Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 548 views

    Centeno Vs VIllalon

    Uploaded by

    Russ Tuazon
    The case discusses whether soliciting funds for religious purposes requires a permit under Philippine law. It analyzes the law and determines that 'religious purpose' is not interchangeable with 'charitable purpose' in the law, so a permit would be required for soliciting funds for religious purposes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Centeno Vs VIllalon

    Uploaded by

    Russ Tuazon
    548 views2 pages
    The case discusses whether soliciting funds for religious purposes requires a permit under Philippine law. It analyzes the law and determines that 'religious purpose' is not interchangeable with 'charitable purpose' in the law, so a permit would be required for soliciting funds for religious purposes.

    Original Description:

    cv

    Original Title

    Centeno vs VIllalon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case discusses whether soliciting funds for religious purposes requires a permit under Philippine law. It analyzes the law and determines that 'religious purpose' is not interchangeable with 'charitable purpose' in the law, so a permit would be required for soliciting funds for religious purposes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    548 views2 pages

    Centeno Vs VIllalon

    Uploaded by

    Russ Tuazon
    The case discusses whether soliciting funds for religious purposes requires a permit under Philippine law. It analyzes the law and determines that 'religious purpose' is not interchangeable with 'charitable purpose' in the law, so a permit would be required for soliciting funds for religious purposes.

    Copyright:

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

    Centeno Vs VIllalon

    G.R. No. 113092 September 1, 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.

    FACTS : In the last quarter of 1985, the officers of a civic organization known as
    the Samahang Katandaan ng Nayon ng Tikay launched a fund drive for the
    purpose of renovating the chapel of Barrio Tikay, Malolos, Bulacan. Petitioner
    Martin Centeno, the chairman of the group, together with Vicente Yco,
    approached Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, a resident of Tikay, and solicited from
    her a contribution of P1,500.00. It is admitted that the solicitation was made
    without a permit from the Department of Social Welfare and Development As a
    consequence, based on the complaint of Judge Angeles, an information was filed
    against petitioner Martin Centeno, together with Religio Evaristo and Vicente Yco,
    for violation of Presidential Decree No. 1564, or the Solicitation Permit Law,
    before the Municipal Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch and docketed as
    Criminal Case No. 2602 On December 29, 1992, the said trial court rendered
    judgment finding accused Vicente Yco and petitioner Centeno guilty beyond
    reasonable doubt and sentencing them to each pay a fine of P200.00

    ISSUE : WON charitable purposes can be construed in its broadest sense so as to


    include a religious purpose

    HELD : Indeed, it 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 All contributions designed to promote the work of
    the church are "charitable" in nature, since religious activities depend for their
    support on voluntary contributions. However, "religious purpose" is not
    interchangeable with the expression "charitable purpose Accordingly, the term
    "charitable" should be strictly construed so as to exclude solicitations for
    "religious" purposes. Thereby, we adhere to the fundamental doctrine underlying
    virtually all penal legislations that such interpretation should be adopted as would
    favor the accused It does not follow, therefore from the constitutional guaranties
    of the free exercise of religion that everything which may be so called can be
    tolerated. It has been said that a law advancing a legitimate governmental
    interest is not necessarily invalid as one interfering with the "free exercise" of
    religion merely because it also incidentally has a detrimental effect on the
    adherents of one or more religion. Thus, the general regulation, in the public
    interest, of solicitation, which does not involve any religious test and does not
    unreasonably obstruct or delay the collection of funds, is not open to any
    constitutional objection, even though the collection be for a religious purpose.
    Such regulation would not constitute a prohibited previous restraint on the free
    exercise of religion or interpose an inadmissible obstacle to its exercise

    You might also like