Claudine - page 14

FACTS: The Tanodbayan conducted a preliminary investigation in connection with a complaint filed against petitioner for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The complaint was dismissed for lack of merit on the recommendation of the special prosecutor. Another complaint was lodged against him for the same violation and a corresponding information was filed with the Sandiganbayan. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner was placed in double jeopardy. HELD: NO. The dismissal by the Tanodbayan of the first complaint cannot bar the present prosecution, since double jeopardy does not apply. A preliminary investigation is not a trial to which…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Respondent judge granted a motion to quash an information for estafa on the ground that the penal clause of Presidential Decree No. 115 on the Trust Receipts Law is inoperative because it does not actually punish an offense mala prohibita. ISSUE(S): Whether or not P.D. 115 is unconstitutional as it violates the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for non-payment of debt. HELD: NO. The Trust Receipts Law punishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to the prejudice of another regardless of whether the latter is the owner or not. The law does not…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioners were charged with violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. They each filed with the trial courts a motion to quash the information against them on the ground that the acts charged did not constitute a crime, the statute being unconstitutional. ISSUE(S): Whether or not B.P. 22 is repugnant to the constitutional protection against imprisonment for debt. HELD: NO. The gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellant was the losing party in a civil case for support. The trial court ordered his arrest and imprisonment for failure to pay such support. ISSUE(S): Whether or not his arrest and imprisonment were illegal. HELD: YES. The sheriff’s return shows that the judgment debtor was insolvent. The orders, in effect, authorized his imprisonment for debt in violation of the Constitution. Appealed orders are REVERSED.

Keep Reading

FACTS: A criminal complaint for estafa filed against complainant did not charge any crime but merely recited her failure to pay a simple indebtedness. Respondent judge issued a warrant for her arrest. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent judge erred in ordering complainant’s imprisonment for non-payment of debt. HELD: YES. In admitting such a “criminal complaint” that was plainly civil in aspects from the very face of the complaint and the “evidence” presented, and issuing on the same day the warrant of arrest upon his utterly baseless finding “that the accused is probably guilty of the crime charged,” respondent grossly failed…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Willie Francis, a 16-year-old black youth, was convicted of murder in Louisiana and sentenced to death by electrocution. On the appointed day, Francis was strapped in the chair and the executioner threw the switch. Electric current passed through Francis’s body but it was insufficient to kill him. The malfunction required a repair of the chair. In the meantime Francis sought to prevent the second execution attempt. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the second attempted execution deny Francis due process of law because of double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment and because of cruel and unusual punishment of the Eighth…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellant was convicted of the crime of rape committed against his young daughter and was meted out the supreme penalty of death. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the re-imposition of the death penalty for heinous crimes violates the constitutional proscription against cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment. HELD: NO. The death penalty is imposed in heinous crimes because the perpetrators thereof have committed unforgivably execrable acts that have so deeply dehumanized a person or criminal acts with severely destructive effects on the national efforts to lift the masses from abject poverty through organized governmental strategies based on a disciplined and honest…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner was confined in prison for contempt of court for failure to comply with a court order arising from a civil case between him and his wife. ISSUE(S): Whether or not petitioner’s detention violates constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment. HELD: NO. The penalty complained of is neither cruel, unjust nor excessive. Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death, but the punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of that word as used in the constitution. It implies there something inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment of life. Petition…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Congress enacted the Generics Act of 1988 (Republic Act No. 6675), Section 12, paragraphs b, c and d of which prescribe graduated penalties ranging from a reprimand to a fine of P10,000 ,and for the third offense, the suspension of the physician’s license to practice his profession for one year or longer, at the discretion of the court. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the Generics Act violate the constitutional guarantee against excessive fines and cruel and degrading punishment. HELD: NO. The penalty of suspension or cancellation of the physician’s license is neither cruel, inhuman, or degrading. It is no different…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Appellant was prosecuted for homicide through reckless imprudence and illegal possession of firearm. He was acquitted of the first offense and found guilty of the second for which he was sentenced to one year imprisonment. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the form of the penalty and the duration of the imprisonment imposed on the appellant infringe the constitutional provision against cruel and harsh punishment. HELD: NO. Confinement from 6 to 10 years for possessing or carrying firearm is not cruel or unusual, having due regard to the prevalent conditions which the law proposes to suppress or curb. The rampant lawlessness…

Keep Reading