Case Digest: So v. Republic (G.R. No. 170603)

So v. Republic | G.R. No. 170603 | 29 Jan 2007 | Callejo, Sr. J. | Art IV (Section 1, Par 4) | Petitioners: Edison So Respondents: Republic of the Philippines Recit Ready Summary Herein Petitioner So filed for a Petition for Naturalization under CA No. 473 aka the Revised Naturalization Law.He presented 2 witnesses à fam business lawyer Atty. Adasa & UST classmate Mark Salcedo. RTC granted So’s petition. Respondent Republic of the Phil through OSG said not so fast! Coz SolGen claims na the 2 witnesses So presented did not know him (So) well enough and that they only gave general statements upon being asked about the character and moral conduct of So. CA set aside RTC’s decision. Hence, this present petition. The issue is W/N So qualifies for Philippines Citizenship and the Court said NO. It was wrong for So to claim that that RA 9139 should apply to his case instead of CA No. 473. This is because the latter applied to ALL ALIENS regardless of class while the former applies to nati...
Post a Comment

Case Digest: Orceo v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 190779) including Summary of Separate Opinion

Orceo v. COMELEC | G.R. No. 190779 | March 26, 2010 | Peralta, J. |

FACTS:

  • Under Section 1 of Resolution No. 8714 it prohibits an unauthorized person from bearing, carrying or transporting firearms or other deadly weapons in public places, including all public buildings, streets, parks, and private vehicles or public conveyances, even if licensed to possess or carry the same, during the election period.
  • Under Section 2 (b) of Resolution No. 8714, the term firearm includes airgun, airsoft guns, and their replica/imitation in whatever form that can cause an ordinary person to believe that they are real. Hence, airsoft guns and their replicas/imitations are included in the gun ban during the election period.
  • Petitioner claims that he is a real party-in-interest, because he has been playing airsoft since the year 2000. The continuing implementation of Resolution No. 8714 will put him in danger of sustaining direct injury or make him liable for an election offense.

ISSUES & HELD:

1. Whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in including airsoft guns and their replicas/imitations in the term firearm in Section 2 (b) of R.A. No. 8714 [No]

  • The COMELEC was mandated to provide the details of who may bear, carry or transport firearms or other deadly weapons, as well as the definition of firearms, among others.

o   These details are left to the discretion of the COMELEC, which is a constitutional body that possesses special knowledge and expertise on election matters, with the objective of ensuring the holding of free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections.

o   COMELEC’s intent in the inclusion of airsoft guns in the term firearm and their resultant coverage by the election gun ban is to avoid the possible use of recreational guns in sowing fear, intimidation or terror during the election period.

o   An ordinary citizen may not be able to distinguish between a real gun and an airsoft gun. It is fear subverting the will of a voter.

Re: Art II, Sec. 12

  • Petitioner asserts that playing airsoft provides bonding moments among family members. Families are entitled to protection by the society and the State under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are free to choose and enjoy their recreational activities. These liberties, petitioner contends, cannot be abridged by the COMELEC.

o   In its Comment, the COMELEC, through the Solicitor General, states that it adheres to the aforementioned state policies, but even constitutional freedoms are not absolute, and they may be abridged to some extent to serve appropriate and important interests.

o   As a long-time player of the airsoft sport, it is presumed that petitioner has a license to possess an airsoft gun. As a lawyer, petitioner is aware that a licensee of an airsoft gun is subject to the restrictions imposed upon him by PNP Circular No. 11 and other valid restrictions, such as Resolution No. 8714. These restrictions exist in spite of the aforementioned State policies, which do not directly uphold a licensee's absolute right to possess or carry an airsoft gun under any circumstance.

Petition partly granted.

 

Brion’s Concurring Opinion

  • Under Act No. 2711 (which repealed Act No. 1780), rearms include rifles, muskets, carbines, shotguns, revolvers, pistols and all other deadly weapons from which a bullet, ball, shot, shell or other missile may be discharged by means of gunpowder or other explosives; the term also includes air rifles except such as being a small caliber and limited range used as toys ; the barrel of any rearm shall be considered a complete firearm for all the purposes hereof.
  • Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1866 4 codifies the laws on illegal/unlawful possession, manufacture, dealing in, acquisition or disposition of rearms, ammunition or explosives or instruments used in the manufacture of rearms, ammunition.
  • It states that: “The  term also includes air rifles and air pistols not classified as toys under the provisions of Executive Order No. 712 dated 28 July 1981.”
  • Executive Order (EO) No. 712 , to which the Implementing Rules and Regulations of PD 1866 refers, regulates the manufacture, sale and possession of air rifles/pistols which are considered as firearms.

 

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No 237428) w/ Summary of Separate Opinions

Republic v. Sereno (including Summary of Separate Opinions) | G.R. No. 237428 | May 11, 2018 | Tijam, J. |  Topic: Art. VIII, Sec 5 (other topics included in the full digest) | SUMMARY:   A petition for quo warranto was filed by the OSG assailing the appointment of CJ Sereno as Chief Justice on the ground that she failed to prove her integrity during the nomination process as she failed to comply with the SALN requirements of the JBC. Several groups and individuals filed Motions for Leave to Intervene, among them Senators De Lima and Trillanes. CJ Sereno filed a Motion to Inhibit against six Justices. The Republic argues that (1) quo warranto is the proper remedy, as the Constitution does not make impeachment the exclusive mode of unseating an impeachable officer; (2) the petition is not time barred as prescription cannot run against the States; and, (3) that, at the time of her appointment, CJ Sereno was not of “proven integrity” she not having filed the required SALNs a...
Read more

Case Digest: Gloria Dy v. People (G.R. No 189081)

Gloria Dy v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 189081 | August 10, 2016 | Topic: Liability ex delicto / ex contractu FACTS: Dy, as the General Manager of Mandy Commodities Company, Inc. (MCCI) proposed to William Mandy (President of MCCI) to purchase a property for the company. To facilitate the purchase, the president obtained a loan from International China Bank of Commerce (bank), which was granted to the company in the amount of P20 million.   As security, MCCI executed a chattel mortgage over their warehouses. The president entrusted Dy to manage the payment of the loan. Later on, MCCI received a notice of foreclosure over the mortgaged property due to its default in paying.   In order to prevent the foreclosure, the president delivered to Dy, P21,706,281 worth of checks issued by MCCI, with the instruction that Dy shall use the checks to pay the loan. However, the president later discovered that the checks weren’t paid to the bank when the bank foreclosed the mortg...
Read more

Case Digest: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906)

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo |  G.R. No. 180906 | October 7, 2008 |  Puno. C.J. Doctrine and Concepts: The Writ of Amparo offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof due to the nature of swiftness required to resolve these cases The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence or administrative responsibility requiring full and exhaustive proceedings. Facts The case at bar is an appeal via Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo , seeking to reverse and set aside , the Decision promulgated by Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. AMPARO No. 00001. The original case was filed by ...
Read more