Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 27) Digest - Centeno vs. Pernillos and People (G.R. No. 113092. September 01, 1994)

    Uploaded by

    Jane Maribojo
    23 views2 pages
    The petitioner was charged with violating the Solicitation Permit Law by soliciting funds for the construction of a chapel without a permit. The trial court found the petitioner guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Solicitation Permit Law only covers solicitations made for charitable or public welfare purposes, not religious purposes. The Court reasoned that penal laws are construed strictly against the State, and the law did not expressly include religious solicitations. A concurring opinion further noted that soliciting for religious purposes involves religious fervor rather than charity, and requiring a permit could impose an unlawful prior restraint on religious exercise.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    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 petitioner was charged with violating the Solicitation Permit Law by soliciting funds for the construction of a chapel without a permit. The trial court found the petitioner guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Solicitation Permit Law only covers solicitations made for charitable or public welfare purposes, not religious purposes. The Court reasoned that penal laws are construed strictly against the State, and the law did not expressly include religious solicitations. A concurring opinion further noted that soliciting for religious purposes involves religious fervor rather than charity, and requiring a permit could impose an unlawful prior restraint on religious exercise.

    Copyright:

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

    27) Digest - Centeno vs. Pernillos and People (G.R. No. 113092. September 01, 1994)

    Uploaded by

    Jane Maribojo
    The petitioner was charged with violating the Solicitation Permit Law by soliciting funds for the construction of a chapel without a permit. The trial court found the petitioner guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Solicitation Permit Law only covers solicitations made for charitable or public welfare purposes, not religious purposes. The Court reasoned that penal laws are construed strictly against the State, and the law did not expressly include religious solicitations. A concurring opinion further noted that soliciting for religious purposes involves religious fervor rather than charity, and requiring a permit could impose an unlawful prior restraint on religious exercise.

    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

    CASE #27 STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

    Centeno vs. Pernillos and People (G.R. No. 113092. September 01, 1994)

    MARTIN CENTENO, petitioner, 
    vs.
    HON. VICTORIA VILLALON-PORNILLOS, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of
    Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 10, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
    Santiago V. Marcos, Jr. for petitioner.
    Ponente: REGALADO J.

    FACTS:

    Respondent Judge filed a case against petitioner in violation of Presidential Decree No.
    1564, or the Solicitation Permit Law, before the Municipal Trial Court (criminal case).
    Petitioner filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the facts alleged therein
    do not constitute an offense, claiming that Presidential Decree No. 1564 only covers
    solicitations made for charitable or public welfare purposes, but not those made for a
    religious purpose such as the construction of a chapel. This was denied  by the trial court,
    and petitioner’s motion for reconsideration having met the same fate, trial on the merits
    ensued. Trial court found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The motion for
    reconsideration of the decision was denied by the court.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the phrase “charitable purposes” should be construed in its broadest sense so as to
    include a religious purpose.

    HELD:

    NO. Decision appealed was reversed and set aside. Petitioner was acquitted.

    RATIO:

    [S]olicitation for religious purposes may be subject to proper regulation by the State in the exercise of
    police power. However, in the case at bar, considering that solicitations intended for a religious
    purpose are not within the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 1564, as earlier demonstrated,
    petitioner cannot be held criminally liable therefor.
    [I]t is a well-entrenched rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly against the State and liberally
    in favor of the accused. They are not to be extended or enlarged by implications, intendments,
    analogies or equitable considerations.
    [I]t is an elementary rule of statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing, act,
    or consequence excludes all others. This rule is expressed in the familiar maxim “expressio unius est
    exclusio alterius.” Where a statute, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matters, it may not, by
    interpretation or construction, be extended to others. The rule proceeds from the premise that the
    legislature would not have made specified enumerations in a statute had the intention been not to
    restrict its meaning and to confine its terms to those expressly mentioned.

    SEPARATE OPINION:
    MENDOZA, concurring
    First. Solicitation of contributions for the construction of a church is not solicitation for “charitable or
    public welfare purpose” but for a religious purpose, and a religious purpose is not necessarily a
    charitable or public welfare purpose. A fund campaign for the construction or repair of a church is not
    like fund drives for needy families or victims of calamity or for the construction of a civic center and
    the like. Like solicitation of subscription to religious magazines, it is part of the propagation of
    religious faith or evangelization. Such solicitation calls upon the virtue of faith, not of charity, save as
    those solicited for money or aid may not belong to the same religion as the solicitor. Such solicitation
    does not engage the philantrophic as much as the religious fervor of the person who is solicited for
    contribution.

    Second. The purpose of the Decree is to protect the public against fraud in view of the proliferation of
    fund campaigns for charity and other civic projects. On the other hand, since religious fund drives are
    usually conducted among those belonging to the same religion, the need for public protection against
    fraudulent solicitations does not exist in as great a degree as does the need for protection with respect
    to solicitations for charity or civic projects so as to justify state regulation.

    Third. To require a government permit before solicitation for religious purpose may be
    allowed is to lay a prior restraint on the free exercise of religion. Such restraint, if followed,
    may well justify requiring a permit before a church can make Sunday collections or enforce
    tithing. But in American Bible Society v. City of Manila, we precisely held that an ordinance
    requiring payment of a license fee before one may engage in business could not be applied
    to the appellant’s sale of bibles because that would impose a condition on the exercise of a
    constitutional right. It is for the same reason that religious rallies are exempted from the
    requirement of prior permit for public assemblies and other uses of public parks and streets.

    You might also like