
secretly!
overhearing,!
intercepting,! or! recording! the! communication.! An!
extension!telephone!cannot!be!placed!in!the!same!
category!as!a!dictaphone,!dictagraph!or!the!other!
devices! enumerated! in! Section! 1! of! RA! 4200! .!
There! must! be! either! a! physical! interruption!
through! a! wiretap! or! the! deliberate! installation!
of!a!device!or!arrangement!in!order!to!overhear,!
intercept,!or!record!the!spoken!words.!
In! statutory! construction,! in! order! to! determine!
the! true! intent! of! the! legislature,! the!
particular! clauses! and! phrases! of! the! statute!
should! not! be! taken! as! detached! and! isolated!
expressions,!but!the!whole!and!every!part!thereof!
must! be! considered! in! fixing! the! meaning! of! any!
of! its! parts.! Hence,! the! phrase! "device! or!
arrangement"! in! Section! 1! of! RA! 4200,! should! be!
construed! to! comprehend! instruments! of! the! same!
or! similar! nature,! that! is,! instruments! the! use!
of!which!would!be!tantamount!to!tapping!the!main!
line! of! a! telephone.! It! refers! to! instruments!
whose!installation!or!presence!cannot!be!presumed!
by!the!party!or!parties!being!overheard!because,!
by! their! very! nature,! they! are! not! of! common!
usage!and!their!purpose!is!precisely!for!tapping,!
intercepting!
or!
recording!
a!
telephone!
conversation.!
The! court! also! ruled! that! the! conduct! of! the!
party! would! differ! in! no! way! if! instead! of!
repeating!the!message!he!held!out!his!hand_set!so!
that!another!could!hear!out!of!it!and!that!there!
is!no!distinction!between!that!sort!of!action!and!
permitting! an! outsider! to! use! an! extension!
telephone!for!the!same!purpose.!
!
Furthermore,! it! is! a! general! rule! that! penal!
statutes! must! be! construed! strictly! in! favor! of!
the! accused.! Thus,! in! case! of! doubt! as! in! the!
case! at! bar,! on! whether! or! not! an! extension!
telephone! is! included! in! the! phrase! "device! or!
arrangement",!the!penal!statute!must!be!construed!
as!not!including!an!extension!telephone!as!ruled!
in!PP!vs.!Purisima!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
37.*URSUA*vs*COURT*OF*APPEALS**
*

In! 1989,! Cesario! Ursua! was! charged! with! bribery!

and!dishonesty.!His!lawyer!then!asked!him!to!get!
a! copy! of! the! complaint! against! him! from! the!
Office! of! the! Ombudsman.! His! lawyer! asked! him!
that!because!the!law!firms!messenger,!a!certain!
Oscar!Perez,!was!unable!to!go!to!the!Ombudsman.!
Before! going! to! the! Ombudsman,! Ursua! talked! to!
Perez.! He! revealed! to! him! that! he! feels!
uncomfortable!asking!for!a!copy!of!the!complaint!
because! he! is! the! respondent! in! the! said! case.!
Perez! then! told! him! than! he! can! go! there! as!
Oscar!Perez!so!that!he!does!not!have!to!reveal!
his!true!identity.!
At!the!Office!of!the!Ombudsman,!Ursua!signed!the!
logbook! there! as! Oscar! Perez.! When! he! was!
handed! a! copy! of! the! complaint,! he! signed! the!
receipt!as!Oscar!Perez.!However,!a!staff!of!the!
Ombudsman! was! able! to! learn! that! he! was! in! fact!
Cesario!Ursua.!The!staff!then!recommended!that!a!
criminal!case!be!filed!against!Ursua.!Eventually,!
Ursua!was!sentenced!to!three!years!in!prison!for!
violating! C.A.! No.! 142,! as! amended,! otherwise!
known!as!An!Act!To!Regulate!The!Use!Of!Aliases.!
!
ISSUE:!
WON!Cesario!Ursuas!conviction!is!proper.!
!
HELD:!
No.!Ursua!should!be!acquitted.!The!Supreme!Court!
ruled!that!a!strict!application!of!C.A.!No.!142,!
as!amended,!in!this!case!only!leads!to!absurdity!
!something!which!could!not!have!been!intended!by!
the!lawmakers.!
!
Under! C.A.! No.! 142,! as! amended,! save! for! some!
instances,!a!person!is!not!allowed!to!use!a!name!
or! an! alias! other! than! his! registered! name! or!
that! which! he! was! baptized.! Under! the! law,! what!
makes! the! use! of! alias! illegal! is! the! fact! that!
it! is! being! used! habitually! and! publicly! in!
business!transactions!without!prior!authorization!
by! competent! authority.! In! this! case,! Ursua!
merely! used! the! name! Oscar! Perez! once,! it! was!
not! used! in! a! business! transaction,! the! use! of!
the! name! was! with! the! consent! of! Oscar! Perez!
himself,!and!even!if!he!used!a!different!name,!in!
this! instance,! he! was! not! even! required! to!
disclose! his! identity! at! the! Office! of! the!
Ombudsman.! When! he! was! requesting! a! copy! of! the!
complaint,! he! need! not! disclose! his! identity!
because!the!complaint!is!a!public!record!open!to!
the!public.!
!
Statutes!are!to!be!construed!in!the!light!of!the!
purposes! to! be! achieved! and! the! evils! sought! to!
be!remediedthe!court!may!consider!the!spirit!and!
reason! of! the! statute,! where! a! literal! meaning!
would! lead! to! absurdity,! contradiction,!
injustice,! or! would! defeat! the! clear! purpose! of!
the!lawmakers.!
!
The! evils! sought! to! be! avoided! by! the! C.A.! No.!
142!was!not!brought!about!when!Ursua!used!a!name!
other!than!his!name.!A!strict!application!of!the!
law!is!not!warranted.!When!Ursua!used!the!name!of!
Oscar!Perez,!no!fraud!was!committed;!there!was!no!
crime! committed! punishable! under! C.A.! No.! 142.!
The!purpose!of!the!law!is!to!punish!evils!defined!
therein! so! when! no! such! evil! was! produced! by!
Ursuas!act,!said!law!need!not!be!applied.!

!
For! a! bit! of! history,! the! enactment! of! C.A.! No.!
142! as! amended! was! made! primarily! to! curb! the!
common! practice! among! the! Chinese! of! adopting!
scores! of! different! names! and! aliases! which!
created! tremendous! confusion! in! the! field! of!
trade.! Such! a! practice! almost! bordered! on! the!
crime!of!using!fictitious!names!which!for!obvious!
reasons! could! not! be! successfully! maintained!
against! the! Chinese! who,! rightly! or! wrongly,!
claimed!they!possessed!a!thousand!and!one!names.!
C.A.! No.! 142! thus! penalized! the! act! of! using! an!
alias!name,!unless!such!alias!was!duly!authorized!
by! proper! judicial! proceedings! and! recorded! in!
the!civil!register.!
!
Alias!and!Name,!Defined_!
Clearly! therefore! an! alias! is! a! name! or! names!
used! by! a! person! or! intended! to! be! used! by! him!
publicly! and! habitually! usually! in! business!
transactions! in! addition! to! his! real! name! by!
which! he! is! registered! at! birth! or! baptized! the!
first! time! or! substitute! name! authorized! by! a!
competent! authority.! A! mans! name! is! simply! the!
sound! or! sounds! by! which! he! is! commonly!
designated! by! his! fellows! and! by! which! they!
distinguish! him! but! sometimes! a! man! is! known! by!
several! different! names! and! these! are! known! as!
aliases.!
!
Hence,! the! use! of! a! fictitious! name! or! a!
different! name! belonging! to! another! person! in! a!
single! instance! without! any! sign! or! indication!
that!the!user!intends!to!be!known!by!this!name!in!
addition! to! his! real! name! from! that! day! forth!
does!not!fall!within!the!prohibition!contained!in!
C.A.! No.! 142! as! amended.! This! is! so! in! the! case!
at!bench.!
!
While! the! act! of! petitioner! may! be! covered! by!
other!provisions!of!law,!such!does!not!constitute!
an!offense!within!the!concept!of!C.A.!No.!142!as!
amended! under! which! he! is! prosecuted.! The!
confusion! and! fraud! in! business! transactions!
which!the!anti_alias!law!and!its!related!statutes!
seek! to! prevent! are! not! present! here! as! the!
circumstances! are! peculiar! and! distinct! from!
those!contemplated!by!the!legislature!in!enacting!
C.A.! No.! 142! as! amended.! There! exists! a! valid!
presumption! that! undesirable! consequences! were!
never!intended!by!a!legislative!measure!and!that!
a! construction! of! which! the! statute! is! fairly!
susceptible! is! favored,! which! will! avoid! all!
objectionable,!
mischievous,!
indefensible,!
wrongful,!evil!and!injurious!consequences.!
!
The!reason!for!the!principle!that!a!penal!statute!
should! be! construed! strictly! against! the! State!
and!in!favor!of!the!accused!is!the!tenderness!of!
the! law! for! the! rights! of! individuals! and! the!
object! is! to! establish! a! certain! rule! by!
conformity! to! which! mankind! would! be! safe,! and!
the!discretion!of!the!court!limited._!
Moreover,!as!C.A.!No.!142!is!a!penal!statute,!it!
should! be! construed! strictly! against! the! State!
and!in!favor!of!the!accused.!The!reason!for!this!
principle! is! the! tenderness! of! the! law! for! the!
rights! of! individuals! and! the! object! is! to!
establish! a! certain! rule! by! conformity! to! which!
mankind!would!be!safe,!and!the!discretion!of!the!
court!limited.!Indeed,!our!mind!cannot!rest!easy!
on! the! proposition! that! petitioner! should! be!
convicted!on!a!law!that!does!not!clearly!penalize!
the!act!done!by!him.!
!

38.*GIDWANI*vs*PEOPLE**
Petitioner! is! the! president! of! G.G.! Sportswear!
Manufacturing!Corporation!GSMC),!which!is!engaged!
in! the! export! of! ready_to_wear! clothes.! GSMC!
secured! the! embroidery! services! of! El! Grande!
Industrial! Corporation! El! Grande)! and! issued! on!
various! dates! from! June! 1997! to! December! 1997! a!
total!of!10!Banco!de!Oro!(BDO)!checks!as!payment!
for! the! latters! services! worth! an! aggregate!
total!of!1,626,707.62.!
!
Upon!presentment,!these!checks!were!dishonored!by!
the! drawee! bank! for! having! been! drawn! against! a!
closed!account.!
Thus,! El! Grande,! through! counsel,! sent! three!
demand! letters! regarding! 8! of! the! 10! issued!
checks!
!
it!is!a!basic!principle!in!criminal!law!that!any!
ambiguity!in!the!interpretation!or!application!of!
the! law! must! be! made! in! favor! of! the! accused.!
Surely,! our! laws! should! not! be! interpreted! in!
such! a! way! that! the! interpretation! would! result!
in! the! disobedience! of! a! lawful! order! of! an!
authority!vested!by!law!with!the!jurisdiction!to!
issue!the!order.!
!
!
!
!
EFFECT* OF* REPEALS* AND* AMENDMENTS* * GENERAL* AND*
SPECIAL*LAWS*
*
39.*MANILA*RAILROAD*CO*vs*RAFFERTY*
*
On! 20! February! 1956,! Felix! Matabuena! executed! a!
Deed! of! Donation! inter! vivos! in! favor! of!
Petronila! Cervantes! during! the! time! they! were!
living! as! husband! and! wife! in! a! common! law!
relationship.!They!were!later!married!on!28!March!
1962.!Felix!died!intestate!on!13!September!1962.!
Cornelia! Matabuena,! being! the! sole! sister! and!
nearest!and!nearest!relative!to!Felix,!questioned!
the! validity! of! the! donation! claiming! that! the!
ban!on!donation!between!spouses!during!a!marriage!
applies!to!a!common_law!relationship.!She!had!the!
land!declared!on!her!name!and!paid!the!estate!and!
inheritance! taxes! thereon! on! virtue! of! an!
affidavit!of!self_adjudication!executed!by!her!in!
1962.!On!23!November!1965,!the!lower!court!upheld!
the! validity! of! the! donation! as! it! was! made!
before! Cervantes! marriage! to! the! donor.! Hence,!
the!appeal.!
!
The! Supreme! Court! (1)! reversed! the! 23! November!
1965! decision! of! the! lower! court;! (2)! declared!
the! questioned! donation! void! and! recognized! the!
rights!of!plaintiff!and!defendant!as!pro!indiviso!
heirs!to!the!property;!and!(3)!remanded!the!case!
to! the! lower! court! for! its! appropriate!
disposition! in! accordance! with! the! current!
decision;!without!pronouncement!as!to!costs.!
!
1.! ! ! ! Prohibition! of! donation! between! spouses!
apply!to!common_law!relationship!
While!Article!133!of!the!Civil!Code!considers!as!
void! a! donation! between! the! spouses! during! the!
marriage,! policy! considerations! of! the! most!
exigent! character! as! well! as! the! dictates! of!
morality!require!that!the!same!prohibition!should!
apply! to! a! common_law! relationship,! as! it! is!
contrary! to! public! policy! (JBL! Reyes,!

Buenaventura! v.! Bautista,! 1954).! The! law!

prohibits!donations!in!favor!of!the!other!consort!
and!his!descendants!because!of!fear!of!undue!and!
improper!pressure!and!influence!upon!the!donor,!a!
prejudice! deeply! rooted! in! our! ancient! law;!
porque!no!se!engaen!despojandose!el!uno!al!otro!
por! amor! que! han! de! consuno! [according! to]! the!
Partidas!(Part!IV,!Tit.!XI,!LAW!IV),!reiterating!
the! rationale! Ne! mutuato! amore! invicem!
spoliarentur!of!the!Pandects!(Bk.!24,!Tit.!1,!De!
donat,! inter! virum! et! uxorem);! then! there! is!
every!reason!to!apply!the!same!prohibitive!policy!
to! persons! living! together! as! husband! and! wife!
without!the!benefit!of!nuptials.!For!it!is!not!to!
be! doubted! that! assent! to! such! irregular!
connection! for! thirty! years! bespeaks! greater!
influence! of! one! party! over! the! other,! so! that!
the! danger! that! the! law! seeks! to! avoid! is!
correspondingly! increased.! Moreover,! as! already!
pointed!out!by!Ulpian!(in!his!lib.!32!ad!Sabinum,!
fr.!1),!it!would!not!be!just!that!such!donations!
should! subsist,! lest! the! condition! of! those! who!
incurred!guilt!should!turn!out!to!be!better.!So!
long! as! marriage! remains! the! cornerstone! of! our!
family!law,!reason!and!morality!alike!demand!that!
the! disabilities! attached! to! marriage! should!
likewise!attach!to!concubinage.!
!
2.!!!!Spirit!of!the!law!
Whatever! omission! may! be! apparent! in! an!
interpretation! purely! literal! of! the! language!
used! must! be! remedied! by! an! adherence! to! its!
avowed!objective.!El!espiritu!que!informa!la!ley!
debe!ser!la!luz!que!ha!de!guiar!a!los!tribunales!
en!la!aplicacin!de!sus!disposiciones.'!It!is!a!
principle! of! statutory! construction! that! what! is!
within!the!spirit!of!the!law!is!as!much!a!part!of!
it! as! what! is! written.! Otherwise! the! basic!
purpose!discernible!in!such!codal!provision!would!
not!be!attained.!
!
3.! ! ! ! Lack! of! validity! of! donation! does! not!
result! in! exclusive! right! of! plaintiff! on!
property!
The!lack!of!validity!of!the!donation!made!by!the!
deceased! to! Petronila! Cervantes! does! not!
necessarily! result! in! plaintiff! having! exclusive!
right! to! the! disputed! property.! Prior! to! the!
death! of! Felix! Matabuena,! the! relationship!
between!him!and!the!defendant!was!legitimated!by!
their! marriage.! She! is! therefore! his! widow.! As!
provided! for! in! the! Civil! Code,! she! is! entitled!
to!one_half!of!the!inheritance!and!the!plaintiff,!
as!the!surviving!sister,!to!the!other!half.!