This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-10-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| An order granting or denying probation shall not be appealable.[26] | |||||
|
2015-01-21 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence educates that a preamble is not an essential part of an act as it is an introductory or preparatory clause that explains the reasons for the enactment, usually introduced by the word "whereas."[40] Whereas clauses do not form part of a statute because, strictly speaking, they are not part of the operative language of the statute.[41] In this case, the whereas clause at issue is not an integral part of the decree of the pardon, and therefore, does not by itself alone operate to make the pardon conditional or to make its effectivity contingent upon the fulfilment of the aforementioned commitment nor to limit the scope of the pardon. | |||||
|
2009-04-07 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| We also note that the petitioner is unable to make up her mind as to what recourse she will pursue, since in her petition for Certiorari she questioned the denial of her probation,[21] while in her Memorandum she questioned the denial of her appeal.[22] This just obviously manifests the intention of petitioner to benefit from the remedy of probation just in case the remedy of appeal is not given due course. Prevailing jurisprudence treats appeal and probation as mutually exclusive remedies because the law is unmistakable about it and, therefore, petitioner cannot avail herself of both.[23] | |||||