Principle: The first and fundamental duty of the Courts is to apply the law Facts: Defendant Mapa was charged and convicted of the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition by the CFI Manila. is sole defense is that he is duly appointed secret agent of then !overn of "atangas. #nd at the time of the alleged commission of the offense$ he had a confidential mission to proceed to Manila$ Pasay and %C Issue: &'( the appointment to and holding the position of a secret agent to the provincial governor would constitute a sufficient defense to a prosecution for the crime of illegal possession of firearm and ammunition eld: The law is e)plicit that e)cept as thereafter specifically allowed$ it shall be unlawful for any person to possess any firearm. (o provision is made for a secret agent. #s such$ he is not e)empt. The conviction of the accused must stand. *+D!,M,(T #FFI-M,D. PEOPLE VS. AMIGO Principle: the duty of the Courts is to apply the law disregarding their feeling of sympathy or pity for the accused Facts: #ccused Patricio #migo was charged and convicted of murder by the -TC Davao and was sentenced to the penalty of reclusion perpetua. e claims that the penalty is too cruel and harsh as a penalty and pleads for sympathy. eld: Courts are not the forum to plead for sympathy. The duty of the Courts is to apply$ disregarding their feeling of sympathy or pity for an accused. D+-# .,/ 0,D .,/. D,CI0I1( #FFI-M,D SOCORRO RAMIREZ vs CA and ESTER S GARCIA Principle: .egislative intent is determined principally from the language of the statue. Facts: Petitioner -amire2 filed a case alleging that ,ster !arcia$ in a confrontation in the latter3s office$ allegedly ve)ed$ insulted and humiliated her in a 4hostile and furious mood5 and in a manner offensive to petitioner3s dignity and personality. Petitioner produced a verbatim transcript of the event and sought for moral damages. The transcript on which the civil case was based was from a tape recording of the confrontation. Private respondent then filed a criminal case for secretly taping the confrontation and for violation of -epublic #ct 6788. Petitioner filed a motion to 9uash the information on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense of -# 6788. ,.D: -# 6788 clearly states that it is unlawful for any person not being authori2ed by all the parties to any private communication to tap any wire or cable$ or by using any other device for arrangement$ record such communication. The provision clearly ma:es it illegal for any person$ not authori2ed by all parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of tape recorder. JMM PROMOTIONS VS NLRC Principle: In interpreting a statue$ care should be ta:en that every part be given effect Facts: In a decision rendered by the P1,#$ Petitioner appealed to the respondent$ which dismissed the petitioner3s appeal on the ground of failure to post the re9uired appeal bond. Petitioner contends that the (.-C committed grave abuse of discretion in applying these rules to decisions rendered by the P1,#. Issue: &'n Petitioner was still re9uired to post an appeal bond to perfect its appeal from a decision of the P1,# to the (.-C eld: ;es$ the P1,# rules are clear. The appeal bond is intended to further insure the payment of the monetary award in favor of the employee if it is eventually affirmed on appeal to the (.-C. P,TITI1( DI0MI00,D JUANITO PILAR VS. COMELEC Principle: The rule is well<recogni2ed that where the law does not distinguish$ courts should not distinguish Facts: Petitioner filed his certificate of candidacy for the position of member of the 0angguiniang Panlalawigan. "ut withdrew his certificate of candidacy. -espectively$ the C1M,.,C imposed upon petitioner the fine of =8$888 for faioure to file his statement of contributions and e)penditures. Petitioner contends that he cannot be held liable for this because he was a 4non candidate5 having withdrawn his certificate of candidacy. Issue: &'( the petitioner can be considered a candidate despite the withdrawal of his certificate of candidacy eld: Petitioner3s argument is w'o merit. It clearly states in the law that 4every candidate5 has the obligation to file his statement of contribution and e)penditures. #s the law ma:es no distinction or 9ualification as to whether the candidate pursued his candidacy or wither the same$ the term 4every candidate5 must be deemed to refer no only to those who pursued his campaign$ but also to one who withdrew his candidacy. DE VILLA VS. CA Principle: &hen the law does not ma:e any e)ception$ courts may not e)cept something unless compelling reason e)ist to >ustify it Facts: Petitioner was charged before the -TC with violation of "P 77$ the bouncing chec:s law. owever he contends that the chec: in 9uestion was drawn against the dollar account of petitioner with a foreign ban:$ and therefore not covered by the "P 77 law. eld: It will be noted that the law does not distinguish the currency involved in the case. It is a cardinal principle that where the law does not distinguish$ courts should not distinguish. P,TITI1( DI0MI00,D JAI ALAI CASE Principle: The title of a law is a valuable intrinsic aid in determining legislative intent Facts: -epublic of the Philippines through the !ames and #musement "oard contends that Manila 1rdinance ?8@A which grants to #DC a franchise to conduct >ai<alai operations is void since the approved -# BA6 re9uires a legislative franchise$ not a municipal franchise$ for the operation of *ai<alai. eld: The title of -# BA6 does not show that it see:s to limit the operation of >ai< alai only to entities with franchise given by Congress. VERA VS. CUEVAS Principle: 1pinions and rulings of officials of the government called upon to e)ecute or implement administrative laws command much respect and weight. Facts: The controversy arose from the petitioner re9uiring plaintiff3s respondents to withdraw from the mar:et all of their filled mil: products which do not bear the inscription re9uired by 0ection =@B of the Ta) Code$ with the words 40ection =@B.. Inscription to be placed on s:immed mil: ))))C This mil: is not suitable for nourishment for infants less than one year of age5 or words with e9uivalent import eld: 0:immed Mil: is different from filled mil:. It cannot then be readily or safely assumed that 0ection =@B applies to both s:immed and filled mil:. The "oard of the Food Inspection rendered an opinion that filled mil: does not come within the purview of 0ection =@B$ it being a product distinct from those specified in the said 0ection. D,CI0I1( #FFI-M,D.