US vs. Macasaet

By -
US vs. Macasaet
11 Phil 447

Issue: WON penalties of the violation of Sec 66 of the internal revenue law be applicable to the case of Agrapino Macasaet
Facts: In the September 1907, the accused Agrapino Macasaet had been selling native wine at retail without necessary license. The said act was a violation of the Sec 66, in relation to sec 68, subsection 5 of the Internal Revenue Law. The accused, as he appealed following the judgement of the Court of First Instance of Batangas which was payment of the fine amounting to 300Php and imprisonment for five months, felt that the said penalty of imprisonment was illegal. The said judgement of the Court of First instance of Batangas was based on the punishment prescribe on the provision of Act No. 1732, sec 1 of Internal revenue law that stipulates that “  a fine is imposed as a whole or any part of the punishment for any criminal offense made punishable by any act or acts of the Philippine commission, the court shall also sentence the guilty person to suffer subsidiary the imprisonment until the fine is satisfied” which took effect on November of the same year as the trial.  
Held: The Supreme Court ruled, with the basis that penal statutes cannot be made retroactive and based on the facts that the effectivity of the penal statute exemplified in the provision of art. No. 1732 was in November of 1970 and that the trial of the accused started prior to the said effectivity, affirmed to the appeal of eradicating imprisonment of five months as part of the penalty of his violation. The judgement, thus, be limited to the fine and costs.

Disposition: Judgement modified. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Co vs Court of Appeals

By -
ALBINO S. CO,  petitioner,  vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  respondents. G.R. No. 100776 October 28, 1993 Facts:                 In connection with an agreement to salvage and refloat asunken vessel — and in payment of his share of the expenses of the salvage operations therein stipulated — petitioner Albino Co delivered to the salvaging firm on September 1, 1983 a check drawn against the Associated Citizens' Bank, postdated November 30, 1983 in the sum of P361,528.00. The check was deposited on January 3, 1984. It was dishonored two days later, the tersely-stated reason given by the bank being: "CLOSED ACCOUNT."                 A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 2 was filed by the salvage company against Albino Co with the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. The case eventuated in Co's conviction of the crime charged, and his being sentenced to suffer a term of imprisonment of sixty (60) days and to inde
Read more

GONZALES vs COMELEC [G.R. No. L-28196, November 9, 1967]

By -
FACTS: On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed resolutions No. 1, 2 and 3 – i.e. to increase the seats of the Lower House from 120 to 180; to convoke a Constitutional Convention of 1971; and to amend the Constitution (Section 16, Article VI) so they can become delegates themselves to the Convention.  Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, on June 17, 1967, became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people, at the general elections which shall be held on November 14, 1967. Two cases were filed against this act of Congress:  One an is original action for prohibition, with preliminary injunction by Ramon A. Gonzales, in L-28196, a Filipino citizen, a taxpayer, and a voter. He claims to have instituted case L-28196 as a class unit, for and in behalf of all citizens, taxpayers, and voters simil
Read more

PNB vs CA & Gueco et al

By -
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK VS. COURT OF APPEALS,RITA GUECO TAPNIO,CECILIO GUECO and THE PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY FACTS: Mrs. Rita Gueco Tapnio was indebted to the Philippine National Bank at San Fernando,Pampanga for the total sum of P2,379.91.  Her indebtedness was a crop loan and was secured by the mortgage on her standing crap including her sugar quota allocation for the agricultural year corresponding to the said standing crop. During agricultural year 1956-1957 Mrs. Tapnio had an excess in her export sugar quota, 1000 piculs which she does not need. Mr. Jacobo Tuazon, a planter harvest less than his sugar quota. Mrs. Tapnio agreed to allow Mr. Tuazon to use her excess sugar quota for the consideration of P2,500.00.  Since the quota of Mrs. Tapnio was mortgaged to the PNB, the contract of lease that Mrs. Tapnio and Mr. Tuazon agreed into had to be approved by the bank. The branch manager required the parties to raise the consideration to P2,800.00 informing
Read more