STATCON-CHAPTER 9
modification.
7. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JAVIER
MORILLA Y AVELLANO
FACTS:
- On October 15, 2001, Morilla, Mayor Mitra, Yang
and Dequilla were charged of the crime of illegal
transport of metamphetamine hydrochloride/shabu.
-They all belong to an organized syndicate crime
group and conspired, for purposes of gain in the
transport of illegal drugs by means of two motor
vehicles.
- RTC convicted Morilla and Mayor Mitra.
However, it absolved Dequilla and Yang due to the
prosecution's failure to present sufficient evidence
to convict them.
- RTC held that both Morilla and Mayor Mitra are
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of P10,000. - CA affirmed RTC's ruling
ISSUE: W/N the penalty is Life Imprisonment
RULING:
- No. SC modified the penalty imposed by the trial
court as affirmed by CA.
- RECLUSION PERPETUA is the penalty to be
imposed according to SC.
RULE: Criminal statutes with a favorable effect to
the accused have, as to him, a retroactive effect.
- Originally, under Sec. 15 of RA 6425, the penalty
for illegal transportation of shabu was prision
mayor with a fine ranging from P6,000 to P12,000 -
then, pursuant to PD 1683, the penalty was
amended to life imprisonment to death and fine
from P20,000-P30,000. - The penalty was further
amended in RA 7659 where the penalty was
changed to Reclusion perpetua to death and a fine
ranging from P500,000 to 10 million pesos
- SC sustain the imposed penalty of fine of P10,000
but amend the penalty to reclusion perpetua
following the provision of RA 7659 and the
principle of retroactive application of a lighter
penalty.
- Petition denied, decision of the CA affirmed with
8. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs
PROCULO MEJECA Y MONTALLANA,
BALDOMERO QUINTINA, ROMEO
SOLARTE, DIOSECORO NARCISO, ADLINA
NARCISO, NICOLAS PICACHE JR, JULIE
HILARIO, ARNOLD NARCISO and DANTE
ARAS
FACTS:
- Lita Berinias, the vault custodian of JTC
Pawnshop in Marikina, was fatally shot by several
armed men who barged into the shop and stole
assorted jewelry.
- Arnold Narciso et al were accused and convicted
of the crime of Robbery with Homicide penalized
under Art 294(1) of the RPC with the aggravating
circumstances of the use of unlicensed firearm and
in band and is sentenced to suffer the maximum
penalty of Death by lethal injection
ISSUE: W/N RA 8294, which took effect on July 6,
1997, can be applied against the accused.
RULING: NO
- RA 8294 took effect on July 6, 1997 while the
crime imputed to the accused was committed on
July 11, 1996.
- It is fundamental that laws shall have no
retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. -
Also, Penal laws are construed liberally in favor of
the accused.
RULE: thus, insofar as RA 8294 is not beneficial to
the accused because it unduly aggravates the crime,
such new law will not be given retroactive
application, lest it acquire the character of an ex
post facto law.
- Thus, RA 8294 which considers the use of an
unlicensed firearm in the killing of a victim as an
aggravating circumstance, CANNOT be given
retroactive effect because to do so would be
unfavorable to the accused.
 evidence and submits the case for judgment on the
basis of the evidence for the prosecution.
9. ANICETO OCAMPO vs COURT OF
APPEALS RULE: statutes regulating the procedure of the
court will be construed as applicable to actions
FACTS:
pending and undetermined at the time of their
- Petitioner Aniceto Ocampo was charged for passage. PROCEDURAL LAWS ARE
violation of PD 772 (Anti-squatting law). Upon RETROSPECTIVE in that sense and to that extent.
arraignment, petitioner pleaded "not guilty" - Thus, the amendment to sec 15 rule 119 of the
1985 rules on criminal procedure would apply in
- After prosecution rested its case, petitioner waived this case.
the presentation of his evidence and instead filed a
motion to dismiss (demurrer to evidence) on the - In the case at bar, no records showed that the
ground that the prosecution did not present Transfer petitioner's demurrer to evidence was filed with
Certificate of Title to prove ownership of the land in prior leave of court, the retroactive effect of the
question. amendment would therefore work against herein
petitioner.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss for
lack of merit - On October 7, 1985, RTC found the - By moving to dismiss on the ground of
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable of the offense insufficiency of evidence, accused-petitioner waives
charged his right to present evidence and in effect submits
the case for judgment on the basis of the evidence
- Accused appealed to CA alleging that the trial for the prosecution. - This exactly what the
court erred in: petitioner did and he cannot now claim denial of his
(a) applying sec 15, Rule 119 of the 1985 rules of right to adduce his own evidence. - Petition denied.
criminal procedure (b) convicting appellant on the
basis of evidence which does not measure to the
degree of proof as required by law (c) not applying
the principle of presumption of innocence in favor
of appellant
- CA affirmed the decision of the lower court
ISSUE: W/N the motion to dismiss filed by
accused-petitioner is a bar for him to present
evidence.
RULING: YES
- Sec 15 (Demurrer to Evidence) Rule 19 of the
rules on criminal procedure (took effect on October
1, 1998), as amended, provides that after the
prosecution rested its case, the court may dismiss
the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence
on motion of the accused filed with prior leave of
court.
If the court denies the motion for dismissal, the
accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When
the accused filed such motion to dismiss without
express leave of court, he waives the right to present

10. YAKULT PHILIPPINES and LARRY
SALVADO vs COURT OF APPEALS
FACTS:
- On December 24, 1982, a five year old boy, Roy
Camaso, while standing on the sidewalk was
sideswiped by a Yamaha motorcycle owned by
Yakult Philippines and driven by Larry Salvado
(driver)
- Salvado was charged with crime of reckless
imprudence resulting to slight physical injuries in
an information filed on January 6, 1983
liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal
action unless the offended party ...................or
institutes the civil action prior to the criminal
action.
- Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity
under the RPC and damages under Arts 32, 33, 34
and 2176 of the CC.
- Although the incident in question and the actions
arising therefrom were instituted BEFORE the
promulgation of the 1985 rules of criminal
procedure, its provisions which are PROCEDURAL
may apply retrospectively to the present case.
RULE: Procedural laws have retroactive
application.

- On October 19, 1984, a complaint for damages - In this case, the civil action was filed in the court
was filed by the father of Roy against Yakult Phils before the presentation of the evidence for the
and Salvado. prosecution in the criminal action of which the
judge presiding on the criminal case was duly
- A decision was rendered in the civil case ordering informed, so that in the disposition of the criminal
defendants to pay jointly and severally the plaintiff action no damages was awarded.
the sum of P13,006 for actual damages and
attorney's fees - The aforecited revised rule requiring previous
reservation also covers quasi delict as defined under
- Defendants appealed the judgment and filed a Art 2176 of the CC arising from same act or
petition for certiorari in CA challenging the omission of the accused in the present case.
jurisdiction of the trial court over the civil case
- Petition denied.
- Petitioner alleged that the civil action for damages
arising from criminal negligence of Salvado cannot
be filed independently of the criminal action under
Art 33 of the civil code.
- Further, Under sec 1, Rule 3 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure such as separate civil action
may not be filed unless reservation is expressly
made.
- CA dismissed the petition. MR also denied. Hence
this petition.
ISSUE: W/N a civil action instituted after the
criminal action was filed would prosper even if
there was no reservation to file a separate civil
action.
RULING: YES
- Section 1 rule 3 of the 1985 rules of criminal
procedure provides that when a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action for recovery of civil
 - Thus, A motion to litigate as an indigent can be
made even before the appellate courts.
(Additional lang, ang ganda e) SC believes that this
interpretation of the present rules is more in keeping
10. TEOFILO MARTINEZ vs PEOPLE OF with the Bill of Rights, which decrees that "free
THE PHILIPPINES access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
FACTS: person by reason of poverty"
- On August 23, 1994, petitioner filed before the CA - Resolution set aside, Petitioner allowed to litigate
a motion to litigate as a pauper attaching supporting as pauper.
affidavits executed by the petitioner himself and by
two disinterested person attesting to the petitioner's
eligibility to avail himself of this privilege.
- CA denied the motion and directing the petitioner
to remit the docketing fees within five days from
notice
- Petitioner filed a MR but also denied. - Petitioner
then filed a Manifestation through his counsel that
he was transmitting the docket fees required of his
client under protest and this was attached to the
Motion to Litigate as Pauper. - CA dismissed
petition citing petitioner's failure to pay the required
docket fee. - Petitioner moved for reconsideration
however, CA denied the latest motion. Hence this
petition.
ISSUE: W/N a motion to litigate as pauper can be
entertained by an appellate court.
RULING: YES
- When petitioner filed on August 23, 1994, the
applicable rule was the 2nd paragraph of Sec 16
Rule 41 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court which
provides that a petition to be allowed to appeal as a
pauper shall not be entertained by the appellate
court.
- When the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure came
into effect on July 1, 1997, the provision above
mentioned was not reenacted.
RULE: Statutes regulating the procedure of the
courts will be construed as applicable to actions
pending and undetermined at the time of their
passage.
- In that sense and to that extent, procedural laws
are retroactive.
 W/N Section 1, Rule 39 of the Revised Ruled of
Civil Procedure should be given retroactive effect
RULING:
NO.
12. JAIME TAN VS. CA AND MAGDANGAL
As a general rule, rules on procedure should be
FACTS:
given retroactive effect.
RTCs Ruling: However, Section 1, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules
1. The contract between the parties is not an on Procedure should not be given retroactive effect
absolute sale but an equitable mortgage. in this case as it would result in great injustice to the
2. Petitioner Tan should pay to the respondents
petitioner.
Magdangal within 120 days after the
finality of this decision. Petitioner definitely followed the procedural rule
CA affirmed the said decision. Both parties then existing as well as the redemption period given
received the decision of CA on October 5, by the court in its decision (120 days).
1995. Unfortunately, the rule was changed by the 1997
On March 13, 1996 the clerk of court of the Revised Rules on Procedure which if applied
CA entered the decision in the Book of retroactively, would cause the petitioner to lose his
Entries of Judgment. right of redemption over the subject lot.
Respondents filed with the trial court a
RULE: Section 1, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of
motion for consolidation and writ of Procedure should not be given retroactive effect in
possession. They alleged that the 120-day this case as it would result in great injustice to the
period of redemption of the petitioner petitioner.
expired. (they reckoned the date from Oct.5,
1995)
On the other hand, the petitioner filed a
motion for execution and on April 17, 1996
petitioner deposited with the clerk of court
the repurchase price of the lot as ordered by
the decision.
Trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner
stating that the 120-day redemption period
should be reckoned from March 13, 1996-
the date of entry of judgment. However, CA
ruled in favor of the respondents and applied
Section 1, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of
Civil procedure.
Section 1- Execution upon the judgment or
final order- Execution shall issue as a matter
of right, on motion, upon the judgment or
order that disposes of the action or
proceeding upon the expiration of the period
to appeal therefrom if no appeal has been
duly perfected.
ISSUE:
 passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that
sense.
RULE: Procedural provisions of LGC are
retrospective.

13. DIU VS. CA

FACTS:
Petitioner filed a complaint for sum of
money against the private respondents.
When the matter was brought before the
Baranggay Chairman of Naval, the parties
failed to reach an amicable settlement. The
Baranggay Chairman then issued a
certification to file action.
CA dismissed the case on the ground that
there was no compliance with PD NO. 1508
because no Pangkat Tagapagkasundo was
constituted after the parties failed to reach
an amicable settlement through the
Baranggay Captains efforts.
ISSUE:
W/N the confrontations before the Baranggay
Chairman of Naval satisfied the requirement in PD
NO. 1508
RULING:
YES.
PD NO. 1508 has been repealed by the LGC of
1991 while the case was still pending in the court.
In this case, although there was no pangkat
constituted, the parties did not deny that they have
met at the office of the Baranggay Chairman,
however they failed to reach an amicable
settlement.
Under Section 412 of LGC, the confrontation before
the Lupon Chairman or the pangkat is sufficient
compliance with the precondition for filing the case
in the court.
As a rule, the procedural provisions of the LGC are
applicable in this case. Statutes regulating
procedure in courts are applicable to actions
pending and undetermined at the time of their
 The lower court dismissed the petition
stating that whatever the defects present in
the creation of municipal districts by the
President (PDs and EOs) were cured by the
enactment of LGC.

RULING:
14. MUNICIPALITY OF SAN NARCISO,
QUEZON VS. HON. ANTONIO V, MENDEZ The power to create political subdivisions is a
function of the legislature. Congress did just that
FACTS:
when it has incorporated Section 442(d) in the
Pres. Carlos P. Garcia issued EO NO. 353 Code.
creating the municipal district of San Curative laws, which in essence are
Andres, Quezon, by segregating from the retrospective, and aimed at giving validity to
municipality of San Narciso of the same acts done that would have been complied with,
province. are validly accepted in this jurisdiction, subject
Thereafter, EO NO. 174 issued by Pres. to the usual qualification against impairment of
Diosdado Macapagal, the municipal district vested rights. (RULE)
of San Andres was recognized as a first class
municipality by operation of Section 2 of
RA No. 1515.
The Municipality of San Narciso then filed a
petition for quo warranto with RTC and
sought the declaration of nullity of EO No.
353. According to them, the presidential act
of issuing such PD was a clear violation of
principle of separation of powers.
Hence, the officials of the municipal district
of San Andres had no right to exercise the
duties and functions of their respective
offices as such offices belong to the
municipality of San Narciso.
Municipality filed a motion to dismiss
alleging the case is moot and academic due
to the enactment of LGC (Act No. 7160).
Section 442(d) of such code provides:
Section 442- Requisites for creation
(d) Municipalities existing as of the date of the
effectivity of this Code shall continue to exist
and operate as such. Existing municipal districts
organized pursuant to presidential issuances or
executive orders and which have their respective
set of elective municipal officials holding office
at the time of the effectivity of this Code shall
continue henceforth be considered as regular
municipalities.
15. BRIAD AGRO-DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION VS. HON. DIONISIO DELA
CERNA
FACTS:
Trade Union of the Phils. and Allied
Services (TUPAS) WFTU Local Chapter RULING:
filed a case against respondent agricultural
firm for alleged: EO NO. 111, which amended Art. 128 of Labor
o Underpayment/nonpayment of Cod, is a curative law. It was intended to
minimum wage remedy a defect. According to the legislature,
o ECOLA the said amendment was meant to make both the
o Overtime pay secretary of labor (or several regional directors)
o Legal holiday pay and the labor arbiters share jurisdiction.
o Night shift differential pay EO NO. 111 was enacted to widen workers
o 13th month pay access to the government for redress of
o Service incentive leave pay grievances.
Director Balbin ruled in favor of the
employees for failure of the respondent firm RULE:
to submit evidence despite due notice. Curative statutes have retrospective effect.
In its appeal to the NLRC, Briad Agro-
Development contended that the regional
director has no authority over money claims
as it is within the jurisdiction of labor
arbiters.
NLRC dismissed the appeal based on EO
NO. 111 amending Art 28 of the Labor
Code. The petitioner reiterated the same
issue upon its appeal.
SolGen on the other hand relies on the
provisions of EO No. 111 which amended
Art. 28, par. b of Labor code which states
that:
 500,000-10,000,000 in violation of such act- if
the marijuana involved is 750 grams or more.
In this case, the marijuana transported was more
than 750 grams.
RA NO. 7659 further amended section 27 of the
RPC where duration of Reclusion perpetua is set
as 20 yrs and 1 day-40 yrs. This penalty also
carries with it certain accessory penalties as
provided in Art. 41 of RPC.
On the other hand, the penalty of Life
imprisonment, which was correctly imposed on
the appellant, carries no fixed duration.
15. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. Under section 4, Art 2 of RA 6425- the penalty
DONALD BALLAGAN is life imprisonment to death with a fine ranging
FACTS: from 20,000-30.000.

Appellant Ballagan was convicted of Sec. 4, Art Which of the 2 penalties is favorable to the
2 of RA NO. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of accused?
1972, as amended) in the RTC of Baguio. - Based on the following comparisons, the
RA NO. 6425 was further amended by RA NO. penalty of Life Imprisonment is more
7659. The court explicitly states therein that the beneficial to the accused.
beneficent provisions of the law shall be given Life imprisonment Reclusion Perpetua
retrospective effect, specifically the provision
which bases the penalties imposed upon the Does not carry any Carries with it accessory
quantity of the regulated drugs involved. Said accessory penalty penalties
provisions were applied in various cases. Minimum imposable Minimum imposable
penalty- 20,000 penalty- 500,000
Section 20 RA NO. 6425, as amended by RA
NO. 7659, provides the penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death and a fine ranging from