Aids to Construction:

I. Intrinsic Aids to Construction

a. Title/Preamblea. People vs. Rivera, 59 Phil 235

Case of People of the Philippine Islands vs. Faustino RiveraGR Nos. L-38215, 38216 22December1933

FACTS OF THE CASE:The accused Faustino Rivera was being charged by the crime of Indictment of the Innocent planned and punished under the Art 363 of the Revised Penal Code. The Provincial Prosecutor filed a case against Rivera for filing a complaint in writing and executing an oath accusing falsely and without probable cause Vito Sunday and Felisa Moreno of the crime of theft.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Does Art 363 of the R.P.C apply in this case?

It does not apply since the law that the crime Rivera was accused of committing is not explicitly stated in the R.P.C (although it is worthy to mention that the crime of indictment of the innocent is present in the Old Penal Code)The old penal code described it as the charge of the offense is the imputation itself if made in front of the administrative/ judicial officer while the R.P.C defines the offense as the act that leads (tends directly) to imputation of the offense.The art 363 of the R.P.C was defined or described as “planting of evidence.”

HELD:

COURT HELD THAT THE ACCUSED FAUSTINO RIVERA IS NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME FO INCRIMINATION OF THE INNOCENT.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LESSON:

It is well settled law that where the text of a statute is clear, it is improper to resort to a caption or title to make it obscure.

It is a well settled rule that statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will give effect to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion. (Lau Ow Bew vs. United States,

144 U. S., 47, 59; 36 Law. ed., 340, 344.)

b. Ebarle vs. Sucaldito 156 SCRA 803c. People vs. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542

Statutory Construction

Case of People of the R.P. vs. PurisimaGR Nos. L-42050-66 20November1978

FACTS OF THE CASE:There are twenty-six (26) Petitions for Review filed by the People of the Philippines represented, respectively, by the Office of the City Fiscal of Manila, the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Samar, and joined by the Solicitor General, are consolidated in this one Decision as they involve one basic question of law. Before those courts, Informations were filed charging the respective accused with "illegal possession of deadly weapon" in violation of Presidential Decree No. 9. On a motion to quash filed by the accused, the three Judges mentioned above issued in the respective cases filed before them — the details of which will be recounted below — an Order quashing or dismissing the Informations, on a common ground, viz, that the Information did not allege facts which constitute the offense penalized by Presidential Decree No. 9 because it failed to state one essential element of the crime.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Are the Informations filed by the People sufficient in form and substance to constitute the offense of "illegal possession of deadly weapon" penalized under Presidential Decree (PD for short) No. 9?

There are two elements to the the offense: first, the carrying outside one's residence of any bladed, blunt, or pointed weapon, etc. not used as a necessary tool or implement for a livelihood; and second, that the act of carrying the weapon was either in furtherance of, or to abet, or in connection with subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos, or public disorder.The petitioner by having one particular stand of the carrying of any dangerous weapon outside of the residence w/o regard to motive or intent makes this a case of statutory construction.

HELD:

COURT DISMISSED ALL MOTIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER AND AFFIRMS ALL DECISIONS MADE BY THE RESPONDENT JUDGES.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LESSON:

The problem of determining what acts fall within the purview of a statute, it becomes necessary to

inquire into the intent and spirit of the decree and this can be found among others in the preamble or, whereas" clauses which enumerate the facts or events which justify the promulgation of the decree and the stiff sanctions stated therein.

It is a salutary principle in statutory construction that there exists a valid presumption that undesirable consequences were never intended by a legislative measure, and that a construction of which the statute is fairly susceptible is favored, which will avoid all objectionable, mischievous, indefensible, wrongful, evil, and injurious consequence

d. People vs. Garcia 85 Phil 663

b. Context of the whole texta. Aisporma v. CA, 113 SCRA 459b. CIR vs. TMX, 205 SCRA 184

c. Othersa. Punctuation Marksb. Headnotes

d. Intent or spirit of the lawa. McMicking v. Lichauco, 27 Phil 386b. Regalado v. Yulo 61 Phil 173

e. Policy of the lawa. Nilo vs. CA, April 12, 1984, G.R. No. 34586b. Caltex vs. Palomar, G.R. No. 19650, 18 SCRA 247c. Litex Employees Assn v. Eduvala 79 SCRA 88

II. Extrinsic Aids to Construction

a. Presumptionsb. Legislative Historyc. Prior Laws from which statute is basedd. Adopted statutesa. Wise & Co v. Meer, 78 Phil 655

b. Tamayo v. Gsell, 35 Phil 953c. Republic v. Meralco, G.R. No. 141314 (2003)

e. Principles of Common lawf. Conditions at the time of enactment

III. Contemporary constructiona. Kinds of executive constructionb. Weight accorded to contemporaneous constructionc. Reasons why contemporaneous construction is given much weightd. When contemporaneous construction disregarded

IV. Stare Decisisa. Associated Sugar, Inc v. Commissioner of Customs, 118 SCRA 567b. Tan Chong v. Sec. of Labor 79 Phil 249