[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
190 views1 page

People V Garcia RESO - Case Digest

This case involves a motion for reconsideration regarding the application of Articles 13, 68, and 80 of the Revised Penal Code to minors. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 68 and 13 are self-sufficient and do not depend on Article 80. It also found that there is no conflict between retaining mitigating circumstances for minors aged 16-18 and not applying the benefits of Article 80 to them. The Court cannot insert provisions into laws or supply omissions not addressed by the legislature. Preambles or explanatory notes cannot be used to give a law a meaning not apparent in its text.

Uploaded by

Joanna Cusi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
190 views1 page

People V Garcia RESO - Case Digest

This case involves a motion for reconsideration regarding the application of Articles 13, 68, and 80 of the Revised Penal Code to minors. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 68 and 13 are self-sufficient and do not depend on Article 80. It also found that there is no conflict between retaining mitigating circumstances for minors aged 16-18 and not applying the benefits of Article 80 to them. The Court cannot insert provisions into laws or supply omissions not addressed by the legislature. Preambles or explanatory notes cannot be used to give a law a meaning not apparent in its text.

Uploaded by

Joanna Cusi
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People v.

Garcia (RESOLUTION)
85 Phil 657, 1950
FACTS:

 There is motion for reconsideration upon the decision under the argument of the Solicitor
General that:
o Art. 13 (2) and 68 (2) of the Revised Penal code "complement each other;
o The application of Art. 68 takes place only when the court has to render judgment and
impose a penalty upon a minor who has been proceeded against in accordance with
article 80 and who had misbehaved or is found incorrigible
o Art. 80 must be applied first before article 68 can come into operation, and the court can
not apply the latter article in total disregard of the former.

ISSUE:

 WON the RA No. 47 as amendment for Art. 80 can be used as construction to Art. 13 and Art
38 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING:

 Article 68 and Art 13 is self-sufficient and does not dependent on article 80


 The rule of statutory construction to the effect that all parts of a statute are to be
harmonized and reconciled. The motion for reconsideration has not pointed to any conflict,
and we cannot find any, between the retention of the privileged or special mitigating
circumstance in favor of minors below 18 and over 16 (Art. 38) and the fact that such minors are
not entitled to the benefits of article 80 under any circumstances
 The Court is not authorized to insert into a law what they think should be in it or to supply
what we think the legislature would have supplied if its attention had been called to the
omission.
 The preamble or explanatory note to Republic Act No. 47 cannot be used as basis for giving
it a meaning not apparent on its face. A preamble or explanatory not is resorted to only for
clarification in cases of doubt.

You might also like