URSUA vs. COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No. 112170 | April 10, 1996

URSUA vs. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 112170, April 10, 1996 
Facts

Petitioner Cesario Ursua was convicted for violation of Sec. 1 of CA No. 142, as amended by RA 6085 otherwise known as ―An Act to Regulate the Use of Aliases‖ by the RTC of Davao City which was affirmed by the CA. Allegedly petitioner when asked by his counsel to take his letter of request to the Office of the Ombudsman because his law firm‘s messenger Oscar Perez had personal matters to attend to, instead of writing his name wrote the name ―Oscar Perez‖ when he was requested to sign. However, Loida Kahulugan who gave him the copy of complaint was able to know through Josefa Amparo that petitioner is not Oscar Perez. Loida reported the matter to the Deputy Ombudsman who recommended that petitioner be accordingly charged. Petitioner comes for review of his conviction to the SC as he reasserts his innocence. 
Issue

Whether or not petitioner Cesario Ursua should be acquitted on the ground that he was charged under the wrong law. 
Ruling

The SC held that petitioner be acquitted of the crime charged. Time and again the SC has decreed that the statutes are to be construed in the light of the purposes to be achieved and the evil sought to be remedied. Thus in construing a statute the reason for its enactment should be kept in mind and the statute should be construed with reference to the intended scope and purpose. The court may consider the spirit and reason of the statute, where a literal meaning would lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or would defeat the clear purpose of the law makers. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MICIANO vs. BRIMO | G.R. No. L-22595 | November 1, 1927

MICHAEL C. GUY vs. COURT OF APPEALS | G.R. No. 163707 | September 15, 2006