This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2013-07-02 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| The Court cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws,[1] which must be presented as public documents[2] of a foreign country and must be "evidenced by an official publication thereof."[3] Mere reference to a foreign law in a pleading does not suffice for it to be considered in deciding a case. | |||||
|
2008-11-14 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| There is no violation of the prohibition against ex post facto law nor a retroactive application of R.A. No. 8042, as alleged by petitioner. An ex post facto law is one which, among others, aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when committed or changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed.[16] Penal laws and laws which, while not penal in nature, nonetheless have provisions defining offenses and prescribing penalties for their violation operate prospectively. Penal laws cannot be given retroactive effect, except when they are favorable to the accused.[17] | |||||
|
2008-11-14 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| There is no violation of the prohibition against ex post facto law nor a retroactive application of R.A. No. 8042, as alleged by petitioner. An ex post facto law is one which, among others, aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when committed or changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed.[16] Penal laws and laws which, while not penal in nature, nonetheless have provisions defining offenses and prescribing penalties for their violation operate prospectively. Penal laws cannot be given retroactive effect, except when they are favorable to the accused.[17] | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Marriages of exceptional character are, doubtless, the exceptions to the rule on the indispensability of the formal requisite of a marriage license. Under the rules of statutory construction, exceptions, as a general rule, should be strictly[38] but reasonably construed.[39] They extend only so far as their language fairly warrants, and all doubts should be resolved in favor of the general provisions rather than the exception.[40] Where a general rule is established by statute with exceptions, the court will not curtail the former or add to the latter by implication.[41] For the exception in Article 76 to apply, it is a sine qua non thereto that the man and the woman must have attained the age of majority, and that, being unmarried, they have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years. | |||||
|
2005-04-15 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| … (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration. …[41] | |||||
|
2004-08-31 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| In not a few cases, this Court has laid down the yardstick to determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping as where the elements of litis pendentia are present or where a final judgment in one case will amount to res judicata in the other.[8] Stated differently, there must be between the two cases (a) identity of parties; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) that the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.[9] | |||||
|
2004-03-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Too, there is no merit in the argument that the proclamation is an ex post facto law. There are six recognized instances when a law is considered as such: 1) it criminalizes and punishes an action that was done before the passing of the law and that was innocent when it was done; 2) it aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when it was committed; 3) it changes the punishment and inflicts one that is greater than that imposed by the law annexed to the crime when it was committed; 4) it alters the legal rules of evidence and authorizes conviction upon a less or different testimony than that required by the law at the time of the commission of the offense; 5) it assumes the regulation of civil rights and remedies only, but in effect imposes a penalty or a deprivation of a right as a consequence of something that was considered lawful when it was done; and 6) it deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he or she become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or an acquittal or the proclamation of an amnesty.[40] Proclamation No. 84 does not fall under any of the enumerated categories; hence, it is not an ex post facto law. | |||||
|
2004-03-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| the same issues either pending in, or already resolved adversely, by some other court.[15] For a charge of forum shopping to prosper, there must exist between an action pending in one court and another action before another court: (a) identity of parties, or at least such parties as represent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of rights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the same facts; and (c) the identity of the two preceding particulars is such that any judgment rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful, amount to res judicata in the action under consideration.[16] In the cited cases, we find there is no identity of parties because the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 6014, Sa Amin, is not a party in Civil Case No. Q-95-25073, although both Sta. Rosa and petitioners are impleaded as parties in different capacities. In Civil Case No. | |||||
|
2002-10-04 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| legal what had been previously declared as illegal, such that the offense no longer exists and it is as if the person who committed it never did so.[11] Specially so, as in the present case where it is unconditionally stated in Section 3 of R.A. No. 8368 that: "(A)ll pending cases under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 772 shall be dismissed upon the effectivity of this Act."[12] Obviously, it was the clear intent of the law to decriminalize or do away with the crime of squatting. Hence, there being no criminal liability, there is likewise no civil liability because the latter is rooted in the former. Where an act or omission is not a crime, no person can be held liable for such act or omission. There being no delict, logically, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question. [13] In fact, in People v. Leachon, Jr.[14] we implicitly recognized the unconditional repeal of P.D. 772 by R.A. 8368 when we ordered the dismissal of the petition filed in said case, without any qualification whatsoever, | |||||