Chapter 3: Aids To Construction

People vs Degamo
402 SCRA 133
acts:
The appellant !as convicted "# the Regional Trial Court o$ the crime o$ rape
!ith the use o$ a deadl# !eapon and the aggravating circumstances o$ d!elling and
nighttime% urthermore& Repu"lic Act '()*& !hich e+pressl# provides that !hen "#
reason or on the occasion o$ the rape& the victim has "ecome insane& the penalt#
shall "e death% The prosecution also included in the complaint this ,uali$#ing
circumstance $or a proper imposition o$ penalt#% -t !as provided in the $acts o$ the
case that the victim under!ent ps#chiatric treatment a$ter the traumatic incident%
The doctor responsi"le $or her stated that the victim !as su.ering $rom acute and
chronic ps#chosis& and consistentl# tal/ed to hersel$% The state o$ ps#chosis o$ the
victim0 !as concluded "# the doctor to "e induced "# an over!helming trauma
secondar# to rape% urther& the doctor con1rmed that ps#chosis is usuall# a
technical term $or rape& and that !ithout continuous treatment the complainant
ma# regress and su"se,uentl# lose all aspects o$ $unctioning%
The appellant is presentl# contending to reverse the ruling o$ the trail court
on the "asis that the victim had not "ecome insane "# reason o$ the rape& due to
the $act that she !as a"le to give intelligent ans!ers on the !itness stand%
-ssue: 2hether or not the term insanit# in Repu"lic Act '()* ma# "e construed to
include ps#chosis3
4eld: 5es% As provided in the legislative histor# "ehind Repu"lic Act '()*% The 1rst
la! that introduced the speci1c ,uali$#ing circumstance in ,uestion !as RA 2(32%
The deli"erations o$ the la!ma/ers in enacting RA 2(32 illustrates the insanit# o$
the victim must "e "# reason o$ rape& regardless i$ it is temporar# or permanent%
urthermore& the Congressional records also sho! the legislative intent not to
distinguish "et!een perpetual or temporar# insanit#: Senator Sa"ido introduced the
possi"ilit# o$ including perpetual 6incapacit# or insanit#7 in the provision& although it
!as not retained "# the legislators% There$ore& since the distinction "et!een
perpetual and temporar# insanit# !as omitted "# the legislators& the provision in
,uestion must "e construed as pertaining to "oth perpetual and temporar# insanit#%
People vs Puno
8r 9o% *'4'1 e"uar# 2'& 1*'4
21* SCRA :)
acts:
;n <anuar# 13& 1*:: =rs% Sarmiento 1nished !or/ing in her "a/eshop in
>ue?on Cit#% 2hen it !as time $or her driver to "ring her home& -sa"elo Puno& the
personal driver o$ her hus"and& sho!ed up instead o$ her o!n personal driver% =r%
Puno in$ormed her that her o!n driver had an emergenc# and he !as to "ring her
home toda# to @alle @erde in Pasig% =rs% Sarmiento entered the car& and shortl# on
the !a# home& the car stopped and Anri,ue Amurao& the coBappellant& "oarded the
car and threatened her !ith a gun as/ing $or mone#% 2hen =rs% Sarmiento gave all
the mone# she had in her !allet& the appellants as/ed $or P100&000 more& and
as/ed to go to the gas station% The car sped o. to the 9orth Superhigh!a# as =rs%
Sarmiento dra$ted 3 separate chec/s amounting to P100&000% As the car turned
to!ards =etro =anila& the appellant changed his mind and turned to!ards
Pampanga0 =rs% Sarmiento Cumped out o$ the car and ran to the other side o$ the
high!a# !here she !as a"le to Dag do!n a car to "ring her "ac/ to =etro =anila%
The lo!er courts $ound the appellants guilt# o$ ro""er# !ith e+tortion committed on
a high!a#& in accordance !ith Presidential decree 9o% )32 EAntiBPirac# and AntiB
4igh!a# Ro""er# Fa! o$ 1*'4G% The appellants are no! claiming that the# should
not have "een convicted under this special la! "ut instead /idnapping $or ransom
under Article 2(' o$ the Revise Penal Code%
-ssue:
2hether or not the crime committed !as a violation o$ PD )32 or Article 2('
o$ the Revise Penal Code3
4eld:
The crime committed !as /idnapping $or ransom& punisha"le under the
Revised Penal Code% The appellants cannot "e convicted under PD )32 "ecause it is
a di.erent crime $rom Article 2('% The PD is a modi1cation o$ Articles 30( and 30'
on "rigandage and not /idnapping $or ransom% According to the legislative histor#
"ehind the la! on "rigandage& the intent o$ the passage o$ the la! !as to prevent
the $ormation o$ indiscriminate high!a# ro""er#% urthermore& the pream"le o$ PD
)32 states the purpose o$ the legislators in enacting such la!& 6upon persons and
properties o$ innocent and de$enseless inha"itants !ho travel $rom one place to
another& there"# distur"ing the peaceH7 Although the pream"le is not a source o$
right or a provision o$ a la!& it serves as an aid to legislation to ascertain the intent
o$ the legislators% -n the present case& the intent o$ the legislators in passing the
special la! !as to punish those !ho commit indiscriminate high!a# ro""er#% Since
the appellants onl# one crime against a speci1c predetermined person& their acts
cannot constitute as those punisha"le "# PD )32%
9egros 9avigation Co%& -nc% vs Court o$ Appeals
2:1 SCRA )34
8R 9o% 1103*:& 9ovem"er& ' 1**'
acts:
;n April 22 1*:0& relatives o$ the private respondent "oarded =I@ Don <uan& a
ship o!ned "# the petitioners% ;n the same da# =I@ Don <uan collided !ith and oil
tan/er causing the ship to sin/ and the death o$ several passengers% -t !as $ound
that the pro+imate cause o$ the accident !as the cre! o$ "oth ships !ho !ere not
attending to the operation o$ the ship "ut !ere pla#ing mahCong& and carr#ing more
passengers than their capacit#% The relatives o$ the private respondent !ere never
$ound% The petitioners are contending that the relatives o$ the respondent never
"oarded the ship% The lo!er courts $ound the petitioners guilt# $or gross negligence
in connection !ith the accident& and ordered them to pa# all the damages& rel#ing
on a similar case previousl# decided on& =ecenas vs -ntermediate Appellate Court%
The petitioner no! critici?es the decision o$ the lo!er courtJs reliance on the
=ecenas case& arguing that although "oth cases are similar !ith respect to incident
involved& the parties to the case are di.erent% Thus& the petitioner contends that
the doctrine o$ stare decisis does not appl# to this case%
-ssue: 2hether or not the doctrine o$ stare decisis is applica"le to the present case3
4eld:
5es% The principle o$ stare decisis et non ,uieta movere E$ollo! precedents
and do not distur" !hat has "een settledG is applica"le to the present case "ecause
it involves the same ,uestions relating to the same event and similar parties% -n the
=ecenas case the Supreme Court li/e!ise $ound the petitioners guilt# o$ negligence
$or allo!ing a ship captain to pla# mahCong during the vo#age& allo!ing to carr#
more passengers that allo!ed& and $ailing to maintain the vessel sea!orth#% Thus
the doctrine o$ stare decisis applies in order to $or the courts to maintain sta"ilit# in
Curisprudence%
A"arle vs Sucaldito
1)( SCRA :03
acts:
;n Septem"er 2(& 1*'0 the private respondent 1led !ith a Cit# iscal against
the petitioner& then Provincial 8overnor and a reelectionist in the 1*'1 election in
Kam"oanga% The complaints included e+ercising private inDuence over a private
Cudge& simulating a "ill $or the suppl# o$ gravel and sand& and manipulating "ias
!ith respect to the construction o$ a capital "uilding all o$ !hich are violations o$
Repu"lic Act 301*& The AntiB8ra$t and Corrupt Practices Act% The petitioner no!
see/s inCunctive relie$ in the cases mentioned to enCoin $urther proceedings% The
petitioner !ent to the respondent court C- o$ Kam"oanga de Sur& 4on Sucaldito
presiding pra#ing to grant his pra#er& the court granted the restrainding order $or
!hich the antiBgra$t league 1led a motion to have the same li$ted and petition
dismissed% ;n =a# (& 1*'1 the motion !as granted in $avor o$ the antiBgra$t
league% The petitioner contends that the respondents $ailed to compl# !ith
A+ecutive ;rder 2(4& procedural rules to "e $ollo!ed in charging government
oLcials% urthermore& the order re$ers to 6erring oLcials and emplo#ees removed
or other!ise vindicated%7
-ssues:
1G 2hether or not A+ecutive ;rder 2(4 applies to the present case3
2G 2hether or not the term 6removed or other!ise vindicated7 can appl# to a
criminal proceeding3
4eld:
1G 9o% A+ecutive ;rder 2(4 does not appl# to the present case "ecause it is
evident $rom the title and peram"ulator# clause that the speci1c
procedure is regulated $or the presentation o$ administrative charges
against erring government oLcials% The title spea/s o$ 6C;==-SS-;9 ;
-RRA8MFATR-T-AS7& there is no mention or implication o$ criminal o.enses%
2hile the peram"ulator# clause states the necessit# $or in$orming the
pu"lic& 6o$ the procedure provided "# la! and regulations "# !hich
complaints against pu"lic oLcials and emplo#ees should "e presented
and prosecuted% The 6procedure provided "# la!7 pertains to
administrative proceedings and not criminal proceedings o$ government
oLcials%
2G 9o% The term 6removed or other!ise vindicated7 does not emplo#
technical terms such as 6accused7& 6convicted7 and 6ac,uitted7%
There$ore& in the a"sence o$ these technical terms& construing the
provision to "e applica"le to the criminal case !ould not "e in accord !ith
the intent o$ the la!% urthermore& i$ the intent o$ the la! !as to appl# the
order to a criminal proceeding& then the# !ould have used such technical
terms%
People vs Purisima
:( SCRA )42
acts:
-n a consolidated petition $or revie! 1led "# the ;Lce o$ the Cit# iscal& the
accused !as previousl# charged !ith illegal possession o$ a deadl# !eapon& in
violation o$ Presidential Decree 9o% *% ;n Decem"er 14& the accused !as $ound in
possession o$ a carving /ni$e& !hich he carried outside his residence& the !eapon or
tool !as not necessar# to earn his livelihood& there$ore he !as charged !ith illegal
possession o$ a deadl# !eapon% The respondent Cudge ac,uitted the accused on the
premise that the accused did not violate the provisions o$ PD *& the intent o$ the
la!ma/ers are inconsistent !ith the crime the accused !as "eing charged $or& as
seen in the pream"le% The petitioners are see/ing to reverse the decision on the
premise that the pream"le is not an essential part o$ an act and cannot enlarge or
con$er po!ers& or cure inherent de$ects in the statute%
-ssue:
2hether or not the pream"le ma# "e used to ascertain legislative intent o$
Presidential Decree 9o% *3
4eld:
5es% 2hen the la! is am"iguous or suscepti"le to t!o or more interpretations
the courts must turn to aids o$ construction& on o$ them is the pream"le% -n the
present case& it is essential to use the pream"le to ascertain the legislative intent o$
PD *& the purpose it sought to achieve& and evil sought to "e remedied% The
pream"le states& 624ARAAS& su"version& re"ellion& insurrection& la!less violence&
criminalit#& chaos and pu"lic disorder mention in the a$oresaid Proclamation 10:1
are committed and a"etted "# the use o$ 1rearms& e+plosives and other deadl#
!eapons%7 Thus& it is evident that the intent and spirit o$ the la! is to punish the
carr#ing o$ 1rearms $or the purposes such as su"version and re"ellion% The
legislature had no intent to pass a la! that !ould cause hardship and oppression& or
a possi"le a"use o$ authorit#% Thus& the carr#ing o$ !eapons outside the house
!ithout motive $or su"version or re"ellion is not punisha"le "# PD *%