Pp v purisima

WHEREAS, subversion, rebellion, insurrection, lawless violence, criminality, chaos and public
disorder mentioned in the aforesaid Proclamation No. 1081 are committed and abetted by the use of
firearms, explosives and other deadly weapons;

Statutes are to be construed in the light of purposes to be achieved and the evils sought to be

remedied. 

And as respondent Judge Maceren points out, the people's interpretation of P.D. 9(3) results in
absurdity at times. To his example We may add a situation where a law-abiding citizen, a lawyer by
profession, after gardening in his house remembers to return the bolo used by him to his neighbor
who lives about 30 meters or so away and while crossing the street meets a policeman. The latter
upon seeing the bolo being carried by that citizen places him under arrest and books him for a
violation of P.D. 9(3). Could the presidential decree have been conceived to produce such absurd,
unreasonable, and insensible results?

Further Penal statutes are to be construed strictly against the state and liberally in favor of an
accused.

The two elements of the offense covered by P.D. 9(3) must be alleged in the Information in order
that the latter may constitute a sufficiently valid charged. The sufficiency of an Information is
determined solely by the facts alleged therein.  Where the facts are incomplete and do not convey
13

the elements of the crime, the quashing of the accusation is in order.

la carlota vs jimenez auditor

f;

-central imported fertilizer

-fert arrived in ph

-was taxed by the central bank

-central filed for a refund arguing that said fertilizers were for the exclusive use of 5 haciendas

-based their claim on sec. 2 of ra 601

SEC. 2. The tax provided for in section one of this Act shall not be collected on foreign exchange used for
the payment of the cost, transportation and/or other charges of canned milk, canned beef, cattle,
canned fish, cocoa beans, malt, stabilizer and flavors, vitamin concentrate; supplies and equipment
purchased directly by the Government or any of its instrumentalities for its own exclusive use;
machinery, equipment, accessories, and spare parts, for the use of industries, miners, mining
enterprises, planters and farmers; and fertilizers when imported by planters or farmers directly or
through their cooperatives; . . . .

-refund was denied

h;

-not exempted

-law provides that exemption is only applied if the same were imported by planters or farmers directly
or through their cooperatives. In the present case, as appellants admit that the Central "is not the
planter ultimately benefited by the fertilizers, much less a cooperative

-further, the use of "directly" in the law has been interpreted to mean "without anything intervening"

-Consequently, an importation of fertilizers made by a farmer or planter through an agent, other than
his cooperative, is not imported directly as required by the exemption

rule is that the exempting provision is to be construed liberally in favor of the taxing authority and
strictly against exemption from tax liability, the result being that statutory provisions for the refund of
taxes are strictly construed in favor of the State and against the taxpayer