Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from March, 2022

BLOG UPDATE : WE'RE ON FACEBOOK

You can like and follow our Facebook Page at this link:  Dear Future Lawyers | Facebook

ROSARIO NASI-VILLAR v. PEOPLE - CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGEST

  ROSARIO NAS-VILLAR v. PEOPLE G.R. No. 176169, November 14, 2008 TINGA, J.: TOPICS: EX POST FACTO LAW FACTS: Petitioner was charged for Illegal Recruitment as defined under Section 6 and Section 7 of R.A. No. 8042.  RTC of Davao found accused guilty of Illegal Recruitment under the Labor Code and sentenced her to an indeterminate sentence of 4 years as minimum and 5 years as maximum.  Petitioner appealed before the CA wo affirmed the decision of the RTC and ordered to pay P10,000 as temperate damages.   On appeal, petitioner alleged that the CA erred in failing to consider that R.A. 8042 cannot be given retroactive effect and that the decision of the RTC constitutes a violation of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto law.  Since R.A. No. 8042 did not yet exist in January 1993 when the crime was committed.   She argues that what was applicable in 1993 was the Article 38, in relation with Article 39 of the Labor Code.  The said...

PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND CEFERINO S. PAREDES - CRIMINAL LAW CASE DIGEST

  PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN AND CEFERINO S. PAREDES, JR., G.R. No. 157171, March 14, 2006 GRINO-AQUINO, J.: TOPICS: EX POST FACTO LAW FACTS: B.P. 195 amended Section 11 of R.A. No. 3019 by increasing from 10 to 15 years the period for the prescription or extinguishment of a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Private Respondent was issued a free patent title when he was still the provincial attorney of Agusan del Sur before he became a Governor.  A letter of complaint was filed against him, a subpoena was issued but was not served.  Despite the  absence of Notice to the Respondent, a preliminary investigation was conducted and a recommendation for filing an information in the Sandiganbayan was approved. A warrant of arrest was issued and respondent was arrested.  Respondent then filed "An Urgent Motion to Quash Information and to Recall Warrant of Arrest" on the ground that the charged filed against him already prescribed; that the preliminary i...