RAFAEL BAYLOSIS and BENJAMIN DE VERA vs. HON. APOLONIO R.

CHAVEZ
G.R. No. 95136 October 3, 1991

Facts:

Petitioners, who are all known high ranking officers of the Communist Party of the Philippines, and its
military arm, the New Peoples Army, are charged with a violation of 3rd paragraph of Section 1 of the P.D. No.
1866. The provision punishes with the penalty of reclusion perpetua, any person who unlawfully
manufacturers, deals in, acquires, disposes of, or possesses any firearm, "in furtherance of, or incident to, or in
connection with the crimes of rebellion, insurrection or subversion."

The petitioners contention was; (1) the facts charged do not constitute an offense because they are founded
on an unconstitutional/repealed statute. and (2) for the same reasons, this honorable court is devoid of
jurisdiction to try this case.

However, the motion was denied by the Trial Court and also the motion for reconsideration was also denied,
hence the present special action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Issue:

Whether or not P.D. No. 1866, or at least the 3rd par. of Sec. 1, is deemed unconstitutional

Held:

No. The question regarding the constitutionality of the P.D. has been laid to rest in a previous case decided
by the Court. Wherein the Court stated that the part in question, 3rd par. of Sec. 1, is neither a bill of attainder
nor does it provide a possibility of double jeopardy.

The Presidential Decree only defines the offense and provide for penalties that may be imposed, specifying
the qualifying circumstances that would aggravate the offense. It does not have the elements that of a bill of
attainder for it does not give reason to inflict punishment without a judicial trial.

The petitioner’s invocation of the doctrine of double jeopardy as an argument against whether or not the
P.D is unconstitutional has no merit. The Court quashed this motion for the issue of double jeopardy has not
risen. Moreover, even if such a subsequent or second jeopardy does arise, P.D. No. 1866 will not be rendered
unconstitutional because such is not a ground to nullify that law. Double jeopardy is merely a defense that an
accused may raise to defeat a subsequent prosecution or conviction for the same offense.

Hence, the petition is DISMISSED in view of petitioner's failure to clearly and unequivocally establish that
the third paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 violates the Constitution.
 Mendoza vs. People
G.R. No. 183891 October 19, 2011

Facts:

Petitioner Romarico Mendoza is a company boss/employer convicted for his failure to remit the Social
Security Service (SSS) contributions of his employees, in violation of the special law known as the Social
Security Condonation Law of 2009. The petitioner already admitted during the previous trial that he did not
remit the SSS premium contributions of his employees. The petitioner pleaded good faith and lack of criminal
intent as his defense.

The petitioner is convicted with a MODIFIED penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

Issue:

Whether or not without violating the separation of powers, can the Supreme Court recommend to the
President, the grant of executive clemency to a convict?

Ruling:

Yes. The courts are bound to apply the law as it is and impose the proper penalty, no matter how harsh it
might be. However, it gives the Court the discretion to recommend to the President actions it deems appropriate
but are beyond its power when it considers the penalty imposed as excessive.

As clearly stated in Article 5 of the Revised Penal Code which provides; “Whenever a court has knowledge of
any act which it may deem proper to repress and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper
decision, and shall report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons which induce
the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of legislation. In the same way, the court shall
submit to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper,
without suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the provisions of this Code
would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and
the injury caused by the offense.”

Hence, considering the circumstances of the case, the Court transmits the case to the Chief Executive,
through the Department of Justice, and RECOMMENDS the grant of executive clemency to the petitioner.