ATTY.

AMIT
statutory construction
group 1
 Rafael Galvez, et.al. v. CA et. al.,

01 Asia United Bank vs. Gilbert Guy, et. al.

Gilbert Guy, et al. vs. Asia United Bank

estafa
 • 1999 - Radio Marine Network (Smartnet), Inc. or

Facts RMSI claimed to do business under the name

Smartnet Philippines Inc. and applied for credit
line with Asia United Bank or AUB.

• RMSI’s obligation remained unpaid so AUB sent letter demanding payments. RMSI
denied liability contending that the transaction was incurred solely by Smartnet
Philippines Inc. or SPI

• Aggrieved, AUB filed a case of syndicated estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised
Penal Code in relation to Section 1 of the Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1689

• In a Resolution dated 3 April 2006, 7 the Prosecutor found probable cause to indict
Gilbert G. Guy, et al. for estafa but dismissed the charge of violation of PD No. 1689
against the same for insufficiency of evidence. A Resolution dated 15 August 2006, DOJ
reversed the City Prosecutor's Resolution and ordered the dismissal of the estafa
charges against Gilbert Guy, e t al. for insufficiency of evidence.

• The Court of Appeals partially granted AUB's petition in a Decision dated 27 June 2008.
Finding probable cause against private respondents for the crime of estafa under
Article 315, par 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code
 Issue estafa

Whether or not there is probable cause to prosecute

Gilbert Guy, e t al. for the crime of syndicated estafa on
the basis of fraudulent acts or fraudulent means
employed to deceive AUB into releasing the proceeds
of Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 990361 in favor of
SPI.
Law
Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code:

Art. 315. Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
herein below:



—By means of any of the following false pretenses or false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneous with the fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud commission
of the fraud:

—By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions; or by means of other or by means of other similar deceits similar deceits. . . . .

Presidential Decree No. 1689


Increasing the Penalty for Certain Forms of Swindling or Estafa

Section 1. 
PAR. 1 Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other forms of swindling as defined in Article 315 and 316 of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall be punished by life imprisonment to death if the swindling (estafa) is
committed by a syndicate consisting of five or more persons formed with the intention of carrying out the unlawful or
illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme, and the defraudation results in the misappropriation of money
contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks, cooperative, “samahang nayon(s)”, or farmers association,
or of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the general public.

PAR 2. When not committed by a syndicate as above defined, the penalty imposable shall be reclusion temporal to
reclusion perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds 100,000 pesos
 Resolution
The court modified the Decision and Rule that Gilbert Guy, Rafael H.
Galvez, Philip Leung, Katherine Guy and Eugine H. Galvez Jr., be charged
for SIMPLE ESTAFA under article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code.

On review of the cases applying the law, we note that the swindling
syndicate used the association that they manage to defraud the general
public of funds contributed to the association. Indeed, Section 1 of
Presidential Decree No. 1689 speaks of a syndicate formed with the
intention of carrying out the unlawful scheme for the misappropriation of
the money contributed by the members of the association. In other words,
only those who formed and manage associations that receive contributions
from the general public who misappropriated the contributions can commit
syndicated estafa.

Gilbert Guy, et al. , however, are not in any way related either by employment
or ownership to AUB
 Statutory Construction Applied
Preresolution
Ubi lex non distinguit, nec non distinguere debemus

Resolution
•Legislative intent should accordingly be ascertained
from a consideration of the whole text of the statute
and not from an isolated part of a particular provision.

•In such a case, the meaning dictated by the context

prevails.
02 US vs. Hart, et. al.
 Facts
•Hart, Miller, and Na/vidad, were arraigned in the Court of First Instance
of Pampanga on a charge of vagrancy under the provisions of Act No. 519,
found guilty, and were each sentenced to six months' imprisonment.
•Hart shows that he pleaded guilty and was convicted on a gambling
charge about two or three weeks before his arrest on the vagrancy charge;
that he had been conduc/ng two gambling games, one in his saloon and the
other in another house, for a considerable length of /me, the games
running every night.
•It will be noted that each of the defendants was earning a living at a
lawful trade or business, quite sufficient to support himself in comfort, t
their evenings in regularly licensed saloons, par/cipa/ng in gambling games
which are expressly made unlawful by the Gambling Act, No. 1757.
 Issue
Whether or not “without visible means of
support” apply to “every person found loitering
about saloons or dram shops”
 LAW
Law
Sec9on 1 of Act No. 519 is divided into seven clauses, separated
by semicolons. Each clause enumerates a certain class of persons
who, within the meaning of this statute, are to be considered as
vagrants.


"(1) Every person having no apparent means of subsistence, who

has the physical ability to work, and who neglects to apply himself
or herself to some lawful calling; (2) every person found loitering
about saloons or dram shops or gambling houses, or tramping or
straying through the country without visible means of support; ….”
 Resolution
•All three of the defendants were earning a living by legi9mate
methods in a degree of comfort higher that the average. Their
sole offense was gambling.
• It is believed that Act No. 1775 is adequate, if enforced, to
suppress the gambling proclivi/es of any person making a
good living at a lawful trade or business.
 Statutory Construction
Statutory Construction Applied
When the meaning of legisla/ve enactments in ques/on, it is the duty of
the courts to ascertain, if possible, the true legisla9ve inten9on, and
adopt that the construc/on of the statute which will give it effect.

The Construc/on finally adopted should be based upon something more

substan/al than the mere punctua/on found in the printed Act.

If the punctua/on of the statute gives it a meaning which is reasonable

and in apparent accord with the legisla/ve will, it may be used as an
addi/onal argument for adop/ng the literal meaning of the words of the
stature as thus punctuated. But an argument based upon punctua/on
alone is not conclusive, and the courts will not hesitate to change the
punctua/on when necessary, to give the Act the effect intended.
 Miriam Defensor Santiago, et.
al. vs. COMELEC, Jesus Delfin,
Alberto Pedrosa and Lorna
03 Pedrosa
 Facts
• Private respondent filed with public respondent Commission on Elec/ons
(COMELEC) a “Pe$$on to Amend the Cons$tu$on, to Li3 Term Limits of
Elec$ve Officials, by People’s Ini$a$ve” (Delfin Pe//on)
• Delfin asked the COMELEC for an order of the ff:

(1) fixing the 9me and dates for signature gathering all over the country;
(2) causing the necessary publica9ons of said Order and the a_ached
“Pe//on for Ini/a/ve on the 1987 Cons/tu/on, in newspapers of general and
local circula/on;(3) instruc/ng Municipal Elec/on Registrars in all Regions of
the Philippines, to assist Pe//oners and volunteers, in establishing signing
sta/ons at the /me and on the dates designated for the purpose.
• Delfin asserted that R.A. No. 6735 governs the conduct of ini9a9ve to
amend the Cons9tu9on and COMELEC Resolu9on No. 2300 is a valid exercise
of delegated powers.
 Issues
Whether or not
(1) the absence of sub9tle for such ini9a9ve is fatal,

(2) R.A. No. 6735 is adequate to cover the system of
ini/a/ve on amendment to the Cons/tu/on,

(3) COMELEC Resolu/on No. 2300 is valid.

 Law
Sec. 2. Statement of Policy. — The power of the people
under a system of ini/a/ve and referendum to directly
propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part,
the Cons/tu/on, laws, ordinances, or resolu/ons
passed by any legisla/ve body upon compliance with
the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed,
recognized and guaranteed.
 Resolution
• While the Act provides sub/tles for
Na/onal Ini/a/ve and Referendum
(Sub/tle II) and for Local Ini/a/ve
and Referendum (Sub/tle III), no
sub9tle is provided for ini9a9ve on
the Cons9tu9on.

•The por9on of COMELEC Resolu9on

No. 2300, which prescribes rules and
regula/ons on the conduct of
ini/a/ve on amendments to the
Cons/tu/on, is void.
 Statutory Construction Applied
Sub9tles are intrinsic aids for construc9on and interpreta9on.
R.A. No. 6735 failed to provide any sub/tle on ini/a/ve on the
Cons/tu/on, unlike in the other modes of ini/a/ve, which are
specifically provided for in Sub/tle II and Sub/tle III. This
deliberate omission indicates that the ma_er of people’s ini/a/ve
to amend the Cons/tu/on was lej to some future law.

It is "local ini9a9ve" if what is proposed to be adopted or

enacted is a law, ordinance, or resolu$on which only the
legisla/ve bodies of the governments of the autonomous regions,
provinces, ci/es, municipali/es, and barangays can pass. Hence,
to complete the classifica/on under sub/tles there should have
been a sub/tle on ini/a/ve on amendments to the Cons/tu/on.
 Florencio Eugenio vs. Executive

04 Secretary Franklin M. Drilon, Housing

and Land Use Regulatory Board and
Prospero Palmiano
 Facts
• On May 10, 1972, private respondent purchased on installment basis
from petitioner and his co-owner/developer Fermin Salazar, two lots in
the E & S Delta Village in Quezon City.

• Petitioner then sold one of the two lots to spouses Relevo and the
title was registered under their name. Respondent prayed for
annulment of sale and reconveyance of the lot to him.

• Applying P.D. 957 “The Subdivision and Condominium Buyers’

Protective Decree”, the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission
ordered Petitioner to complete the development, reinstate Private
Respondent’s purchase contract over one lot and immediately refund
him of the payment, including interest he made for the lot sold to the
spouses.
 Issue
Whether or not the Executive Secretary acted
with grave abuse of discretion when he decided
P.D. 957 will be given retroactive effect?
 PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 957
Sec. 20. Time of Comple9on. – Every owner or developer shall construct and provide the
facili/es, improvements, infrastructures and other forms of development, including water
supply and ligh/ng facili/es, which are offered and indicated in the approved subdivision or
condominium plans.

SECTION 21. Sales Prior to Decree. - In cases of subdivision lots or condominium units sold or
disposed of prior to the effec/vity of this Decree, it shall be incumbent upon the owner or
developer of the subdivision or condominium project to complete compliance with his or its
obliga/ons as provided in the preceding sec/on within two years from the date of this Decree…


Failure of the owner or developer to comply with the obliga/ons under this and the preceding
provisions shall cons/tute a viola/on punishable under Sec/ons 38 and 39 of this Decree.

SECTION 23. Non-Forfeiture of Payments. - No installment payment made by a buyer in a

subdivision or condominium project for the lot or unit he contracted to buy shall be forfeited in
favor of the owner or developer when the buyer, ajer due no/ce to the owner or developer,
desists from further payment due to the failure of the owner or developer to develop the
subdivision or condominium project according to the approved plans and within the /me limit for
complying with the same.
 Resolution
Respondent Executive Secretary did not act with grave abuse
of discretion and P.D. 957 is to give retroactive effect so
as to cover even those contracts executed prior to its
enactment in 1976. P.D. 957 did not expressly provide for
retroactivity in its entirety, but such can be plainly inferred from
the unmistakable intent of the law.
 Statutory Construction Applied
Intent of the Law.
• The intent of a statute is the law. The intent is the vital part, the essence
of the law, and the primary rule of construction is to ascertain and give
effect to the intent. The intention of the legislature in enacting a law is the
law itself, and must not be enforced when ascertained, although it may
not be consistent with the strict letter of the statute. Courts will not follow
the letter of a statute when it leads away from the intent and purpose of
the legislature and to conclusions consistent inconsistent with the general
purpose of the act…
• Legislative intent must have been to remedy the alarming situation by
having P.D. 957 operate retrospectively even upon contracts already in
existence at the time of its enactment.
• It goes without saying that, as an instrument of social justice, the law
must favor the weak and the disadvantaged, including, in this instance,
small lot buyers and aspiring homeowners.
05
Association of Small Landowners in the
Philippines vs. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform

estafa
Facts
These are consolidated cases which involve common
legal, including serious challenges to the
constitutionality of the several measures of the ff:

1. P.D. No. 27
2. E.O. No. 228
3. Presidential Proclamation No. 131
4. E.O. No. 229
5. R.A. No. 6657.
 Facts
1. Republic Act No. 3844

“Agricultural Land Reform Code” had already enacted by August 8,
1963 in line with the stated principles in Art. 13 Sec. 4 of the
Constitution and was superseded by Presidential Decree No. 27.

2. G.R. No. 79777, 


This case questioned the Constitutionality of PD No. 27, EO Nos. 228
and 229, and RA No. 6657 on the grounds inter alia of separation of
powers, due process, equal protection and the constitutional
limitation that no private property shall be taken for public use
without just compensation.
 Facts
3. GR No. 79310

Landowners and Sugar Planters in the Victoria Mill District composed of
1,400 planter-members seeks to prohibit the implementation of
Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229. The power to
provide for CARP belongs to the Congress and not the President.
Proclamation No. 131 and EO No. 229 would still be annulled for
violating the constitutional provisions on just compensation, due
process, and equal protection.

4. GR No. 79744

Petitioner argues that – (1) EO Nos. 228 and 229 were invalidly issued by
the President of the Philippines; (2) the said EO are violative of the
constitutional provision that no private property shall be taken without
due process or just compensation (3) the petitioner is denied the right of
maximum retention provided for under the 1987 Constitution.
 Facts
5. GR NO. 78742 

The petitioners invoke the right of retention granted by PD No. 27
to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding 7 hectares as long
as they are cultivating or intend to cultivate the same. According to
PD No. 316 (in the implementation of PD No. 27):



“No tenant-farmer in agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and
corn shall be ejected or removed from his farmholding until such
time as the respective rights of the tenant-farmers and the
landowner shall have been determined in accordance with the rules
and regulations implementing PD No. 27.”
Issue
Whether or not Presidential Decree No. 27, Executive
Order no. 228, Proclamation No. 131, Executive Order
No. 229, and Republic Act No. 6657 are Constitutional?
 Law
Presiden9al Decree No. 27 (October 21, 1972) along with
Mar/al Law to provide for the compulsory acquisi/on of
private lands for distribu/on among tenant-farmers and to
specify maximum reten/on limits for landowners.

Execu9ve Order No. 228 (July 17, 1987) ajer the People
Power, the thrust for Agrarian Reform wherein EO No. 228
declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of
Presiden/al Decree No. 27 and providing for the valua/on of
s/ll unvalued lands covered by the decree as well as the
manner of payment.
 Law
Proclama9on No. 131 (July 22, 1987) ins/tu/ng a comprehensive
agrarian reform program (CARP)

Sec.2. Agrarian Reform Fund – There is hereby created a special fund, to

be known as the Agrarian Reform Fund, an ini/al amount of FIFTY
BILLION PESOS (P50,000,000,000.00) to cover the es/mated cost of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program from 1987 to 1992 which shall
be sourced from the receipts of the sale of the assets of the Asset
Priva/za/on Trust and Receipts of sale of ill-go_en wealth received
through the Presiden/al Commission on Good Government and such
other sources as government may deem appropriate. The amounts
collected and accruing to this special fund shall be considered
automa/cally appropriated for the purpose authorized in this
Proclama/on the amount appropriated Is in future, not in esse. The
money needed to cover the cost of the contemplated expropria/on has
yet to be raised and cannot be appropriated at this /me.
 Law
Execu9ve Order No. 229 which provides the mechanics
for its implementa/on.

RA 6657 “Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988”

the law while considerable changing the earlier
men/oned enactments, nevertheless gives them
suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with
its provisions.
 Resolution
• Regarding Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Orders No.
228 and 229, the promulgation was authorized under
Section 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987
Constitution.
• It has also been affirmed by RA No. 6657 which is suppletory
whenever not inconsistent with its provisions.
• Proclamation No. 131 is not an appropriation measure even
if it does provide for the creation of said fund, for that is not
its principal purpose.
• Insofar as retention limits of Proclamation No. 131 and EO
No. 229, as required by Art. 13 of Sec. 4, is no longer
tenable as RA 6657 provides for such limits in Sec. 6 of the
law:
 Resolution
• Retention Limits – Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any
public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary
according to factors governing a viable family-sized farm.
• Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered
by PD No. 27, shall be allowed to keep the area originally
retained by them thereunder, further, That original
homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own
the original homestead at the time of the approval of this
Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to
cultivate said homestead.
 Resolution
• Regarding Just Compensation, the Court hereby declares
that the content and manner of the just compensation
provided in Sec. 18 of the CARP Law is not violative of the
Constitution
• PD No. 27 expressly stated (October 21, 1972) and ordered
the emancipation of tenant-farmer and declared that he shall
‘be deemed the owner’ of a portion of land consisting of a
family-sized farm except that ‘no title to the land owned by
him was to be actually issued to him unless and until he had
become a full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmers’
cooperative’ and that ‘full payment of the just compensation
also be made’,
 Statutory Construction Applied
Spirit and Purpose of the Law and Legislative Intent.
• The need to address and “insure the well-being and economic security of
all the people,” especially the less privileged

Article XIII – Social Justice and Human Rights


Sec. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on
the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or
collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just
share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake
the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and
reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account
ecological, developmental, or equity considerations and subject to the payment of
just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right
of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-
sharing
06 Pascual vs. Provincial Board
or Nueva Ecija
 Facts
• 3 administrative charges were filed with the Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija
against Arturo Pascual, mayor of San Jose, by the Acting Provincial Governor,
the 3rd charge of which was for “maladministrative, abuse of authority, and
usurpation of judicial functions”

• After the presentation of evidence for the first 2 charges, Pascual filed an MD
on the 3rd charge based on the ground that said wrongful acts were
committed during his previous term of office and could not constitute as a
ground for disciplining him during his 2nd term

• Accordingly, he filed with the CFI another petition for prohibition with prelim
injunction, alleging that the provincial board lacked jurisdiction.

• The Provincial Board moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that it states
no cause of action because petitioner had not complied with the cardinal
principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies before he could appeal
to the courts.
Issues
1) Was it was legally proper for petitioner to come to
court without first bringing his case to the Executive
Secretary for review?

2) Is there a legality to disciplining an elective municipal

official for a wrongful act committed by him during his
immediately preceding term of office?
 Laws
Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
• The doctrine of exhaus/on of administra/ve remedies is held whenever
there is available administra/ve remedy that should be used up or
exhausted before a recourse to judicial ac/on.
• The doctrine asserts that courts, for reasons of law, comity and convenience,
should not entertain cases proper for determina/on by administra/ve
agencies

Doctrine of Condonation
The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his
present term of office. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their
right to elect their officers. When the people have elected a man to office, it
must be assumed that they did this with the knowledge of his life and
character, and that they disregarded or forgave his fault or misconduct, if he
had been guilty of any. It is not for the court, by reason of such fault or
misconduct, to prac/cally overrule the will of the people.”
 Resolution
• Where the question in dispute is purely a legal one, and nothing of
administrative nature is to be or can be done, a litigant need not
proceed with optional administrative process before seeking judicial
relief.


• As to the legality of disciplining an elective municipal official for a

wrongful act committed by him during his immediately preceding term
of office, the Court resorted to American authorities due to an
absence of any precedent


• The weight of authority seems to incline to the rule denying the right to
remove one from office because of a misconduct during a prior term.


• The underlying theory is that each term is separate from the other
terms, and that reelection to office operates as a condonation
 Statutory Construction Applied
1. Opinions and rulings of officials of government to execute
and implement the law

“In the absence of any precedent in this jurisdiction, we have

resorted to American authorities. We found that cases on the
matter are conflicting due in part, probably, to differences in
statutes and constitutional provisions, and also, in part, to a
divergence of views with respect to the question of whether
the subsequent election or appointment condones the prior
misconduct.”
 Statutory Construction Applied
2. Purpose to be accomplished

•Doctrine of Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. This is held

whenever there is available administrative remedy that should be
used up or exhausted before a recourse to judicial action.

•Doctrine of Condonation. The Court should never remove a public

officer for acts done prior to his present term of office. To do
otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their
officers.