Scribd
Upload
93 views2 pages

People V Manantan GR 14129

The defendant, a justice of peace, was charged with violating section 54 of the Revised Election Code which prohibits certain public officers from aiding candidates or taking part in elections. The defendant argued he was excluded as a justice of peace. The lower court initially denied the motion to dismiss but later dismissed the case based on a previous appellate court ruling. The Supreme Court ruled that justices of peace are included in the prohibition. It found that the legislature intended the word "judge" in section 54 to be broader and more generic than in the previous law it was based on, thus including justices of peace.

Uploaded by

Abigail Crisostomo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
93 views2 pages

People V Manantan GR 14129

The defendant, a justice of peace, was charged with violating section 54 of the Revised Election Code which prohibits certain public officers from aiding candidates or taking part in elections. The defendant argued he was excluded as a justice of peace. The lower court initially denied the motion to dismiss but later dismissed the case based on a previous appellate court ruling. The Supreme Court ruled that justices of peace are included in the prohibition. It found that the legislature intended the word "judge" in section 54 to be broader and more generic than in the previous law it was based on, thus including justices of peace.

Uploaded by

Abigail Crisostomo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

14129             July 31, 1962


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
GUILLERMO MANANTAN, defendant-appellee.

Facts:
Defendant Guillermo Manantan was charged with a violation of section 54 of the
Revised Election Code in the Province of Pangasinan.

Section 54. Active intervention of public officers and employees. - No justice, judge,
fiscal, treasurer, or assessor of any province, no officer or employee of the Army, no
member of the national, provincial, city, municipal or rural police force, and no
classified civil service officer or employee shall aid in any candidate, or exert
influence in any manner in any election or take part therein, except to vote, if entitled
thereto, or to preserve public peace, if he is a peace officer.

Defendant contends that the provision excludes justice of peace and as such, he is
excluded from this prohibition.

The defense moved to dismiss the information on the ground that as justice of peace,
the defendant is not one of the officers enumerated in section 54 of the Revised
Election Code. The lower court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that a justice of
peace is within the purview of section 54. A second motion was filed by the defense
counsel who in cited in support the decision of the Court of Appeals in People vs.
Macaraig, where a justice of peace is excluded from the prohibition of sec. 54. The
lower court dismissed the information against the accused upon authority of the ruling
in the case cited by the defense.

Issue:
Whether or Not the Justice of Peace is included in the prohibition of Section 54 of the
Revised Election Code.

Ruling:
Yes. Petitioner argues that when section 54 of the Revised Election Code omitted the
words "Justice of Peace" from the Revised Administrative Code provision from which
it was taken and thus making the intention of the legislature in the omission; however,
petitioner's contention is without merit. The word judge in the former provision was
qualified by the phrase "of First instance" the term judge in section 54 is not modified
or qualified making it more broader and generic to comprehend all kinds of judges.

Note:
The rule of Casus omissus has no applicability to the case at bar for the maxim only
applies and operates if and when the omission has been clearly established.

Casus Omisus
- Under this rule, the words or phrases may be supplied by the courts and inserted in a
stature where that is necessary to eliminate repugnancy and inconsistency in the
statute and complete the sense thereof, and to give effect to the intention of the
legislature manifested therein. The especially applicable where such application is
necessary to prevent the law from becoming null and void.

Casus Omisus Pro Omisso Hebendus Est


- Under this rule, a person, object or thing omitted from the enumeration must be held
to have been omitted intentionally.

You might also like