Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 224 views

    Zenon R. Perez Vs People of The Philippines and Sandiganbayan, 544 SCRA 532 (Feb. 12, 2008)

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    The petitioner was convicted of malversation of public funds after verbally admitting to using some of the funds for personal expenses. He argued on appeal that the law and sentence violated the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court ruled that the law is presumed to be constitutional and the petitioner failed to overcome this presumption. There was no evidence the law operated further than necessary or that it was cruel, unusual, or inhumane. Therefore, the petitioner's conviction was upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Zenon R. Perez Vs People of The Philippines and Sandiganbayan, 544 SCRA 532 (Feb. 12, 2008)

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    224 views1 page
    The petitioner was convicted of malversation of public funds after verbally admitting to using some of the funds for personal expenses. He argued on appeal that the law and sentence violated the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court ruled that the law is presumed to be constitutional and the petitioner failed to overcome this presumption. There was no evidence the law operated further than necessary or that it was cruel, unusual, or inhumane. Therefore, the petitioner's conviction was upheld.

    Original Title

    Zenon R. Perez Vs People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan, 544 SCRA 532 (Feb. 12, 2008).docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner was convicted of malversation of public funds after verbally admitting to using some of the funds for personal expenses. He argued on appeal that the law and sentence violated the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court ruled that the law is presumed to be constitutional and the petitioner failed to overcome this presumption. There was no evidence the law operated further than necessary or that it was cruel, unusual, or inhumane. Therefore, the petitioner's conviction was upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    224 views1 page

    Zenon R. Perez Vs People of The Philippines and Sandiganbayan, 544 SCRA 532 (Feb. 12, 2008)

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    The petitioner was convicted of malversation of public funds after verbally admitting to using some of the funds for personal expenses. He argued on appeal that the law and sentence violated the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court ruled that the law is presumed to be constitutional and the petitioner failed to overcome this presumption. There was no evidence the law operated further than necessary or that it was cruel, unusual, or inhumane. Therefore, the petitioner's conviction was upheld.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Zenon R.

    Perez Vs People of the Philippines Section 19 Article III (Bill of Rights) of the
    and Sandiganbayan, 544 SCRA 532 (Feb. 12, Constitution.
    2008)
    Ruling:
    Facts:
    The law relied in convicting petitioner is not
     The petitioner verbally admitted that part cruel and unusual. It does not violate Section
    of the money from public funds was used to 19, Article III of the Bill of Rights
    pay for the loan of his late brother, a
    portion of it was spent for food and the  There is strong presumption of
    remaining was spent for medicines. Constitutionality accorded to statutes.
     An administrative case was filed against the  It is established doctrine that a statute
    petitioner. He filed an Answer reiterating should be construed whenever possible
    his verbal admission. in harmony with, rather than in
     Petitioner was charged before the violation of, the Constitution. The
    Sandiganbayan with malversation of Public presumption is that the legislature
    funds. The petitioner, duly assisted by a intended to enact a valid, sensible and
    counsel de parte entered a plea of “not just law and one which operates no
    guilty”. further than may be necessary to
     A pre-trial was set but the petitioner’s effectuate the specific purpose of the
    counsel moved for postponement. The law.83 It is presumed that the
    Sandiganbayan proceeded to hear the case legislature has acted within its
    due to the presence of witness Arlene R. constitutional powers. So, it is the
    Mandin. generally accepted rule that every
     Sandiganbayan dispensed the pre-trial and statute, or regularly accepted act, is, or
    allowed the prosecution to present its will be, or should be, presumed to be
    witness. valid and constitutional.
     The defense presented evidence through  He who attacks the constitutionality of
    the petitioner himself. He denied the a law has the onus probandi to show
    contents of his first Answer to the why such law is repugnant to the
    administrative case. He claimed it was Constitution. Failing to overcome its
    prepared without assistance of his counsel, presumption of constitutionality, a
    and at the time of his counsel and at the claim that a law is cruel, unusual, or
    time of preparation, he was not in peak inhuman, like the stance of petitioner,
    mental and physical condition. must fail.
     Petitioner further alleged that the cash
    shortage was due to oversight and argued
    that the government did not suffer any
    damage or prejudice since alleged cash
    shortage was actually deposited with the
    Office of the Provincial Treasurer.

    Issues:

    1. Whether or not the law relied upon in


    convicting the petitioner and the sentence
    imposed is cruel and therefore violates

    Page 1 of 1 Zenon R. Perez Vs People of the Philippines and Sandiganbayan, 544 SCRA 532 (Feb. 12, 2008)

    You might also like