This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-03-31 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| An alias is a name or names used by a person or intended to be used by him publicly and habitually, usually in business transactions, in addition to the real name by which he was registered at birth or baptized the first time, or to the substitute name authorized by a competent authority; a man's name is simply the sound or sounds by which he is commonly designated by his fellows and by which they distinguish him, but sometimes a man is known by several different names and these are known as aliases.[9] An alias is thus a name that is different from the individual's true name, and does not refer to a name that is not different from his true name. | |||||
|
2012-07-17 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the spirit and reason of the statute may be passed upon where a literal meaning would lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or defeat the clear purpose of the lawmakers.[42] Not any of these instances, however, is present in the case at bench. Considering that the language of the subject constitutional provision is plain and unambiguous, there is no need to resort extrinsic aids such as records of the Constitutional Commission. | |||||
|
2009-04-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Second - the People's failure to present evidence that proved Estrada's commission of the offense. The Sandiganbayan found that the People failed to present evidence that Estrada committed the crime punished under Commonwealth Act No. 142, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6085 (CA 142), as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Ursua v. Court of Appeals.[13] It ruled that there is an illegal use of alias within the context of CA 142 only if the use of the alias is public and habitual. In Estrada's case, the Sandiganbayan noted, the application of the principles was not as simple because of the complications resulting from the nature of the transaction involved - the alias was used in connection with the opening of a numbered trust account made during the effectivity of R.A. No. 1405, as amended,[14] and prior to the enactment of Republic R.A. No. 9160.[15] | |||||
|
2007-02-16 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, the court may consider the spirit and reason of the statute, where a literal meaning would lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or would defeat the clear purpose of the lawmakers.[28] However, these problems are not present here. Using the literal meaning of "report" does not lead to absurdity, contradiction or injustice. Neither does it defeat the intent of the legislators. The purpose of the law is to make the closure of a bank summary and expeditious in order to protect public interest. This is also why prior notice and hearing are no longer required before a bank can be closed.[29] | |||||