Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Provisos, Exceptions, and Saving Clauses

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Ugalino
    176 views4 pages
    1. Provisos, exceptions, and saving clauses qualify or modify the effects of laws by restraining or limiting the generality of preceding clauses. 2. The general rule is that a proviso only qualifies the phrase immediately preceding it, unless clear legislative intent indicates it should qualify earlier provisions. 3. Repeal of a penal law deprives courts of authority to punish violations of the old law, unless the new law contains a saving clause expressly providing that repeal does not affect pending actions for violations of the old law.

    Original Description:

    Stat Con

    Original Title

    PROVISOS, EXCEPTIONS, AND SAVING CLAUSES

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. Provisos, exceptions, and saving clauses qualify or modify the effects of laws by restraining or limiting the generality of preceding clauses. 2. The general rule is that a proviso only qualifies the phrase immediately preceding it, unless clear legislative intent indicates it should qualify earlier provisions. 3. Repeal of a penal law deprives courts of authority to punish violations of the old law, unless the new law contains a saving clause expressly providing that repeal does not affect pending actions for violations of the old law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    176 views4 pages

    Provisos, Exceptions, and Saving Clauses

    Uploaded by

    Jonathan Ugalino
    1. Provisos, exceptions, and saving clauses qualify or modify the effects of laws by restraining or limiting the generality of preceding clauses. 2. The general rule is that a proviso only qualifies the phrase immediately preceding it, unless clear legislative intent indicates it should qualify earlier provisions. 3. Repeal of a penal law deprives courts of authority to punish violations of the old law, unless the new law contains a saving clause expressly providing that repeal does not affect pending actions for violations of the old law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    PROVISOS, EXCEPTIONS, AND SAVING CLAUSES

    Provisos, Exceptions and Saving Clauses have the same effect. They qualify the
    effects of laws.
    The general rule is that the office of a proviso is to qualify or modify only the
    phrase immediately preceding it or restrain or limit the generality of the clause that
    it immediately follows. Thus, it has been held that a proviso is to be construed with
    reference to the immediately preceding part of the provision to which it is attached,
    and not to the statute itself or to other sections thereof. The only exception to this
    rule is where the clear legislative intent is to restrain or qualify not only the phrase
    immediately preceding it (the proviso) but also earlier provisions of the statute or
    even the statute itself as a whole.

    ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. CA, GR No. 125359, 2001-09-04


    Facts:
    On December 27, 1991, Mrs. Imelda Marcos and Messrs. Benedicto and Rivera were
    indicted for violation of Section 10 of Circular No. 960[1] in relation to Section
    34[2] of the Central Bank Act (Republic Act No. 265, as amended) in five
    Informations filed with the Regional Trial Court of Manila.
    That same day, nine additional Informations charging Mrs. Marcos and Benedicto
    with the same offense, but involving different accounts,... l
    On January 3, 1992, eleven more Informations accusing Mrs. Marcos and Benedicto
    of the same offense, again in relation to different accounts, were filed with the
    same court
    On the same day that Criminal Cases Nos. 92-101959 to 92-101969 were filed, the
    Central Bank issued Circular No. 1318[5] which revised the rules governing non-
    trade foreign exchange transactions. It took effect on January 20, 1992.
    On September 19, 1993, the government allowed petitioners Benedicto and Rivera
    to return to the Philippines, on condition that they face the various criminal charges
    instituted against them, including the dollar-salting cases. Petitioners posted bail in
    the latter cases.
    On February 28, 1994, petitioners Benedicto and Rivera were arraigned. Both
    pleaded not guilty to the charges of violating Central Bank Circular No. 960. Mrs.
    Marcos had earlier entered a similar plea during her arraignment for the same
    offense on February 12, 1992.
    On August 11, 1994, petitioners moved to quash all the Informations filed against
    them
    On September 6, 1994, the trial court denied petitioners' motion.
    On November 21, 1994, petitioners moved for leave to file a second motion for
    reconsideration. The trial court, in its order of November 23, 1994, denied
    petitioners' motion and set the consolidated cases for trial on January 5, 1995.
    The assailed
    September 6, 1994 Order, in so far as it denied the Motion to Quash Criminal Case
    No. 91-101884 is hereby nullified and set aside, and said case is hereby dismissed.
    Costs against petitioners.
    1. Allowed to return to the Philippines on September 19, 1993...on the condition
    that he face the criminal charges pending in courts, petitioner-appellant
    Benedicto, joined by his co-petitioner Rivera, lost no time in attending to the
    pending criminal charges by... posting bail in the above-mentioned cases.
    2. Not having been afforded a real opportunity of attending the preliminary
    investigation because of their forced absence from the Philippines then,
    petitioners-appellants invoked their right to due process thru motions for
    preliminary investigation
    3. Thus, instead of remanding the Informations to the Department of
    Justice...respondent Judge set the case for pre-trial in order to afford all the
    accused access to the records of the prosecution.
    In the instant case, it must be noted that despite the repeal of Circular No. 960,
    Circular No. 1353 retained the same reportorial requirement for residents receiving
    earnings or profits from non-trade foreign exchange transactions.[26]
    In the instant case, it must be noted that despite the repeal of Circular No. 960,
    Circular No. 1353 retained the same reportorial requirement for residents receiving
    earnings or profits from non-trade foreign exchange transactions.[26] Second, even
    the... most cursory glance at the repealing circulars, Circular Nos. 1318 and 1353
    shows that both contain a saving clause, expressly providing that the repeal of
    Circular No. 960 shall have no effect on pending actions for violation of the latter
    Circular.
    Issues:
    the charge sheets alleged that the trio failed to submit reports of their foreign
    exchange earnings from abroad and/or failed to register with the Foreign Exchange
    Department of the Central Bank within the period mandated by Circular No. 960.
    On the first issue, petitioners assail the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.
    They aver that the dollar-salting charges filed against them were violations of the
    Anti-Graft Law or Republic Act No. 3019, and the Sandiganbayan has original and
    exclusive... jurisdiction over their cases.
    first issue, petitioners next contend that the filing of the cases for violations of
    Circular No. 960 before the RTC of Manila constitutes forum shopping.
    With respect to the RTC cases, the receipt of the interest earnings violate Circular
    No. 960 in relation to Republic Act No. 265 because the same was unreported to
    the Central Bank. The act to be penalized here is the failure to report the interest
    earnings from the foreign... exchange accounts to the proper authority.
    on the first issue, petitioners contend that the preliminary investigation by the
    Department of Justice was invalid and in violation of their rights to due process.

    5. On the basis of disclosures at the pre-trial, the petitioners-appellants


    Benedicto and Rivera moved for the quashing of the informations/cases...

    On the second issue, petitioners contend that they are being prosecuted for acts
    punishable under laws that have already been repealed.
    Petitioners, however, insist that the repeal of Republic Act No. 265, particularly
    Section 34,[29] by Republic Act No. 7653, removed the applicability of any penal
    sanction for violations of any non-trade foreign exchange transactions previously
    penalized... by Circular No. 960.
    Petitioners, however, point out that Section 36 of Republic Act No. 7653, in
    reenacting Section 34 of the old Central Act, increased the penalty for violations of
    rules and regulations issued by the Monetary Board. They claim that such increase
    in the penalty would give Republic
    Act No. 7653 an ex post facto application, violating the Bill of Rights.[
    On the third issue, petitioners ask us to note that the dollar interest earnings
    subject of the criminal cases instituted against them were remitted to foreign banks
    on various dates between 1983 to 1987.
    The fourth issue involves petitioners' claim that they incurred no criminal liability for
    violations of Circular No. 960 since they were exempted from its coverage.
    Philippine courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws.[53] Laws of foreign
    jurisdictions must be alleged and proved.
    Anent the fifth issue, petitioners insist that the government granted them absolute
    immunity under the Compromise Agreement they entered into with the government
    on November 3, 1990.
    Ruling:
    As a rule, an absolute repeal of a penal law has the effect of depriving a court of its
    authority to punish a person charged with violation of the old law prior to its repeal.
    Penal laws cannot be given retroactive effect, except when they are favorable to
    the accused.[39] Nowhere in Republic Act No. 7653, and in... particular Section 36,
    is there any indication that the increased penalties provided therein were intended
    to operate retroactively. There is, therefore, no ex post facto law in this case.
    The offenses for which petitioners are charged are penalized by Section 34 of
    Republic Act No. 265 "by a fine of not more than Twenty Thousand Pesos
    (P20,000.00) and by imprisonment of not more than five years."
    During the pendency of this petition, counsel for petitioner Roberto S. Benedicto
    gave formal notice to the Court that said petitioner died on May 15, 2000. The
    death of an accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability as well
    as the... civil liability based solely thereon.
    Principles:
    A comparison of the old Central Bank Act and the new Bangko Sentral's charter
    repealing the former show that in consonance with the general objective of the old
    law and the new law "to maintain internal and external monetary stability in the
    Philippines and preserve the... international value of the peso
    In construing contracts, it is important to ascertain the intent of the parties by
    looking at the words employed to project their intention.

    You might also like