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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 573 views

    People v. Villaraza

    Uploaded by

    Joyleen Hebron
    1) The case involves a dispute over jurisdiction between a city court and a Court of First Instance regarding a case of estafa committed through issuing bouncing checks on October 16, 1974. 2) The issue is whether the increased penalty of 8-10 years imprisonment under Presidential Decree No. 818, which took effect on October 22, 1975, can be applied retroactively to a crime committed before the decree. 3) The Supreme Court held that the increased penalty cannot be applied retroactively as it would constitute an ex post facto law prohibited by the Revised Penal Code and the Constitution.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Villaraza

    Uploaded by

    Joyleen Hebron
    573 views1 page
    1) The case involves a dispute over jurisdiction between a city court and a Court of First Instance regarding a case of estafa committed through issuing bouncing checks on October 16, 1974. 2) The issue is whether the increased penalty of 8-10 years imprisonment under Presidential Decree No. 818, which took effect on October 22, 1975, can be applied retroactively to a crime committed before the decree. 3) The Supreme Court held that the increased penalty cannot be applied retroactively as it would constitute an ex post facto law prohibited by the Revised Penal Code and the Constitution.

    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) The case involves a dispute over jurisdiction between a city court and a Court of First Instance regarding a case of estafa committed through issuing bouncing checks on October 16, 1974. 2) The issue is whether the increased penalty of 8-10 years imprisonment under Presidential Decree No. 818, which took effect on October 22, 1975, can be applied retroactively to a crime committed before the decree. 3) The Supreme Court held that the increased penalty cannot be applied retroactively as it would constitute an ex post facto law prohibited by the Revised Penal Code and the Constitution.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Villaraza

    Uploaded by

    Joyleen Hebron
    1) The case involves a dispute over jurisdiction between a city court and a Court of First Instance regarding a case of estafa committed through issuing bouncing checks on October 16, 1974. 2) The issue is whether the increased penalty of 8-10 years imprisonment under Presidential Decree No. 818, which took effect on October 22, 1975, can be applied retroactively to a crime committed before the decree. 3) The Supreme Court held that the increased penalty cannot be applied retroactively as it would constitute an ex post facto law prohibited by the Revised Penal Code and the Constitution.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. HON. ROLANDO R.

    VILLARAZA
    G.R. No. L-46228; January 17, 1978

    TOPIC: BILL OF ATTAINDER


    Art. 21. Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony shall be punishable by any penalty not
    prescribed by law prior to its commission.
    Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal Laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as
    they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in
    Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final
    sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
    FACTS:

    On March 31, 1976, City Judge Rolando R. Villaraza, directed that it be elevated, for trial, to the
    Court of First Instance the case of Caesar Puerto, who on December 3, 1975 , was charged
    with estafa by the city assistant fiscal in the city court of Cagayan de Oro City for having issued
    on October 16, 1974 two bouncing checks for the total sum of P4,966.63.
    The Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro Branch VIII, in its order of
    February 3, 1977 returned the case to the city court because in its opinion the case falls within
    the concurrent jurisdiction of the two courts and, the city court, as the first court which took
    cognizance of the case, should try it.
    Disagreeing with the Court of First Instance, respondent city judge in his order of April 21, 1977
    directed the re-elevation of the case. His view is that the case falls within the exclusive original
    jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance because estafa committed by the accused is
    punishable by prision mayor medium under Presidential Decree No. 818 which took effect on
    October 22, 1975 and which amended article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the penalty of prision mayor medium, or eight years and one day to ten years, imposed
    by Presidential Decree No. 818 which took effect on October 22, 1975 be applicable to a crime
    committed on October 16, 1974?
    HELD:
    No. The penalty of prision mayor medium, or eight years and one day to ten years, imposed by
    Presidential Decree No. 818, applies only to swindling by means of issuing bouncing checks
    which was committed on or after October 22, 1975. That increased penalty does not apply to
    the estafa committed by Puerto on October 16, 1974. To apply it to Puerto would make the
    decree an ex post facto law. Its retroactive application is prohibited by articles 21 and 22 of the
    Revised Penal Code and section 12, Article IV of the Constitution.

    You might also like