Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 188 views

    5 People vs. Manantan, 5 SCRA 684

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel C. Dumayas
    1) Guillermo Manantan, a justice of the peace, was charged with violating Section 54 of the Revised Election Code which prohibits certain government officials from participating in electoral campaigns. 2) The lower court dismissed the charges, holding that justices of the peace were excluded from Section 54 based on a previous Court of Appeals case. However, the Solicitor General appealed. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that justices of the peace were not intentionally omitted from Section 54. It held that the broader term "judge" used in Section 54 was meant to include all kinds of judges, such as justices of the peace. It therefore set aside the dismissal and remanded the case back to the lower court for trial

    Copyright:

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

    5 People vs. Manantan, 5 SCRA 684

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel C. Dumayas
    188 views2 pages
    1) Guillermo Manantan, a justice of the peace, was charged with violating Section 54 of the Revised Election Code which prohibits certain government officials from participating in electoral campaigns. 2) The lower court dismissed the charges, holding that justices of the peace were excluded from Section 54 based on a previous Court of Appeals case. However, the Solicitor General appealed. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that justices of the peace were not intentionally omitted from Section 54. It held that the broader term "judge" used in Section 54 was meant to include all kinds of judges, such as justices of the peace. It therefore set aside the dismissal and remanded the case back to the lower court for trial

    Original Description:

    nnon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Guillermo Manantan, a justice of the peace, was charged with violating Section 54 of the Revised Election Code which prohibits certain government officials from participating in electoral campaigns. 2) The lower court dismissed the charges, holding that justices of the peace were excluded from Section 54 based on a previous Court of Appeals case. However, the Solicitor General appealed. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that justices of the peace were not intentionally omitted from Section 54. It held that the broader term "judge" used in Section 54 was meant to include all kinds of judges, such as justices of the peace. It therefore set aside the dismissal and remanded the case back to the lower court for trial

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    188 views2 pages

    5 People vs. Manantan, 5 SCRA 684

    Uploaded by

    Emmanuel C. Dumayas
    1) Guillermo Manantan, a justice of the peace, was charged with violating Section 54 of the Revised Election Code which prohibits certain government officials from participating in electoral campaigns. 2) The lower court dismissed the charges, holding that justices of the peace were excluded from Section 54 based on a previous Court of Appeals case. However, the Solicitor General appealed. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that justices of the peace were not intentionally omitted from Section 54. It held that the broader term "judge" used in Section 54 was meant to include all kinds of judges, such as justices of the peace. It therefore set aside the dismissal and remanded the case back to the lower court for trial

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    People

    GR

    L-14129,

    31

    v.

    July

    1962

    (5

    Manantan

    SCRA

    684)

    Facts: In an information filed by the Provincial Fiscal of


    Pangasinan in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of that Province,
    Guillermo Manantan was charged with a violation of Section 54
    of the Revised Election Code. A preliminary investigation
    conducted by said court resulted in the finding of a probable
    cause that the crime charged was committed by the defendant.
    Thereafter, the trial started upon defendants plea of not guilty,
    the defense moved to dismiss the information on the ground that
    as justice of the peace, the defendant is not one of the officers
    enumerated in Section 54 of the Revised Election Code. The lower
    court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that a justice of the
    peace is within the purview of Section 54. A second motion was
    filed by defense counsel who cited in support thereof the decision
    of the Court of Appeals (CA) in People vs. Macaraeg, where it was
    held that a justice of the peace is excluded from the prohibition of
    Section 54 of the Revised Election Code. Acting on various
    motions and pleadings, the lower court dismissed the information
    against the accused upon the authority of the ruling in the case
    cited by the defense. Hence, the appeal by the Solicitor General.
    Issue: Whether the justice of the peace was excluded from the
    coverage of Section 54 of the Revised Election Code
    Held: Under the rule of Casus omisus pro omisso habendus est,
    a person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be
    held to have been omitted intentionally. The maxim casus
    omisus can operate and apply only if and when the omission has
    been clearly established. The application of the rule of casus
    omisus does not proceed from the mere fact that a case is
    criminal in nature, but rather from a reasonable certainty that a
    particular person, object or thing has been omitted from a
    legislative enumeration. Substitution of terms is not omission.
    For in its most extensive sense the term judge includes all
    officers appointed to decide litigated questions while acting in

    that capacity, including justice of the peace, and even jurors, it is


    said, who are judges of facts. The intention of the Legislature did
    not exclude the justice of the peace from its operation. In Section
    54, there is no necessity to include the justice of peace in the
    enumeration, as previously made in Section 449 of the Revised
    Administrative Code, as the legislature has availed itself of the
    more generic and broader term judge, including therein all
    kinds of judges, like judges of the courts of First Instance, judges
    of the courts of Agrarian Relations, judges of the courts of
    Industrial Relations, and justices of the peace.
    The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal order entered by the
    trial court and remanded the case for trial on the merits.

    You might also like