Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 97 views

    People v. Concepcion Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    maria luz
    1) The defendant authorized an extension of credit to a partnership where his wife was a director, violating a section of Act No. 2747 which prohibited banks from granting loans to directors. 2) This section was later repealed by Act No. 2938, and the defendant argued he could not be convicted for violating a repealed law. 3) However, the court held that the repeal of a penalizing act does not deprive courts of jurisdiction to try those who violated the former law.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Concepcion Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    maria luz
    97 views1 page
    1) The defendant authorized an extension of credit to a partnership where his wife was a director, violating a section of Act No. 2747 which prohibited banks from granting loans to directors. 2) This section was later repealed by Act No. 2938, and the defendant argued he could not be convicted for violating a repealed law. 3) However, the court held that the repeal of a penalizing act does not deprive courts of jurisdiction to try those who violated the former law.

    Original Description:

    daas

    Original Title

    People v

    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) The defendant authorized an extension of credit to a partnership where his wife was a director, violating a section of Act No. 2747 which prohibited banks from granting loans to directors. 2) This section was later repealed by Act No. 2938, and the defendant argued he could not be convicted for violating a repealed law. 3) However, the court held that the repeal of a penalizing act does not deprive courts of jurisdiction to try those who violated the former law.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Concepcion Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    maria luz
    1) The defendant authorized an extension of credit to a partnership where his wife was a director, violating a section of Act No. 2747 which prohibited banks from granting loans to directors. 2) This section was later repealed by Act No. 2938, and the defendant argued he could not be convicted for violating a repealed law. 3) However, the court held that the repeal of a penalizing act does not deprive courts of jurisdiction to try those who violated the former law.

    Copyright:

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

    People v.

    Concepcion Case Digest

    People v. Concepcion
    G.R. No. 19190 (November 29, 1922)

    FACTS:
    Defendant authorized an extension of credit in favor of Concepcion, a co-
    partnership. Defendants wife was a director of this co-partnership. Defendant was
    found guilty of violating Sec. 35 of Act No. 2747 which says that The National Bank
    shall not, directly or indirectly, grant loans to any of the members of the Board of
    Directors of the bank nor to agents of the branch banks. This Section was in effect in
    1919 but was repealed in Act No. 2938 approved on January 30, 1921.

    ISSUE:
    W/N Defendant can be convicted of violating Sections of Act No. 2747,
    which were repealed by Act No. 2938.

    HELD:
    In the interpretation and construction, the primary rule is to ascertain and give effect
    to the intention of the Legislature. Section 49 in relation to Sec. 25 of Act No. 2747
    provides a punishment for any person who shall violate any provisions of the
    Act. Defendant contends that the repeal of these Sections by Act No. 2938 has served
    to take away basis for criminal prosecution. The Court holds that where an act of
    the Legislature which penalizes an offense repeals a former act which penalized
    the same offense, such repeal does not have the effect of thereafter depriving
    the Courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence offenders charged with violations
    of the old law.

    You might also like