MARTIN CENTINO VS. HON. VICTORIA VILLALON PERNILLOS G.R. NO.

113092, SEPTEMBER 1, 1994

Facts: The officers of a civic organization known as Samahang Katandaan ng Nayon ng Tikay launched a fund drive for the purpose of renovating the chapel of Barrio Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan. Petitioner and Vicente Yco approached Judge Adoracion Angeles and solicited from her a contribution of P1500.00. It is admitted that the solicitation was made without a permit from the Department of Social Services and Development. As a consequence, based on the complaint of Judge Angeles, an information was filed against the petitioner and his group, for violation of PD No. 1654, or the Solicitation Permit Law in the Municipal Trial Court of Malolos. Petitioners contended that PD No. 1654 only covers solicitations made for a charitable or public welfare purpose, but not those made for a religious purpose such as the construction of chapel. This was denied by the trial court and the motion for reconsideration met the same fate. On Dec. 29, 1992, the court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing them to pay a fine of P200. Nevertheless, the court recommended that they be pardoned on the basis that they acted in good faith. They appealed to RTC, however, Vicento Yco withdraws his appeal and the case proceeded only with petitioner. On Mat 21, 1993, respondent judge affirmed the decision of the lower court but modified the penalty, allegedly because of the perversity of the act committed which caused damage and prejudice to the complainant by sentencing the petitioner to suffer an imprisonment of 6 months and a fine of P1000. Hence, the appeal. Issue: WON the phrase “charitable purposes” should be construed in its broadest sense so as to include a religious purpose Held: PD No. 1564 provides as follows: “Sec. 2. Any person, corporation, organization, or association desiring to solicit or recieve contributions for charitable or public welfare purposes shall first secure a permit from the Regional Offices of the DSSD as provided in the Integrated Reorganization Plan. Upon the filing of the written application for a permit in the form prescribed by the said department, the Regional Director or his duly authorized representative may in his discretion, issue a permanent or temporary permit or disapprove the application. In the interest of the public, he may in his discretion renew or revoke any permit issued under Act 4075.” To subsume the religious purpose of the solicitation within the concept of charitable purposes which under the PD No. 1654 requires a prior permit from the DSSD, under a pain of penal liability in the absence thereof, would be prejudicial to petitioner. Accordingly, the term “charitable” should be strictly construed so as to exclude solicitations for “religious purposes”. Thereby, we adhere to the fundamental doctrine

all penal legislations that such interpretations should be adopted as would favour the accused.
underlying virtually The purpose of strict construction is to provide a precise definition of forbidden acts. The word “charitable” is a matter of description rather than of precise, and each

The law is clear: the accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms. appellant cannot be convicted of two separate offense of illegal possession of firearms and direct assault with attempted homicide. RA No. if the “other crime” is murder or homicide. provided that the person arrested committed “no other crime”. 8294. PEOPLE VS. as amended by Republic Act No. neither should we. there can be no separate offense of simple illegal possession of firearms. he cannot be held guilty of the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms. Moreover. Hence. Neither can such unlawful act be considered to have aggravated the direct assault. SEPTEMBER 19. Since the direct assault with multiple attempted homicide was committed in this case. . LADJAALAM Y MILAPIL G. Issue: WON appellant can be convicted of Illegal Possession of Firearm under RA 8294 when he used said firearm in the commission in the crime. NOS.R. appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms. he was likewise charged and convicted for the crime Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition penalized under PD 1866. it should have expressly said so. Moreover. The law does not operate in vacuo nor should its applicability be determined by circumstances in the abstract. since the crime committed was direct assault and not homicide or murder. if the person is held liable for murder or homicide. Under the same circumstance. illegal possession of firearms becomes merely an aggravating circumstance. 136149-51. where the law does not distinguish. Held: RA 8294 shows that if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of any crime. Accordingly. Furthermore. illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance. provided that “no other crime was committed by the person arrested. but not a separate offense. penal laws are construed liberally in favour of the accused.” If the intention of the law were to refer only to homicide and murder. 8294 penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms. where an accused was convicted of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide for firing an unlicensed M-14 rifle at several policemen who were about to serve a search warrant. illegal possession of firearms is an aggravating circumstance. Verily. not a separate offense. Hence.case involving a determination of that which is charitable must be decided on its own particular facts and circumstances. 2000 Facts: Appellant Ladjaalam was charged and convicted by the Regional trial Court of Zamboanga City of the crime of Direct Assault with Multiple Attempted Homicide for firing on unlicensed M-14 rifle at several policemen who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful