Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 171 views

    Arnault vs. Pecson, G.R. No L-4027 September 2, 1950

    Uploaded by

    Vin Lacsie
    The petitioner was imprisoned for contempt of the senate and charged with income tax evasion. He requested to be temporarily released from prison under guard to prepare his defense for the criminal case. The court held that denying the petitioner a chance to make his defense would violate his right to a fair trial. As long as the action does not fully release the prisoner, the executive and judicial branches can still investigate or try the prisoner for matters within their powers, even if he is imprisoned by the legislative branch.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Arnault vs. Pecson, G.R. No L-4027 September 2, 1950

    Uploaded by

    Vin Lacsie
    171 views1 page
    The petitioner was imprisoned for contempt of the senate and charged with income tax evasion. He requested to be temporarily released from prison under guard to prepare his defense for the criminal case. The court held that denying the petitioner a chance to make his defense would violate his right to a fair trial. As long as the action does not fully release the prisoner, the executive and judicial branches can still investigate or try the prisoner for matters within their powers, even if he is imprisoned by the legislative branch.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Original Title

    Arnault v. Pecson

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner was imprisoned for contempt of the senate and charged with income tax evasion. He requested to be temporarily released from prison under guard to prepare his defense for the criminal case. The court held that denying the petitioner a chance to make his defense would violate his right to a fair trial. As long as the action does not fully release the prisoner, the executive and judicial branches can still investigate or try the prisoner for matters within their powers, even if he is imprisoned by the legislative branch.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    171 views1 page

    Arnault vs. Pecson, G.R. No L-4027 September 2, 1950

    Uploaded by

    Vin Lacsie
    The petitioner was imprisoned for contempt of the senate and charged with income tax evasion. He requested to be temporarily released from prison under guard to prepare his defense for the criminal case. The court held that denying the petitioner a chance to make his defense would violate his right to a fair trial. As long as the action does not fully release the prisoner, the executive and judicial branches can still investigate or try the prisoner for matters within their powers, even if he is imprisoned by the legislative branch.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Arnault Vs. Pecson, G.R.

    No L-4027
    September 2, 1950
    Held:
    The petitioner herein was already in jail for contempt of the senate when the
    present criminal action was started. He submitted a petition for certiorari,
    prohibition and mandamus, assailing alleged refusal by the Court of First Instance of
    Manila to grant the petitioner ample opportunity to prepare his defense in criminal
    case of which he is charged with income tax evasion.
    In his prayer the petitioner asks that Judge Pecson, the respondent judge, be
    commanded to allow him to go out of Bilibid Prison under guard to look all
    necessary papers he needs for his defense or get papers pertinent to his case from
    his office in Trade and Commerce on J.Luna Street, Manila.
    Issue:
    Whether or not the petitioner can be released temporarily from imprisonment
    order of the Senate.
    Held:
    Defendant would be denied his fundamental right to a fair and impartial
    hearing which the constitution assures him if such petition is disregarded. When a
    request by a defendant charged with crime for a chance to make his defense is
    reasonable and made in good faith and not for delay, it is good policy to veer
    towards the liberal side avoiding refinements of argument that may serve only to
    hide the substance of the issue.
    Any action not amounting to a release of a prisoner committed by the Senate
    to prison, taken by the executive and the judiciary departments with respect to such
    prisoner in the legitimate discharge of their respective functions, is not impairment
    of the doctrine of the distribution of government powers. The fact that a person is a
    prisoner of the Senate or of the House does not, under the principal cited, exclude
    other departments during his incarceration from trying or investigating him in
    matters pertaining to their sphere, in much the same way that a prisoner by
    judgment of a court of justice is not placed beyond the reach of the legislature and
    the executive to summon for examination and to allow in relation to the
    investigation to go anywhere under guard to get such evidence as the investigator
    or the prisoner might deem important.

    You might also like