This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-09-02 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The authority of the COMELEC to impose airtime limits directly flows from the Fair Election Act (R.A. No. 9006 [2001])[32] one hundred (120) minutes of television advertisement and one-hundred eighty (180) minutes for radio advertisement. For the 2004 elections, the respondent COMELEC promulgated Resolution No. 6520[33] implementing the airtime limits by applying said limitation on a per station basis.[34] Such manner of determining airtime limits was likewise adopted for the 2007 elections, through Resolution No. 7767.[35] In the 2010 elections, under Resolution No. 8758,[36] the same was again adopted. But for the 2013 elections, the COMELEC, through Resolution No. 9615, as amended by Resolution No. 9631, chose to aggregate the total broadcast time among the different broadcast media, thus: Section 9. Requirements and/or Limitations on the Use of Election Propaganda through Mass Media. All parties and bona fide candidates shall have equal access to media time and space for their election propaganda during the campaign period subject to the following requirements and/or limitations: | |||||
|
2014-04-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, in the crime of Other Mischiefs under Article 329, the highest penalty that can be imposed is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods (2 months and 1 day to 6 months) if the value of the damage caused exceeds P1,000.00, but under the proposal, the value of the damage will now become P100,000.00 (1:100), and still punishable by arresto mayor (1 month and 1 day to 6 months). And, if the value of the damaged property does not exceed P200.00, the penalty is arresto menor or a fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than P200.00, if the amount involved does not exceed P200.00 or cannot be estimated. Under the proposal, P200.00 will now become P20,000.00, which simply means that the fine of P200.00 under the existing law will now become P20,000.00. The amount of Fine under this situation will now become excessive and afflictive in nature despite the fact that the offense is categorized as a light felony penalized with a light penalty under Article 26 of the RPC.[33] Unless we also amend Article 26 of the RPC, there will be grave implications on the penalty of Fine, but changing the same through Court decision, either expressly or impliedly, may not be legally and constitutionally feasible. | |||||