Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • LARGA Vs RANADA (SCRA)

    Uploaded by

    Wednesday Abelgas
    241 views2 pages
    The motion to quash the information is denied. Larga is criminally liable for failing to remit employee contributions to PAG-IBIG from 1984 to 1986 as required under the then existing law. The amendment decriminalizing non-remittance took effect prospectively only, and did not apply retroactively to absolve liability for prior violations.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    LARGA vs RANADA (SCRA).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?

    Report this Document
    The motion to quash the information is denied. Larga is criminally liable for failing to remit employee contributions to PAG-IBIG from 1984 to 1986 as required under the then existing law. The amendment decriminalizing non-remittance took effect prospectively only, and did not apply retroactively to absolve liability for prior violations.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    241 views2 pages

    LARGA Vs RANADA (SCRA)

    Uploaded by

    Wednesday Abelgas
    The motion to quash the information is denied. Larga is criminally liable for failing to remit employee contributions to PAG-IBIG from 1984 to 1986 as required under the then existing law. The amendment decriminalizing non-remittance took effect prospectively only, and did not apply retroactively to absolve liability for prior violations.

    Copyright:

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

    GR NO.

    L – 79576 AUGUST 3, 1988

    LARGA vs RANADA JR.

    Judge: ASSISTANT FISCAL EDWIN CONDAYA

    “ARTICLE 4: Laws shall have no retroactive application, unless the contrary is provided”

    FACTS:

     The case involved the violation of the Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) or the
    PAG-IBIG Fund Law
     Under the said law, the employer is mandated by law to withhold a certain portion of the
    salary of the employee and remit them to PAGIBIG members.
     Larga happens to be an employer and in accordance with the law, he withheld portions
    of the salaries of his workers accruing from 1984 – 1986
     It turned out, however, that Larga did not remit them to PAGIBIG
     Under the law then in force, non – remittance is a criminal offense
    Hence, he was prosecuted
     During the pendency of the case, the PAGIBIG law was amended, making the
    remittance of contributions voluntary. Hence, non – remittance is not anymore a criminal
    offense
     Larga invoked the principle that a penal should be given retroactive application if
    favorable to the accused
     Larga moved to quash the information stating that since non - remittance is no longer a
    crime in the new law, this shall wipe out his alleged criminal liability

    ISSUES:

     Whether or not Larga is criminally liable under Section 23 of PD No. 1752 known as the
    PAGIBIG Fund Law
     Whether or not Larga would be given the principle of retroactivity due to the amendment
    of PD No. 1752 by Section 9 & 10 of EO No 90

    RULING:

     As a general rule, penal laws shall be given retroactive application if it is favorable to the
    accused, except when the law itself provides that it should not be given retroactive
    application s when its provisions provide that it shall not apply to pending cases during
    the time of its enactment.
     The provisions under Section 9 & 10 of EO No. 90 expressly provide that the effect of
    the amendment decriminalizing the act of non – remittance will take effect starting
    January 1987 and onwards. The period of effectivity is specific.
     Section 9 & 10 of EO No. 90 amended PD No. 1752 not retroactively but only
    prospectively.
     It is equally clear that EO No. 90 did not purport to “de – criminalize” all prior violations of
    PD No. 1752 and its implementing rules and regulations and it did not modify or repel,
    whether expressly or impliedly, Section 23 of PD No. 1752.
     Larga was prosecuted for the act of non – remittance accruing from 1984 – 1986.
     The obvious purpose of the new law is to limit its benefits to acts committed from the
    time of its enactment. Hence, crimes committed under the old law shall be continued to
    be prosecuted and punished.

    You might also like