This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-12-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners also contend that the tax deduction scheme violates Article XV, Section 4[21] and Article XIII, Section 11[22] of the Constitution because it shifts the State's constitutional mandate or duty of improving the welfare of the elderly to the private sector.[23] Under the tax deduction scheme, the private sector shoulders 65% of the discount because only 35%[24] of it is actually returned by the government.[25] Consequently, the implementation of the tax deduction scheme prescribed under Section 4 of RA 9257 affects the businesses of petitioners.[26] Thus, there exists an actual case or controversy of transcendental importance which deserves judicious disposition on the merits by the highest court of the land.[27] | |||||
|
2003-09-24 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Superiority in numbers is not necessarily superiority in strength[21] Although the two appellants used guns to kill the unarmed victim, nonetheless, the prosecution failed to establish that there was indeed a deliberate intent to take advantage of superior strength. | |||||