This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-04-29 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Even if the imposable penalty amounts to cruel punishment, the Court cannot declare the provision of the law from which the proper penalty emanates unconstitutional in the present action. Not only is it violative of due process, considering that the State and the concerned parties were not given the opportunity to comment on the subject matter, it is settled that the constitutionality of a statute cannot be attacked collaterally because constitutionality issues must be pleaded directly and not collaterally,[43] more so in the present controversy wherein the issues never touched upon the constitutionality of any of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code. | |||||
|
2007-09-05 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the allegation of petitioner that if the information for B.P. Blg. 22 would be filed and in the remote event that petitioner would be found guilty thereof, then the trial court may impose a fine double the amount of the checks, which fine may amount to millions of pesos; and that this is unjust enrichment on respondent's part at the expense of petitioner and Aguilar deserves scant consideration. Suffice it to state that the fine that may be imposed by the court is not awarded to the private complainant. Fine is imposed as a penalty and not as payment for a specific loss or injury.[38] | |||||