This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-06-26 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| Lastly, I need to remind that in the interpretation of the law on prescription of crimes, that which is most favorable to the accused is to be adopted.[22] As between Section 2 of Republic Act No. 3326 and Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, therefore, the former is controlling due to its being more favorable to the accused. This interpretation also accords most with the nature of prescription as a statute of repose whose object is to suppress fraudulent and stale claims from springing up at great distances of time and surprising the parties or their representatives when the facts have become obscure from the lapse of time or the defective memory or death or removal of witnesses.[23] More than being an act of grace, prescription, as a statute of limitation, is equivalent to an act of amnesty, which shall begin to run upon the commission of the offense rather than upon the discovery of the offense.[24] | |||||
|
2009-04-29 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| This Court's position was soundly rejected by the legislature when it enacted the Revised Penal Code in 1930. A more exacting rule on prescription was embodied in the Code, Article 91 of which was plain and categorical: "The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago." Besides, it must be noted that even the cases involving liberal interpretation of the statute of limitations in favor of the accused relate only to the following issues: (1) retroactive[13] or prospective[14] application of laws providing or extending the prescriptive period; (2) the determination of the nature of the felony committed vis a vis the applicable prescriptive period;[15] and (3) the reckoning of when the prescriptive period runs.[16] Thus, contrary to the opinion of the majority in Romualdez, these cases are no authority to support the conclusion that the prescriptive period in a special law runs while the accused is abroad. | |||||
|
2006-07-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| This Court agrees that the use of the docket numbers of the dismissed cases was merely for reference. In fact, after the new informations were filed, new docket numbers were assigned, i.e., Criminal Cases Nos. 28031-28049 x x x.[13] | |||||