Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Guinhawa V People
Guinhawa V People
*
G.R. No. 162822. August 25, 2005.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
279
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
Same; Same; Elements; Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code includes
any kind of conceivable deceit other than those enumerated in Articles 315
to 317—it is a catchall provision for that purpose with all its broad scope
and intendment.—For one to be liable for “other deceits” under the law, it is
required that the prosecution must prove the following essential elements:
(a) false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense other than those in the
preceding articles; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense must be
made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud; and (c) as a
280
Same; Same; Estafa; Art. 315, par. 2(a), Revised Penal Code; Statutory
Construction; Ejusdem Generis; Under the principle of ejusdem generis,
where a statement ascribes things of a particular class or kind accompanied
by words of a generic character, the generic words will usually be limited to
things of similar nature.—The petitioner’s reliance on paragraph 2(a),
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code is misplaced. The said provision
reads: 2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a)
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
281
that the MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over offenses punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding six years, irrespective of the amount of the fine.
* * * Since the felony of other deceits is punishable by arresto mayor, the
MTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the offense lodged against the
petitioner.
records did he ever refute the allegation in the complaint, which held him
out as a dealer of brand new cars. It has thus become admitted that the
petitioner was dealing with brand new vehicles—a fact which, up to now,
petitioner has not categorically denied. Therefore, when private complainant
went to petitioner’s showroom, the former had every right to assume that
she was being sold brand new vehicles there being nothing to indicate
otherwise. But as it turned out, not only did private complainant get a
defective and used van, the vehicle had also earlier figured in a road
accident when driven by no less than petitioner’s own driver.
282
prise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which another is
cheated. On the other hand, deceit is the false representation of a matter of
fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by
concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is
intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.
283
intrinsic circumstance that is vital to the contract, knowing that the vendee is
acting upon the presumption that no such fact exists, deceit is accomplished
by the suppression of the truth.
proscribed from charging him with estafa based on the principle of caveat
emptor, case law has it that this rule only requires the purchaser to exercise
such care and attention as is usually exercised by ordinarily prudent men in
like business affairs, and only applies to defects which are open and patent
to the service of one exercising such care. In an avuncular case, it was held
that: . . . The rule of caveat emptor, like the rule of sweet charity, has often
been invoked to cover a multitude of sins; but we think its protecting mantle
has never been stretched to this extent. It can only be applied where it is
shown or conceded that the parties to the contract stand on equal footing and
have equal knowledge or equal means of knowledge and there is no relation
of trust or confidence between them. But, where one party undertakes to sell
to another property situated at a distance and of which he has or claims to
have personal knowledge and of which the buyer knows nothing except as
he is informed by the seller, the buyer may rightfully rely on the truth of
284
the seller’s representations as to its kind, quality, and value made in the
course of negotiation for the purpose of inducing the purchase. If, in such
case, the representations prove to be false, neither law nor equity will permit
the seller to escape responsibility by the plea that the buyer ought not to
have believed him or ought to have applied to other sources to ascertain the
facts. . . .
Same; Same; Same; Agency; Where the doing of a certain act or the
transaction of a given affair, of the performance of certain business is
confided to an agent, the authority to so act will carry with it by implication
the authority to do all the collateral acts which are natural and ordinary
incidents of the main act or business authorized.—The petitioner cannot pin
criminal liability for his fraudulent omission on his general manager,
Azotea. The two are equally liable for their collective fraudulent silence.
Case law has it that wherever the doing of a certain act or the transaction of
a given affair, or the performance of certain business is confided to an agent,
the authority to so act will, in accordance with a general rule often referred
to, carry with it by implication the authority to do all of the collateral acts
which are the natural and ordinary incidents of the main act or business
authorized.
285
(UMC) in Paco, Manila. The van bore Plate No. DLK 406.
Guinhawa’s driver, Leopoldo Olayan, drove the van from Manila to
Naga City. However, while the van was traveling along the highway
in Labo, Daet, Camarines Norte, Olayan suffered a heart attack. The
van went out of control, traversed the highway onto the opposite
lane, and was
286
1
ditched into the canal parallel to the highway. The van was
damaged, and the left front tire had to be replaced.
The incident was reported to the local police authorities and was
2
recorded in the police blotter. The van was repaired and later
3
offered for sale in Guinhawa’s showroom.
Sometime in October 1995, the spouses Ralph and Josephine Silo
wanted to buy a new van for their garment business; they purchased
4
items in Manila and sold them in Naga City. They went to
Guinhawa’s office, and were shown the L-300 Versa Van which was
on display. The couple inspected its interior portion and found it
beautiful. They no longer inspected the under chassis since they
5
presumed that the vehicle was brand new. Unaware that the van had
been damaged and repaired on account of the accident in Daet, the
couple decided to purchase the van for P591,000.00. Azotea
suggested that the couple make a downpayment of P118,200.00, and
pay the balance of the purchase price by installments via a loan from
the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB), Naga Branch, with the
L-300 Versa Van as collateral. Azotea offered to make the necessary
arrangements with the UCPB for the consummation of the loan
transaction. The couple agreed. On November 10, 1995, the spouses
6
executed a Promissory Note for the amount of P692,676.00 as
payment of the balance on the purchase price, and as evidence of the
chattel mortgage over the van in favor of UCPB.
On October 11, 1995, the couple arrived in Guinhawa’s office to
take delivery of the van. Guinhawa executed the deed of sale, and
the couple paid the P161,470.00 downpayment, for which they were
7
issued Receipt No. 0309. They were fur-
_______________
1 Exhibit “B.”
2 Exhibit “D.”
3 TSN, 1 June 2000, pp. 16-17.
4 TSN, 3 August 2000, p. 5.
5 TSN, 6 October 1999, p. 18.
6 Exhibit “DD-1.”
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
7 Exhibit “FF.”
287
8
nished a Service Manual which contained the warranty terms and
conditions. Azotea instructed the couple on how to start the van and
to operate its radio. Ralph Silo no longer conducted a test drive; he
and his wife assumed that there were no defects in the van as it was
9
brand new.
On October 12, 1995, Josephine Silo, accompanied by Glenda
Pingol, went to Manila on board the L-300 Versa Van, with Glenda’s
husband, Bayani Pingol III, as the driver. Their trip to Manila was
uneventful. However, on the return trip to Naga from Manila on
October 15 or 16, 1995, Bayani Pingol heard a squeaking sound
which seemed to be coming from underneath the van. They were in
10
Calauag, Quezon, where there were no humps along the road.
Pingol stopped the van in Daet, Camarines Norte, and examined the
11
van underneath, but found no abnormalities or defects. But as he
drove the van to Naga City, the squeaking sound persisted. Believing
that the van merely needed grease, Pingol stopped at a Shell gasoline
station where it was examined. The mechanic discovered that some
parts underneath the van had been welded. When Pingol complained
to Guinhawa, the latter told him that the defects were mere factory
defects. As the defects persisted, the spouses Silo requested that
Guinhawa change the van with two Charade-Daihatsu vehicles
within a week or two, with the additional costs to be taken from their
downpayment. Meanwhile, the couple stopped paying the monthly
amortization on their loan, pending the replacement of the van.
Guinhawa initially agreed to the couple’s proposal, but later changed
his mind and told them that he had to sell the van first. The spouses
then brought the vehicle to the Rx Auto Clinic in Naga City for
examination. Jesus Rex Raquitico, Jr., the mechanic, examined the
van and discovered that it was the left front stabilizer that was
producing the annoying
_______________
8 Exhibit “J.”
9 TSN, 6 October 1999, p. 18.
10 TSN, 29 January 1998, pp. 5-7.
11 Exhibit “F.”
288
12
sound, and that it had been repaired. Raquitico prepared a Job
Order containing the following notations and recommendations:
Josephine Silo filed a complaint for the rescission of the sale and the
refund of their money before the Department of Trade and Industry
(DTI). During the confrontation between her and Guinhawa,
Josephine learned that Guinhawa had bought the van from UMC
before it was sold to them, and after it was damaged in Daet.
Subsequently, the spouses Silo withdrew their complaint from the
DTI.
On February 14, 1996, Josephine Silo filed a criminal complaint
for violation of paragraph 1, Article 318 of the Revised Penal Code
against Guinhawa in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Naga City.
After the requisite investigation, an Information was filed against
Guinhawa in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Naga City. The
inculpatory portion reads:
“That on or about October 11, 1995, in the City of Naga, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, being a motor vehicle dealer
using the trade name of Guinhawa Motor Sales at Panganiban Avenue,
_______________
289
Naga City, and a dealer of brand new cars, by means of false pretenses and
fraudulent acts, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously defraud
private complainant, JOSEPHINE P. SILO, as follows: said accused by means of
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
_______________
14 Records, p. 1.
15 TSN, 1 June 2000, p. 6.
16 Exhibit “4-A.”
17 TSN, 1 June 2000, p. 19.
18 Id., at p. 7.
290
about the defects under the left front portion of the van. By then, the
19
van had a kilometer reading of 4,000 kilometers. He insisted that
he did not make any false statement or fraudulent misrepresentation
to the couple about the van, either before or simultaneous with its
purchase. He posited that the defects noticed by the couple were not
major ones, and could be repaired. However, the couple refused to
have the van repaired and insisted on a refund of their payment for
the van which he could not allow. He then had the defects repaired
20
by the UMC. He claimed that the van was never involved in any
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
accident, and denied that his driver, Olayan, met an accident and
sustained physical injuries when he drove the van from Manila to
21
Naga City. He even denied meeting Bayani Pingol.
22
The accused claimed that the couple filed a Complaint against 23
him with the DTI on January 25, 1996, only to withdraw it later.
The couple then failed to pay the amortizations for the van, which
caused the UCPB to file a petition for the foreclosure of the chattel
24
mortgage and the sale of the van at public auction.
Azotea testified that he had been a car salesman for 16 years and
25
that he sold brand new vans. Before the couple took delivery of the
vehicle, Pingol inspected its exterior, interior, and underside, and
26
even drove it for the couple. He was present when the van was
brought to the Rx Auto Clinic, where he noticed the dent on its front
27
side. He claimed that the van never figured in any vehicular
accident in Labo, Daet,
_______________
19 Exhibit “4-A.”
20 TSN, 1 June 2000, p. 19; Exhibits “4” to “4-C.”
21 Exhibit “4.”
22 Exhibit “8.”
23 Exhibit “11.”
24 Exhibits “DD” and “EE.”
25 TSN, 23 November 2000, p. 11.
26 TSN, 3 August 2000, pp. 6-7.
27 Id., at p. 10.
291
28
Camarines Norte on March 17, 1995. In fact, he declared, he found
no police record of a vehicular accident involving the van on the
29
said date. He admitted that Olayan was their driver, and was in
charge of taking delivery of cars purchased from the manufacturer in
30
Manila.
On November 6, 2001, the trial court rendered judgment
convicting Guinhawa. The fallo of the decision reads:
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven Pesos (P180,711.00) the total
amount of the actual damages caused to private complainant.
As to the civil aspect of this case which have been deemed instituted
with this criminal case, Articles 2201 and 2202 of the Civil Code provides:
“Art. 2201. In contracts and quasi-contracts, the damages for which the obligor who
acted in good faith is liable shall be those that are the natural and probable
consequences of the breach of the obligation, and which the parties have foreseen or
could have reasonably foreseen at the time the obligation was constituted.
“In case of fraud, malice or wanton attitude, the obligor shall be responsible for
all damages which may be reasonably attributed to the non-performance of the
obligation.”
“Art. 2202. In crimes and quasi-delicts, the defendant shall be liable for all
damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission
complained of. It is not necessary that such damages have been foreseen or could
have reasonably been foreseen by the defendant.”
_______________
28 Id., at p. 14.
29 Id., at p. 13.
30 Id., at pp. 13-14.
292
The trial court declared that the accused made false pre-tenses or
misrepresentations that the van was a brand new one when, in fact, it
had figured in an accident in Labo, Daet, Camarines Norte, and
sustained serious damages before it was sold to the private
complainant.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
1. The lower court erred in its finding that the repair works on
the left front portion and underchassis of the van was the
result of the accident in Labo, Camarines Norte, where its
driver suffered an attack of hypertension.
2. The lower court erred in its four (4) findings of fact that
accused-appellant made misrepresentation or false
pretenses “that the van was a brand new car,” which
constituted deceit as defined in Article 318, paragraph 1 of
the Revised Penal Code.
3. The lower court erred in finding accused-appellant civilly
liable to complainant Josephine Silo. But, even if there be
such
_______________
293
liability, the action therefor has already prescribed and the amount awarded
32
was exhorbitant, excessive and unconscionable.
Guinhawa insisted that he never talked to the couple about the sale
of the van; hence, could not have made any false pretense or
misrepresentation.
33
On August 1, 2002, the RTC affirmed the appealed judgment.
Guinhawa filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals
(CA), where he averred that:
II
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
_______________
32 Records, p. 575.
33 Id., at pp. 588-592.
34 Id., at p. 606.
294
The CA ruled that the private complainant had the right to assume
that the van was brand new because Guinhawa held himself out as a
dealer of brand new vans. According to the appellate court, the act
of displaying the van in the showroom without notice to any would-
be buyer that it was not a brand new unit was tantamount to deceit.
Thus, in concealing the van’s true condition from the buyer,
Guinhawa committed deceit.
The appellate court denied Guinhawa’s motion for
reconsideration, prompting him to file the present petition for review
on certiorari, where he contends:
II
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
III
The issues for resolution are (1) whether, under the Information, the
petitioner was charged of other deceits under paragraph 1, Article
318 of the Revised Penal Code; and (2)
_______________
295
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 16/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
296
“That on or about October 11, 1995, in the City of Naga, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, being a
motor vehicle dealer using the trade name of Guinhawa Motor Sales at
Panganiban Avenue, Naga City, and dealer of brand new cars, by means of
false pretenses and fraudulent acts, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously defraud private complainant, JOSEPHINE P. SILO, as
follows: said accused by means of false manifestations and fraudulent
representations, sold to said private complainant, as brand new, an
automobile with trade name L-300 Versa Van colored beige and the latter
paid for the same in the amount of P591,000.00, when, in truth and in fact,
the same was not brand new because it was discovered less than a month
after it was sold to said Josephine P. Silo that said L-300 Versa Van had
defects in the underchassis and stepboard and repairs have already been
done thereat even before said sale, as was found upon check-up by an auto
mechanic; that private complainant returned said L-300 Versa Van to the
accused and demanded its replacement with a new one or the return of its
purchase price from said accused but despite follow-up demands no
replacement was made nor was the purchase price returned to private
complainant up to the present to her damage and prejudice in the amount of
P591,000.00, Philippine Currency, plus other damages that may be proven
in court.
37
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 17/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
_______________
37 Records, p. 1.
297
Art. 318. Other deceits.—The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of not less
than the amount of the damage caused and not more than twice such amount
shall be imposed upon any person who shall
_______________
38 Buhat v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119601, 17 December 1996, 265 SCRA 701; People
v. Escosio, G.R. No. 101742, 25 March 1993, 220 SCRA 475; Buaya v. Polo, G.R. No. 75079,
26 January 1989, 169 SCRA 471.
39 Serapio v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148769, 28 January 2003, 396 SCRA 443.
298
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
Guinhawa vs. People
This provision was taken from Article 554 of the Spanish Penal
Code which provides:
For one to be liable for “other deceits” under the law, it is required
that the prosecution must prove the following essential elements: (a)
false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense other than those in the
preceding articles; (b) such false pretense, fraudulent act or pretense
must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud; and (c) as a result, the offended party
40
suffered damage or prejudice. It is essential that such false
statement or fraudulent representation constitutes the very cause or
the only motive for the private complainant to part with her property.
The provision includes any kind of conceivable deceit other than
those enumerated in Articles 315 to 317 of the Revised Penal
41
Code. It is intended as the catchall provision for that purpose with
42
its broad scope and intendment.
Thus, the petitioner’s reliance on paragraph 2(a), Article 315 of
the Revised Penal Code is misplaced. The said provision reads:
_______________
40 . . . 1. que exista realmente una defraudacion, un perjuicio ejectivo; (2) que este
se haya causado mediante engaño, esto es, con el empleo de medios fraudulentos
puestos en juego por el estafador para conseguir su mal proposito. (Viada, CODIGO
PENAL, 6th ed., Vol. 6, p. 570).
41 Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, 2001 ed., Vol. II, p. 815.
42 Regalado, CRIMINAL LAW CONSPECTUS, 1st ed., p. 592.
299
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 19/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
The fraudulent representation of the seller, in this case, that the van
to be sold is brand new, is not the deceit contemplated in the law.
Under the principle of ejusdem generis, where a statement ascribes
things of a particular class or kind accompanied by words of a
generic character, the generic words will usually be limited to things
of a similar nature with those particularly enumerated unless there
43
be something in the context to the contrary.
Jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution or by law. It cannot
be conferred by the will of the parties, nor diminished or waived by
them. The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the averments of
the complaint or Information, in relation to the law prevailing at the
time of the filing of the criminal complaint or Information, and the
penalty provided by law for the crime charged at the time of its
commission.
Section 32 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7691, provides that the MTC has exclusive jurisdiction over
offenses punishable with imprisonment not exceeding six years,
irrespective of the amount of the fine:
_______________
300
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 20/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
301
44
in a road accident when driven by no less than petitioner’s own driver.
_______________
44 Rollo, p. 34.
45 G.R. No. 106357, 3 September 1998, 295 SCRA 49 (Emphasis supplied).
302
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 22/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
_______________
303
Article 1389 of the New Civil Code provides that failure to disclose
facts when there is a duty to reveal them constitutes fraud. In a
contract of sale, a buyer and seller do not deal from equal bargaining
positions when the latter has knowledge, a material fact which, if
communicated to the buyer, would render the grounds unacceptable
52
or, at least, substantially less desirable. If, in a contract of sale, the
vendor knowingly allowed the vendee to be deceived as to the thing
sold in a material matter by failing to disclose an intrinsic
circumstance that is vital to the contract, knowing that the vendee is
acting upon the presumption that no such53 fact exists, deceit is
accomplished by the suppression of the truth.
In the present case, the petitioner and Azotea knew that the van
had figured in an accident, was damaged and had to be repaired.
Nevertheless, the van was placed in the showroom, thus making it
appear to the public that it was a brand new unit. The petitioner was
mandated to reveal the foregoing facts to the private complainant.
But the petitioner and Azotea even obdurately declared when they
testified in the court a quo that the vehicle did not figure in an
accident, nor had it been repaired; they maintained that the van was
brand new, knowing that the private complainant was going to use it
for her garment business. Thus, the private complainant bought the
van, believing it was brand new.
Significantly, even when the petitioner was apprised that the
private complainant had discovered the van’s defects, the petitioner
agreed to replace the van, but changed his mind and insisted that it
must be first sold.
The petitioner is not relieved of his criminal liability for deceitful
concealment of material facts, even if the private complainant made
a visual inspection of the van’s interior and exterior before she
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 23/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
agreed to buy it and failed to inspect its under chassis. Case law has
it that where the vendee made
_______________
304
. . . The rule of caveat emptor, like the rule of sweet charity, has often been
invoked to cover a multitude of sins; but we think its protecting mantle has
never been stretched to this extent. It can only
_______________
54 Burnett v. Boyer, 285 S.W. 670; Madton v. Norton, 238 N.W. 686.
55 Kraus v. National Bank of Commerce of Mankato, 167 N.W. 353.
56 Snellgrove v. Dingelhoef, 103 S.E. 418 (1920).
57 Judd v. Walker, 89 S.W. 558.
305
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 24/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
VOL. 468, AUGUST 25, 2005 305
Guinhawa vs. People
_______________
306
SEC. 2. This Act shall not apply to persons convicted of offenses punished
with death penalty or life-imprisonment; to those convicted of treason,
conspiracy or proposal to commit treason; to those convicted of misprision
of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; to those convicted of piracy; to
those who are habitual delinquents; to those who shall have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence; to those who having been granted
conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall have violated the terms
thereof; to those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed
one year, not to those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of
approval of this Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof. (As amended
by Act No. 4225.)
307
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 26/27
9/9/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 468
——o0o——
308
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017472e1a56d0cc3ee31003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 27/27