Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ARDEL CANUTO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 188901 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. GILBERT CASTRO Y AGUILAR PEREZ, J.
With the enactment of R.A. 9346[22] on 24 June 2006, however, the imposition of death penalty has been prohibited. Pursuant to Section 2 thereof, the property penalty to be imposed on appellant is reclusion perpetua. RA 9346 should be applied even if the crime was committed prior to the enactment of the law in view of the principle in criminal law that favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.[23]
	GR No. 178301 2009-04-24	PEOPLE v. ROLANDO 'BOTONG' MALIBIRAN ACCUSED AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
However, as observed by the CA, with the effectivity of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346 entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines" on June 24, 2006, the imposition of the penalty of death has been prohibited. Thus, the proper penalty to be imposed on appellant as provided in Section 2, paragraph (a) of said law is reclusion perpetua.[42] The applicability of R.A. No. 9346 is undeniable in view of the principle in criminal law that favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws that are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.[43]
	GR No. 167755 2008-11-28	PEOPLE v. NESTOR VELUZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
However, with the effectivity of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9346 entitled "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines" on June 24, 2006, the imposition of the penalty of death has been prohibited. Thus, the proper penalty to be imposed on appellant as provided in Section 2, paragraph (a) of said law, is reclusion perpetua.[65] The applicability of R.A. No. 9346 is undeniable in view of the principle in criminal law that favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect.[66]