Persons Case Digest 2 - PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASE DIGEST PART 2 PEOPLE VS LICERA Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration but was also

Persons Case Digest 2 - PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASE...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 5 pages.

1 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CASE DIGEST PART 2 PEOPLE VS LICERA FACTS: In 1961, accused was granted an appointment as secret agent of Governor Leviste. In 1965, accused was charged with illegal possession of firearms. The SC held that where at the time of his appointment, People v. Macarandang (1959) was applicable, which held that secret agents were exempt from the license requirement, and later People v. Mapa (1967) was decided, the earlier case should be held applicable. ISSUE: Which rule should be applied to the case at bar: that enunciated in Macarandang or that in Mapa? HELD: Article 8 of the Civil Code of the Philippines decrees that judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution form part of this jurisdiction's legal system. These decisions, although in themselves not laws, constitute evidence of what the laws mean. The application or interpretation placed by the Court upon a law is part of the law as of the date of the enactment of the said law since the Court's application or interpretation merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the construed law purports to carry into effect. At the time of Licera's designation as secret agent in 1961 and at the time of his apprehension for possession of the Winchester rifle without the requisite license or permit therefor in 1965, the Macarandang rule — the Courts interpretation of section 879 of the Revised Administrative Code - formed part of our jurisprudence and, hence, of this jurisdiction's legal system. Mapa revoked the Macarandang precedent only in 1967. Certainly, where a new doctrine abrogates an old rule, the new doctrine should operate respectively only and should not adversely affect those favored by the old rule, especially those who relied thereon and acted on the faith thereof. This holds more especially true in the application or interpretation of statutes in the field of penal law, for, in this area, more than in any other, it is imperative that the punishability of an act be reasonably foreseen for the guidance of society. Pursuant to the Macarandang rule obtaining not only at the time of Licera's appointment as secret agent, which appointment included a grant of authority to possess the Winchester rifle, but as well at the time as of his apprehension, Licera incurred no criminal liability for possession of the said rifle, notwithstanding his non-compliance with the legal requirements relating to firearm licenses. DE ROY VS CA FACTS: The firewall of a burned-out building owned by petitioner De Roy collapsed and destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by the family of private respondents, resulting to injuries to private respondents and the death of private respondent’s daughter. Petitioner had warned the private respondents to vacate their shop in view of its proximity to the weakened wall but the latter failed to do so.
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture