Statutory Construction

Clarissa L. Furugganan-Aquino

Deadline Table of contents

Case Digest

AUGUSTUS CEAZAR GAN VS. HON. ANTONIO REYES G.R. No.145527, May 28, 2002
2.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999
3. LILY SY VS. HON. MERCEDITAS GUTIERREZ, ET AL. G.R. No. 171579 November 14, 2012
4. MAPA VS. HON. JOKER ARROYO AND LABRADOR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION G.R. No. 78585
(July 5, 1989)
5. MISAEL VERA, ET AL. VS. HON. JOSE F. FERNANDEZ, ET AL. G.R. No. L-31364, March 30, 1979
6. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. GUILLERMO MANANTAN G.R. No. 14129, July 31, 1962
7. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ALMUETE 14 G.R. No. L-26551, February 27, 1976
8. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ISABELO PUNO, ET AL. G.R. No. 97471 February 17, 1993
9. UNITED STATES VS. GASPAR ALVIR G.R. No. L-3981, January 14, 1908
10. ARNEL SAGANA VS. RICHARD FRANCISCO G.R. No.161952, October 2, 2009
11. LIWAG VS. HAPPY GLEN LOOP HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. G. R. No. 189755, July 04,
2012
12. ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY, INC VS. THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF ORMOC CITY G.R. No. L-24322;
July 21, 1967
13. BOUGH AND BOUGH VS. CANTIVEROS AND HANOPOL G.R. No. 13300; September 29, 1919
14. COCONUT OIL REFINERS ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. HON. RUBEN TORRES, ET. AL. G.R. No. 132527;
July 29, 2005
15. COA CEBU VS. PROVINCE OF CEBU G.R. No. 141386; November 29, 2001
16. COA CEBU VS. PROVINCE OF CEBU G.R. No. 141386; November 29, 2001
17. DELONG VS. STARKEY 120 Ind. App. 288; May 9, 1950
18. PEOPLE VS. QUIACHON G.R. No. 170236; August 31, 2006
19. ABDUL VS. SANDIGANBAYAN G.R. No. 184496; December 2, 2013
20. ORCEO VS. COMELEC G.R. No. 190779; March 26, 2010
21. CUSTOMS VS. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, SMITH BELL CO., INC. 23 G.R. No. L-41861; March 23,
1987
22. ROSA LIM VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 130038. September 18, 2000
23. AKBAYAN-YOUTH VS COMELEC G.R. No. 147066. March 26, 2001
24. YOLANDA SIGNEY VS SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM, EDITHA ESPINOSA-CASTILLO, AND GINA
SERVANO, REPRESEN TATIVE OF GINALYN AND RODELYN SIGNEY G.R. No. 173582, January 28, 2008
25. ELISEO F. SORIANO VS. MA. CONSOLIZA P. LAGUARDIA G.R. No. 164785, Mar 15, 2010
26. FELICISIMA DE LA CRUZ VS HON. EDGARDO L. PARAS 28 G.R. No. 164785, Mar 15, 2010
27. DREAMWORK CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS CLEOFE S. JANIOLA GR, 185861 30 June 2009
28. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ROMAN DERILO GR, 185861 30 June 2009
29. SERANA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN GR NO. 162059; Jan 22, 2008
30. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. PEOPLE VS JABINAL GR NO. 162059; Jan 22, 2008
31. CARABAO, INC. VS. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION G.R. No. L-29304; Jul 3, 2014
32. DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. STOCKHOLDERS OFINTERCITY SAVINGS AND LOAN
BANK G.R. No. 181556 ; December 14, 2009
33. CLEMENTE LACESTE VS. PAULINO SANTOS, DIRECTOR OF PRISONS G.R. No. L-36886; February 1,
1932
34. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HON. JUDGE PALMA AND ROMULO INTIA Y MORADA G.R. No. L-
44113; March 31, 1977
35. FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ VS. JUDICIAL BAR COUNCIL (JBC) G.R. No. 202242; April 16, 2013
36. FERMIN MANAPAT VS. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 110478 MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA VS.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL G.R. No. 143351; September 14, 2000
37. JUANITO R. RIMANDO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC) AND NORMA O. MAGNO
G.R. No. 176364
38. REPUBLIC VS. VILLASOR G.R. No. L-30671; November 28, 1973
39. LOYOLA GRAND VILLAS HOMEOWNERS (SOUTH) ASSOCIATION, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS G.R.
No. 117188; August 7, 1997
40. JM TUASON AND CO., ET AL. VS. HON. HERMINIO MARIANO, ET AL. GR No. L-33140, October 23,
1978
41. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SIMEONA MARTIN AND HERMIN ARCEO G.R. No. L-38019 May
16, 1980
42. BARRETTO VS. TUASON G.R. Nos. L-36872; March 31, 1934
43. CRUZ VS. CABANA G.R. No. L-56232 June 22, 1984
44. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY (PHILIPPINES) G.R. No.
153866 February 11, 2005

1
Page
Statutory Construction
Clarissa L. Furugganan-Aquino

45. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS VS. THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF NEW
YORK G.R. No. 5876 September 1, 1911
46. MANUEL UY VS. ENRICO PALOMAR, IN HIS CAPACITY AS POSTMASTER GENERAL G.R. No. L-
23248 February 28, 1969
47. VILLASI VS. GARCIA G.R. No. 190106 January 15, 2014
48. AMADORA VS. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. L-47745 April 15, 1988
49. RESTITUTO YNOT VS. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT G.R. No. 74457 March 20, 1987
50. UNITED STATES VS. JULIAN SANTIAGO G.R. No. L-11374 March 14, 1917
51. J.R.A. PHILIPPINES, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE
52. G.R. No. 177127 October 11, 2010 LEONARDO VS. COURT OF APPEALS G. R. No. 125329.
September 10, 2003
53. GUEVARA VS. INOCENTES G. R. No. L-25577, 16 SCRA 379, March 15, 1966
54. PEOPLE VS. MARTIN G.R. No. L-33487; May 31, 1971
55. PEOPLE VS. MANTALABA G.R. No. 186227
56. R (ON THE APPLICATION OF ST (ERITREA)) (FC) VS. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME
DEPARTMENT
57. LEAGUE OF CITIES OF THE PHILIPPINE REPRESENTATIVE BY LCP NATIONAL PRESIDENT JERRY P.
TRENAS, ET AL. GR. No. 176951 GR. No. 177499 GR. No. 178056
58. REPUBLIC V. LACAP G.R. No. 158253; March 2, 2007
59. ALONSO VS. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC., G.R. No. 130876; December 5, 2003
60. VICTORIA VS. COMELEC AND JESUS JAMES CALISIN G.R. 109005; January 10, 1994

1.) G.R. No. 145527. May 28, 2002

AUGUSTUS CAEZAR R. GAN, petitioner, vs.
HON. ANTONIO C. REYES, Presiding Judge of RTC-Br. 61, Baguio City, et al., respondents.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
FACTS:
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Private Respondent Bernadette S. Pondevida wrote petitioner Augustus Caezar R. Gan demanding
support for their “love child” Francheska Joy S. Pondevida, as she would not be able to send to school
her three (3)-year old daughter. Petitioner, in his reply, denied paternity of the child. Bernadette
thereafter instituted in behalf of her daughter a complaint against petitioner for child support.
Petitioner moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. He
argued that since Francheska’s certificate of birth indicated her father as “UNKNOWN,” there was no
legal or factual basis for the claim of support. His motion, however, was denied by the trial court.
Despite denial of his motion, petitioner failed to file his answer within the reglementary period. Private
respondent moved that petitioner be declared in default, which motion was granted. Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration was also denied. Hence, the court received the evidence of private
respondent.
After finding that the claim of filiation and support was adequately proved, the trial court rendered its
Decision ordering petitioner to recognize private respondent Francheska Joy S. Pondevida as his
illegitimate child and support her with P20,000.00 every month to be paid on or before the 15th of each
month. Likewise petitioner was ordered to pay Francheska Joy S. Pondevida the accumulated arrears of
P20,000.00 per month from the day she was born, P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees and P25,000.00 for
expenses of litigation, plus P20,000.00 on or before the 15th of every month as financial support during
litigation should he desire to pursue further remedies against private respondent.
Forthwith, private respondent moved for execution of the judgment of support, which the trial court
granted by issuing a writ of execution, citing as reason therefor private respondent’s immediate need for
schooling.
Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of Appeals imputing grave abuse
of discretion to the trial court for ordering the immediate execution of the judgment. Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition on the ratiocination that under Sec. 4, Rule 39 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure judgments for support are immediately executory and cannot be stayed by an appeal.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the lower courts erred in issuing and enforcing the writ of execution.
RULING:
No. Petition is DENIED and the writ of execution issued by the lower court is AFFIRMED.
Unless ordered by the trial court, judgments in actions for support are immediately executory and
cannot be stayed by an appeal, which is an exception to the general rule which provides that the

taking of an appeal stays the execution of the judgment and that advance executions will only be
allowed if there are urgent reasons therefor.—Section 4, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court clearly states

2
Page
Statutory Construction
Clarissa L. Furugganan-Aquino

that, unless ordered by the trial court, judgments in actions for support are immediately executory and
cannot be stayed by an appeal.
To the plain words of a legal provision, courts should make no further explanation. Petitioner is
reminded that to the plain words of a legal provision we should make no further explanation.

2.) G.R. No. 127755. April 14, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO, accused-appellant.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
FACTS:
The accused-appellant Joselito Del Rosario, was convicted of the robbery with homicide and sentenced
to death. The conviction of the accused was based on the testimony of a tricycle driver who claimed that
the accused was the one who drove the tricycle, which the suspects used as their get-away vehicle.
The accused was then invited by the police for questioning and he pointed to the location where he
dropped off the suspects. When the police arrived at the supposed hide-out, a shooting incident ensued,
resulting in the death of some of the suspects. After the incident, the accused was taken back to the
precinct where his statement was taken on May 14, 1996. However, this was only subscribed on May 22,
1996.
As earlier stated, the court found accused Joselito del Rosario guilty as charged and sentenced him to
death. He now contends in this automatic review that the court erred in:
(1) Not finding the presence of threat and irresistible force employed upon him by his co-accused Virgilio
“Boy” Santos, Ernesto “Jun” Marquez and “Dodong” Bisaya;
(2) Not considering his defense that he was not part of the conspiracy among co-accused “Boy” Santos,
“Jun” Marquez and “Dodong” Bisaya to commit the crime of Robbery with Homicide;
(3) Not considering the violations on his constitutional rights as an accused; and,
(4) Not considering that there was no lawful warrantless arrest within the meaning of Sec. 5, Rule 113,
of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not there was the presence of threat and irresistible force employed upon him by his co-
accused Virgilio Boy Santos, Ernesto Jun Marquez and Dodong Bisaya.
2. Whether or not he was part of the conspiracy.
3 . Whether or not there was a violation of his constitutional right as an accused. 4. Whether or not
there was a lawful warrantless arrest.
RULING:
1. A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse
of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt from criminal liability because he does not
act with freedom.
There is no doubt that the fear entertained by del Rosario because of the gun directly pointed at him
was real and imminent. Such fear rendered him immobile and subject to the will of Boy Santos, making
him for the moment an automaton without a will of his own.
2. A conspiracy in the statutory language exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The objective of the conspirators is to
perform an act or omission punishable by law.
In the instant case, he was merely hired by Boy Santos to drive to an agreed destination and he was
prevented at gunpoint from leaving the scene of the crime since he was ordered to help them escape.

3. From the foregoing, it is clear that del Rosario was deprived of his rights during custodial
investigation. From the time he was “invited” for questioning at the house of the barangay captain, he
was already under effective custodial investigation, but he was not apprised nor made aware thereof by
the investigating officers. Since the prosecution failed to establish that del Rosario had waived his right
to remain silent, his verbal admissions on his participation in the crime even before his actual arrest
were inadmissible against him, as the same transgressed the safeguards provided by law and the Bill of
Rights.
4. In essence, Sec. 5, par. (a), Rule 113, requires that the accused be caught in flagrante delicto or caught
immediately after the consummation of the act. It must be recalled that del Rosario was arrested by
SPO4 De Leon during the police raid at the place of “Jun” Marquez at Brgy. Dicarma on 14 May 1996.
The arrest of del Rosario is obviously outside the purview of the aforequoted rule since he was arrested
on the day following the commission of the robbery with homicide.
The decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting accused JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO of Robbery with
Homicide and sentencing him to death, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the accused is ACQUITTED of
the crime charged.

3
Page
Statutory Construction
Clarissa L. Furugganan-Aquino

G.R. No. 127755. April 14, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO, accused-appellant.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
FACTS:
The accused-appellant Joselito Del Rosario, was convicted of the robbery with homicide and sentenced
to death. The conviction of the accused was based on the testimony of a tricycle driver who claimed that
the accused was the one who drove the tricycle, which the suspects used as their get-away vehicle.
The accused was then invited by the police for questioning and he pointed to the location where he
dropped off the suspects. When the police arrived at the supposed hide-out, a shooting incident ensued,
resulting in the death of some of the suspects. After the incident, the accused was taken back to the
precinct where his statement was taken on May 14, 1996. However, this was only subscribed on May 22,
1996.
As earlier stated, the court found accused Joselito del Rosario guilty as charged and sentenced him to
death. He now contends in this automatic review that the court erred in:
(1) Not finding the presence of threat and irresistible force employed upon him by his co-accused Virgilio
“Boy” Santos, Ernesto “Jun” Marquez and “Dodong” Bisaya;
(2) Not considering his defense that he was not part of the conspiracy among co-accused “Boy” Santos,
“Jun” Marquez and “Dodong” Bisaya to commit the crime of Robbery with Homicide;
(3) Not considering the violations on his constitutional rights as an accused; and,
(4) Not considering that there was no lawful warrantless arrest within the meaning of Sec. 5, Rule 113,
of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not there was the presence of threat and irresistible force employed upon him by his co-
accused Virgilio Boy Santos, Ernesto Jun Marquez and Dodong Bisaya.
2. Whether or not he was part of the conspiracy.
3 . Whether or not there was a violation of his constitutional right as an accused. 4. Whether or not
there was a lawful warrantless arrest.
RULING:
1. A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse
of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt from criminal liability because he does not
act with freedom.
There is no doubt that the fear entertained by del Rosario because of the gun directly pointed at him
was real and imminent. Such fear rendered him immobile and subject to the will of Boy Santos, making
him for the moment an automaton without a will of his own.

4
Page
Statutory Construction
Clarissa L. Furugganan-Aquino

2. A conspiracy in the statutory language exists when two or more persons come to an agreement
concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The objective of the conspirators is to
perform an act or omission punishable by law.
In the instant case, he was merely hired by Boy Santos to drive to an agreed destination and he was
prevented at gunpoint from leaving the scene of the crime since he was ordered to help them escape.

3. From the foregoing, it is clear that del Rosario was deprived of his rights during custodial
investigation. From the time he was “invited” for questioning at the house of the barangay captain, he
was already under effective custodial investigation, but he was not apprised nor made aware thereof by
the investigating officers. Since the prosecution failed to establish that del Rosario had waived his right
to remain silent, his verbal admissions on his participation in the crime even before his actual arrest
were inadmissible against him, as the same transgressed the safeguards provided by law and the Bill of
Rights.
4. In essence, Sec. 5, par. (a), Rule 113, requires that the accused be caught in flagrante delicto or caught
immediately after the consummation of the act. It must be recalled that del Rosario was arrested by
SPO4 De Leon during the police raid at the place of “Jun” Marquez at Brgy. Dicarma on 14 May 1996.
The arrest of del Rosario is obviously outside the purview of the aforequoted rule since he was arrested
on the day following the commission of the robbery with homicide.
The decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting accused JOSELITO DEL ROSARIO of Robbery with
Homicide and sentencing him to death, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the accused is ACQUITTED of
the crime charged.

5
Page