Scribd
Upload
201 views2 pages

Republic vs. Martin

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the case against Simeona Martin and Hermin Arceo, who were charged with possession and sale of counterfeit science stamps. The Supreme Court held that Section 4 of the relevant law imposed criminal penalties for such acts, contrary to the trial court's view that the penalties were merely administrative. The Supreme Court found that interpreting the law in a way that did not impose criminal liability for counterfeiting science stamps would go against legislative intent. The order dismissing the case was set aside and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Uploaded by

Jf Maneja
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
201 views2 pages

Republic vs. Martin

The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in dismissing the case against Simeona Martin and Hermin Arceo, who were charged with possession and sale of counterfeit science stamps. The Supreme Court held that Section 4 of the relevant law imposed criminal penalties for such acts, contrary to the trial court's view that the penalties were merely administrative. The Supreme Court found that interpreting the law in a way that did not impose criminal liability for counterfeiting science stamps would go against legislative intent. The order dismissing the case was set aside and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Uploaded by

Jf Maneja
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/ 2

G.R. No.

L-38019 May 16, 1980


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
vs.
SIMEONA MARTIN and HERMIN ARCEO
Facts:
Hermin E. Arceo and Simeona Martin, private respondents herein, were
charged in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, conspiring and confederating
together and helping each other, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, have in their possession such false and counterfeit science
stamps worth P90,080.00 for, the purpose of using and selling the same in
the payment of internal revenue tax, and in fact sold and offered for sale a
part of the same, with intent of gain thus defrauding the government.
The accused filed two separate motions to quash on the ground that the facts
charged do not constitute an offense. The motion was granted and the case
was dismissed as Act 5448 in fact failed to punish the possession and
utterance of counterfeit science stamp tax.
In arriving at his conclusion, respondent judge expressed the opinion that the
word "penalties" found in Sec. 4 of R.A. No. 5448 refers to "administrative"
penalties, like administrative fines provided for in the National Internal
Revenue Code (NIRC for short), basing this view on Sec. 5 of the same Act,
which speaks of "taxes and penalties" which should be turned over by certain
officials to the Treasurer of the Philippines.
Issue/s:
(1) WON the offenses charged to the accused would constitute an offense
rendering respondent judge in error for dismissing the case? YES.
(2) WON penalties found in section 4 relating to administrative or criminal
offenses? CRIMINAL.
Held:
(1) In the sense respondents would construe the word "penalties" in Sec. 4 of
Republic Act 5448 as referring to fines incident to the collection of the
science stamp tax, the same is clearly comprehended within the purview of
the phrase "at the same time and in the same manner" particularly the
underscored portion, even without the phrase subject to the same penalties

as the documentary stamp tax", that follows in Sec. 4 of Republic Act 5448.
When the law requires collection to be in the "same manner" as documentary
stamp tax, the collection of fines in the cases provided therein may already
be included, such as those mentioned in Sec. 237 to 239 of the NIRC. The
penalties mentioned in the phrase "subject to the same penalties" would then
refer to Sec. 240 of the same Code, which are for specific offenses
enumerated therein, thereby investing Republic Act 5448 with the character
of completeness, not that of incompleteness which would be against all
reasonable presumptions as to how the legislative body performs its
functions.
In enacting Republic Act 5448 and relating it to the documentary stamp tax
provisions of the NIRC in the manner it did, intended to make the later law as
effective and fool-proof as the earlier statute, considering their kindred aims
and objectives, and therefore are in pari materia with each other, We have no
hesitation in adopting the construction of Sec. 4 of Republic Act 5448 as
providing penalties for the same acts as those enumerated in Sec. 240 of the
4
NIRC Which clearly include those charged in the information filed against
private respondents. It may even be more accurate to say that more than just
statutes in pari materia with each other, Republic Act 5448 is an amplification
of the NIRC, as may be gleaned from the provisions of Sec. 4 of Republic Act
5448 which states that "in addition to the documentary stamp taxes imposed
under Sections 211 to 235 of Commonwealth Act No. 466, as amended,
otherwise known as the National Internal Revenue Code, there are hereby
imposed science stamp taxes, etc." The second paragraph of the same
Section 4 which provides that "that tax imposed herein shall be ... subject to
the same penalties as the documentary stamp imposed under the National
Internal Revenue Code, as amended," should, accordingly, be interpreted as
referring to the penalties imposed for the prohibited acts specified in Sec.
240 of the NIRC, designed to protect the integrity of both kind of stamp taxes,
for the full attainment of the purpose and aim of both statutes as revenue
measures, and prevent any form of subversion thereof.
(2) With the interpretation of the disputed provision as arrived at and
explained above, the proposition strongly relied upon by the respondents
relative to the strict construction of penal statutes, so as not to extend the
plain terms thereof that might create offenses by mere implication not so
7
intended by the legislative body loses its force and vigor. It strains the
imagination to think that in imposing "additional stamp" as so provided in
Sec. 4 of Republic Act 5448, to be known as science stamp taxes, to what is
called documentary stamp taxes, Congress failed to provide the same

safeguards for both kind of taxes, particularly against what is already known
as the most facile form and common manner of subverting the imposition of
this kind of taxes stamp taxes that of counterfeiting the stamps, and the
possession or use of counterfeit stamps, the very acts with which private
respondents are charged.
The law is, therefore, hereby declared to contain explicitly clear provision,
particularly in Sec. 4 thereof, for the punishment as criminal offense of the
acts charged in the information subject of the instant petition. In so declaring,
far from violating the rule of strict construction of penal statutes, We are
giving the law, Republic Act 5448, the only rational interpretation called for, a
departure from which would be to act not in conformity with the proper
exercise of our judicial power of interpreting the laws, which, primarily, is to
give effect to the manifest and plain legislative intent.
WHEREFORE, the order complained of is hereby set aside, and let this case
be remanded to the court of origin for proper proceedings under the
information already filed against private respondents.

You might also like