This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-10-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In view of the latest amendment to Section 4 of the Probation Law that "no application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of conviction," prevailing jurisprudence[35] treats appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies because the law is unmistakable about it.[36] Indeed, the law is very clear and a contrary interpretation would counter its envisioned mandate. Courts have no authority to invoke "liberal interpretation" or "the spirit of the law" where the words of the statute themselves, and as illuminated by the history of that statute, leave no room for doubt or interpretation.[37] To be sure, the remedy of convicted felons who want to avail of the benefits of probation even after the remedy of an appeal is to go to the Congress and ask for the amendment of the law. To surmise a converse construal of the provision would be dangerously encroaching on the power of the legislature to enact laws and is tantamount to judicial legislation. | |||||
|
2015-10-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| There could be no other conclusion, a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act, taking into account the constitutionally enshrined State policy to promote the physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being of the youth, as well as, in harmony with the foremost consideration of the child's best interests in all actions concerning him or her.[51] This is equally consistent with the with the declared policy of the State to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to their development; provide sanctions for their commission and carry out a program for prevention and deterrence of and crisis intervention in situations of child abuse, exploitation, and discrimination.[52] Besides, if it was the intention of the framers of the law to make child offenders liable only of Article 266-A of the RPC, which provides for a lower penalty than R.A. No. 7610, the law could have expressly made such statements. | |||||
|
2011-06-08 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| This Court notes that GSIS filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court to assail the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner availed of the improper remedy as the appeal from a final disposition of the Court of Appeals is a petition for review under Rule 45 and not a special civil action under Rule 65. [18] Certiorari under Rule 65 lies only when there is no appeal, nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. That action is not a substitute for a lost appeal in general; it is not allowed when a party to a case fails to appeal a judgment to the proper forum. [19] Where an appeal is available, certiorari will not prosper even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion. Accordingly, when a party adopts an improper remedy, his petition may be dismissed outright. [20] | |||||