Temere Animus

G.R. No. 128096. January 20, 1999.* PANFILO M. LACSON, petitioner, vs. THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE SANDIGANBAYAN, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, MYRNA ABALORA, NENITA ALAP-AP, IMELDA PANCHO MONTERO, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. ROMEO M. ACOP and FRANCISCO G. ZUBIA, JR., petitioners-intervenors. Ponente: MARTINEZ, J.: Nature of the case: The constitutionality of Sections 4 and 7 of Republic Act No. 8249 — an act which further defines the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan — is being challenged in this petition for prohibition and mandamus. Petitioner Panfilo Lacson, joined by petitioners-intervenors Romeo Acop and Francisco Zubia, Jr., also seeks to prevent the Sandiganbayan from proceedings with the trial of Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 (for multiple murder) against them on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Facts: In May 1995, eleven members of the Kuratong Baleleng gang were killed by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intellige...

When is a man a man and when is a woman a woman?  In particular, does the law recognize the changes made by a physician using scalpel, drugs and counseling with regard to a person’s sex?  May a person successfully petition for a change of name and sex appearing in the birth certificate to reflect the result of a sex reassignment surgery?  Silverio vs. Republic, 537 SCRA 373, G.R. No. 174689 October 19, 2007 G.R. No. 174689. October 19, 2007. ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.  Ponente :  CORONA, J.: Topics :  Change of Name, Clerical Error Law (RA 9048), Sex Change, Statutory Construction, Status, Civil Register Law (Act 3753), Marriage, Separation of Powers, Judicial Legislation Doctrines:      The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification; A change of name is a privilege, not a right.      RA 9048 now governs the ...

GR no. 173615| PNB v. Tejano, Jr.  October 16, 2009 Doctrines; Sound indeed is the rule that where the law is clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without any interpretation or even construction. This is based on the presumption that the words employed therein correctly express its intent and preclude even the courts from giving it a different construction. (Verbal egis) It is binding rule, conformably with Article 4 of the Civil Code, that, generally, laws shall have only a prospective effect and must not be applied retroactively in such a way as to apply to pending disputes and cases. This is expressed in the familiar legal maxim lex prospicit, non respicit (the law looks forward and not backward.) Moreover, jurisdiction is conferred by no other source than law. Once jurisdiction is acquired, it continues until the case is finally terminated. The rule is that where a court has already obtained and is exercising jurisdiction over a...

In the case of People vs Siton, GR no. 169364, September 18, 2009 the constitutionality of Art. 202 of Revised Penal Code was challenged by in here respondents. They contention are thus: "On the other hand, respondents argue against the limited application of the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines. They insist that Article 202 (2) on its face violates the constitutionally-guaranteed rights to due process and the equal protection of the laws; that the due process vagueness standard, as distinguished from the free speech vagueness doctrine, is adequate to declare Article 202 (2) unconstitutional and void on its face; and that the presumption of constitutionality was adequately overthrown." The petitioner also contends that: etitioner argues that every statute is presumed valid and all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of its constitutionality; that, citing Romualdez v. Sandiganbayan, the overbreadth and vagueness doctrines have special application to free-...

G.R. No. L-63915| December 29, 1986 LORENZO M. TAÑADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD, INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. (MABINI),  petitioners, vs. HON. JUAN C. TUVERA, in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President, HON. JOAQUIN VENUS, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President, MELQUIADES P. DE LA CRUZ, ETC., ET AL.,  respondents. Topics : Statutes, Constitutional Law, Local Governments, Publication Ponente: Cruz, J; Doctrines: (1) The clause "unless it is otherwise provided" in Art 2 of the NCC refers to the effectivity of laws and not to the requirement of publication. (2) The prior publication of laws before they become effective cannot be dispensed with. (3) For purposes of the prior publication requirement for effectivity, the term "laws" refer not only to those of general application, but also to laws of local application, private laws; administrative rules enforcing a statute; city chart...