Non allegata, non probata

Anna Lerima Patula vs. People of the Philippines GR no. 164457 April 11, 2012 699
Scra 135
Facts:
The petitioner, Anna Patula is an employee of a shoe outlet
Issue:
Whether the accused

Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus

Peralta vs. Civil Service Commission GR no. 95832 August 10, 1992
Facts:
The Civil Service Act of 1959 conferred upon the commissioner of the Civil Service
to prescribe, amend and enforce suitable rules and regulation for carrying into
effect the provisions of the Civil Service Law.
The petitioner, Maynard Peralta is affected by interpreted provisions of the Civil
Service Commission from the Republic Act no. 2625 amending the Revised
Administrative Code and adopted a policy that when an employee who was on leave
of absence without pay on a day before or on a day time immediately preceding a
Saturday, Sunday or Holiday, he is also considered on leave of absence without pay
on such Saturday, Sunday or Holiday. The petitioner questioned the said
administrative interpretation.

Issue:
Whether or not, the Civil Service Commissions interpreted provision is valid and
constitutional.
Held:
No, the general rule vis--vis legislation is that an unconstitutional act is not a law;
it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no
office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been
passed. The construction is not in accordance with the legislative intent. The law
speaks of the granting of the right and the law does not provide for a distinction
between those who have accumulated leave credits and those who have exhausted
their leave credits in order to enjoy such right.
When the law does not distinguish, we ought not to distinguish. The fact remains
that government employees, whether or not they have accumulated leave credits,
are not required by law to work on weekends and holidays and thus they cannot be
declared absent and should not be deprived of their salary just because of their
absent without pay on the day immediately prior to, or after said non-working days.

Lex Prospicit, non respicit

Laceste vs. Santos February 1, 1932

Facts:
The petitioner, Clemente Laceste, prays the court to set him at liberty through the writ of habeas
corpus. Together with Nicolas Lachion, was prosecuted and convicted of the crime of rape.
Later, the accused Lachion married the offended party, Magdalena de Ocampo and he was freed
under the provisions of Section 2 of Act no. 1773 and Art. 446 of the Old Penal Code then in
forced; but the herein petitioner continued to serve his sentence because he was not covered by
said provision. However, under the Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code now in force, such
benefits are accorded to him by virtue of the last paragraph of the said article.
Issue:
Whether or not, writ shall be granted to the petitioner, Clemente Laceste
Held:
It may be clearly seen way back 1884, when the Penal code took effect in the Philippines
until 1931, the principles underlying our laws granting to the accused in certain cases an
exception to the general rule that laws shall not be retroactive when the law in question favors
the accused, has evidently been carried out over into the Revised Penal Code at force in the
Philippines through Article 22 of the said code.
This is an exemption to the general rule that all laws are prospective, not retrospective, as
to what legal maxims Lex prospicit, non respicit all about.
Art. 22 of the Revised Penal Code is applicable to the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is
granted.

Sources: Clemente Laceste vs. Paulino Santos GR no. -L36886 February 1, 1932