Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Digests

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. PAZ M. DEL ROSARIO G.R. No. L-7234, May 21, 1955    Facts On May 28, 1953, Paz M. Del Rosario committed slight physical injuries. The information was filed on July 27, 1953. Thereupon, the accused filed a motion to quash the information to ground that the offense charged had already prescribed in accordance with Article 90 and 91 of the Revised Penal Code. The municipal court sustained this motion and dismissed the case. Thus, this appeal of dismissal is made directly to the court.    Issue Whether or not the offense charged to the plaintiff-appellant had already prescribed.    Ruling The offense have not yet prescribed because the provision in the Revised Penal Code does not provide the computation of month therefore it must be supplied by Article 13 of the Civil Code which provides for the computation of years, months, days and nights. According to Article 13 of the Civil Code a month is a 30-day month not the solar or civil ...

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE vs. PRIMETOWN PROPERTY GROUP, INC. G.R. No. 162155, August 28, 2007    Facts On April 14, 1998 Primetown Property Group. Inc. filed its final adjusted return. On March 11, 1999 Gilbert Yap, vice chair of Primetown Property Group. Inc., filed for the refund or tax credit of income tax paid in 1997. However, it was not acted upon. Thus Primetown filed a petition for review but the Court of Tax Appeals dismissed it claiming that it was filed beyond the two-year reglementary period provided by section 229 of the National Internal Revenue Code. The Court of Tax Appeals further argued that in National Marketing Corp. vs. Tecson the Supreme Court ruled that a year is equal to 365 days regardless of whether it is a regular year or a leap year.    Issue Whether or not the respondent‘s petition was filed within the two-year reglementary period.    Ruling The Supreme Court held that the petition was filed within the two-year reglementa...