Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 141 views

    CASE G.R. No. L-49

    Uploaded by

    Nikka Nissa Lopez
    William F. Peralta was charged with robbery by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created under Ordinance No. 7 of the Philippine Republic. He was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. Peralta argued that Ordinance No. 7 violated the laws of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and deprived him of his constitutional rights. Additionally, he argued that the penalties under Ordinance No. 7 were more severe than those provided in the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court had to determine if Ordinance No. 7 was valid and its penalties were constitutional.

    Copyright:

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

    CASE G.R. No. L-49

    Uploaded by

    Nikka Nissa Lopez
    141 views2 pages
    William F. Peralta was charged with robbery by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created under Ordinance No. 7 of the Philippine Republic. He was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. Peralta argued that Ordinance No. 7 violated the laws of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and deprived him of his constitutional rights. Additionally, he argued that the penalties under Ordinance No. 7 were more severe than those provided in the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court had to determine if Ordinance No. 7 was valid and its penalties were constitutional.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    William F. Peralta was charged with robbery by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created under Ordinance No. 7 of the Philippine Republic. He was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. Peralta argued that Ordinance No. 7 violated the laws of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and deprived him of his constitutional rights. Additionally, he argued that the penalties under Ordinance No. 7 were more severe than those provided in the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court had to determine if Ordinance No. 7 was valid and its penalties were constitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    141 views2 pages

    CASE G.R. No. L-49

    Uploaded by

    Nikka Nissa Lopez
    William F. Peralta was charged with robbery by the Court of Special and Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction created under Ordinance No. 7 of the Philippine Republic. He was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. Peralta argued that Ordinance No. 7 violated the laws of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and deprived him of his constitutional rights. Additionally, he argued that the penalties under Ordinance No. 7 were more severe than those provided in the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court had to determine if Ordinance No. 7 was valid and its penalties were constitutional.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Lesson:

    Types of government: de jure vs. de facto

    CASE:

    WILLIAM F. PERALTA vs.

    THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    G.R. No. L-49 November 12, 1945

    Caption:

    Title: WILLIAM F. PERALTA vs.

    THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    Citation:

    G.R. No. L-49 November 12, 1945

    Petitioner:

    WILLIAM F. PERALTA

    Respondent:

    THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    Ponente:

    FERIA, J.

    Facts:

     WILLIAM F. PERALTA, a member of the Metropolitan Constabulary of Manila charged with the
    supervision and controlof the production, procurement and distribution of goods and other necessaries
    as defined in section 1 of Act No. 9of the National Assembly of the so-called Republic of the
    Philippines, was prosecuted for the crime of robbery asdefined and penalized by section 2 (a) of Act
    No. 65 of the same Assembly. He was found guilty and sentenced tolife imprisonment, which he
    commenced to serve on August 21, 1944, by the Court of Special and ExclusiveCriminal Jurisdiction,
    created in section 1 of Ordinance No. 7 promulgated by the President of the so-called Republicof the
    Philippines, pursuant to the authority conferred upon him by the Constitution and laws of the said
    Republic.And the procedure followed in the trial was the summary one established in Chapter II of
    Executive Order No. 157 ofthe Chairman of the Executive Commission, made applicable to the trial
    violations of said Act No. 65 by section 9thereof and section 5 of said Ordinance No. 7
    Issues:

     Whether or not the provisions of Ordinance No. 7 are violative of the fundamental laws of the
    Commonwealth of the Philippines, hence; the petitioner has been deprived of his constitutional
    rights?
     Whether or not the penalties incurred to the petitioner are more severe than the penalties
    provided in Revised Penal Code?

    Ruling:

    You might also like