This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-06-26 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Why would the drivers refuse to stop when required? Did they fear inspection of their cargo? Why would "S.O.P." (which in street parlance is grease money) be offered to facilitate the passage of the trucks? The only logical answer to all these questions is that the drivers knew that they were carrying contraband lumber. This Court believes that the drivers had knowledge of the fact that they were transporting and were in possession of undocumented lumber in violation of law.[13] In offenses considered as mala prohibita or when the doing of an act is prohibited by a special law such as in the present case, the commission of the prohibited act is the crime itself. It is sufficient that the offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the special law, and that it is done knowingly and consciously.[14] | |||||
|
2002-05-07 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| If a statute is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without any interpretation.[13] This rule rests on the presumption that the words employed by the legislature correctly express its intent and preclude the courts from construing the law differently.[14] Similarly, a statute should be so construed as to effectuate its intent, advance the remedy and suppress any mischief contemplated by the framers.[15] | |||||