This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| (c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense. As a rule, only the personal properties described in the search warrant may be seized by the authorities.[23] In the case at bar, Search Warrant No. 42[24] specifically authorized the taking of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) and paraphernalia(s) only. By the principle of ejusdem generis, where a statute describes things of a particular class or kind accompanied by words of a generic character, the generic word will usually be limited to things of a similar nature with those particularly enumerated, unless there be something in the context of the statement which would repel such inference.[25] | |||||
|
2009-02-26 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court, however, notes that the Board members and full-time consultants received the year-end benefit in good faith. The Board members relied on (1) Section 10 of RA No. 7227 which authorized the Board to adopt a compensation and benefit scheme; (2) the fact that RA No. 7227 does not expressly prohibit Board members from receiving benefits other than the per diem authorized by law; and (3) President Ramos' approval of the new compensation and benefit scheme which included the granting of a year-end benefit to each contractual employee, regular permanent employee, and Board member. The full-time consultants relied on Section 10 of RA No. 7227 which authorized the Board to adopt a compensation and benefit scheme. There is no proof that the Board members and full-time consultants knew that their receipt of the year-end benefit was unlawful. In keeping with Magno,[39] De Jesus,[40] Molen, Jr.,[41] and Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa Government Service Insurance System (KMG) v. Commission on Audit,[42] the Board members and full-time consultants are not required to refund the year-end benefits they have already received. | |||||