Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Valeroso vs. People G.R. No. 164815, 22 February 2008 Facts

    Uploaded by

    chelsimaine
    1) Petitioner was arrested on July 10, 1996 for kidnapping with ransom. During his arrest, police found a firearm tucked in his waist which was not registered under his name. 2) He was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him. 3) The issue is whether retroactive application of the law is valid given that the offense was committed before the amended law took effect. 4) The Supreme Court held that retroactive application was valid in this case because the amended law, RA 8294, took effect during the pendency of the case and it favors the accused with a lighter penalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Valeroso vs. People G.R. No. 164815, 22 February 2008 Facts

    Uploaded by

    chelsimaine
    29 views1 page
    1) Petitioner was arrested on July 10, 1996 for kidnapping with ransom. During his arrest, police found a firearm tucked in his waist which was not registered under his name. 2) He was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him. 3) The issue is whether retroactive application of the law is valid given that the offense was committed before the amended law took effect. 4) The Supreme Court held that retroactive application was valid in this case because the amended law, RA 8294, took effect during the pendency of the case and it favors the accused with a lighter penalty.

    Original Description:

    ,

    Original Title

    Valeroso v People

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioner was arrested on July 10, 1996 for kidnapping with ransom. During his arrest, police found a firearm tucked in his waist which was not registered under his name. 2) He was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him. 3) The issue is whether retroactive application of the law is valid given that the offense was committed before the amended law took effect. 4) The Supreme Court held that retroactive application was valid in this case because the amended law, RA 8294, took effect during the pendency of the case and it favors the accused with a lighter penalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views1 page

    Valeroso vs. People G.R. No. 164815, 22 February 2008 Facts

    Uploaded by

    chelsimaine
    1) Petitioner was arrested on July 10, 1996 for kidnapping with ransom. During his arrest, police found a firearm tucked in his waist which was not registered under his name. 2) He was charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him. 3) The issue is whether retroactive application of the law is valid given that the offense was committed before the amended law took effect. 4) The Supreme Court held that retroactive application was valid in this case because the amended law, RA 8294, took effect during the pendency of the case and it favors the accused with a lighter penalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Valeroso vs.

    People
    G.R. No. 164815, 22 February 2008

    FACTS:
    On July 10, 1996, SPO2 Antonio Disuanco of the Criminal Investigation Section
    Division, Central Police District Command received a dispatch order, which directed him
    and three (3) other personnel to serve a warrant of arrest against petitioner in a case for
    kidnapping with ransom. After briefing, team conducted necessary surveillance on
    petitioner, checking his hideouts in Cavite, Caloocan and Bulacan. Then, the team
    proceeded to the Integrated National Police Central Station in Culiat, Quezon City,
    where they saw petitioner as he was about to board a tricycle. SPO2 Disuanco and his
    team approached petitioner. They put him under arrest, informed him of his
    constitutional rights, and bodily searched him. Found tucked in his waist was a Charter
    Arms, bearing Serial Number 52315 with five (5) live ammunition.
    Petitioner was brought to the police station for questioning. A verification of the
    subject firearm at the Firearms and Explosives Division at Camp Crame revealed that it
    was not issued to the petitioner but to another person. Petitioner was then charged
    with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under PD No. 1866 as amended.
    On May 6, 1998 trial court found petitioner guilty as charged and sentenced him
    to suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum plus fine. Petitioner moved
    to reconsider but his motion was denied. He appealed to the CA. On May 4, 2004, the
    appellate court affirmed the RTC disposition.
    SC affirmed CAs decision.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not retroactive application of the law is valid taken into account that
    the commission of the offense was on July 10, 1996 wherein the governing law was PD
    1866, which provides the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
    reclusion perpetua.

    HELD:
    YES. RA 8294 amended PD 1866 on July 6, 1997, during the pendency of the case
    with the trial court. The law looks forward, never backward (prospectivity). Lex prospicit,
    non respicit. A new law has a prospective, not retroactive, effect. However, penal laws
    that favor a guilty person, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be given retroactive
    effect. These are the rule, the exception and exception to the exception on effectivity of
    laws.

    You might also like