People

v Delantar the provision all denote a legal relationship.

G.R. No. 169143 | February 2, 2007 From this description we may safely deduce that
J. Tinga the guardian envisioned by law is a person who
has a legal relationship with a ward. This
FACTS relationship may be established either by being
In August 1996, accused Simplicio Delantar was the ward’s biological parent (natural guardian)
indicted for violating RA 7610 for selling in or by adoption (legal guardian). Appellant is
prostitution his putative daughter, AAA, to an neither AAA’s biological parent nor is he AAA’s
Arab national and for pimping and delivering adoptive father. Clearly, appellant is not the
AAA, who was then 11 years of age to "guardian" contemplated by law.
Congressman Jalosjos. He entered a plea of not
guilty and trial proceeded in due course. The San Pablo Manufacturing Corp v CIR
RTC found accused guilty, for two counts, of GR. No 147749 | June 22, 2006
violation of RA 7610. The CA upheld the decision J. Corona
except that the appellate court ruled Delantar
should be convicted for one count only. The case FACTS
reached the SC where accused appellant decried San Pablo Manufacturing Corporation (SPMC) is
the imposition of the maximum penalty when in a domestic corporation engaged in the business
fact there was no showing of the qualifying of milling, manufacturing and exporting of
circumstance of filial relationship between him coconut oil and other allied products. It was
and AAA. assessed and ordered to pay by the
ISSUE Commissioner of Internal Revenue miller’s tax
WON there is a filial relationship between and manufacturer’s sales tax, among other
Delantar and AAA deficiency taxes, for taxable year 1987
HELD particularly on SPMC’s sales of crude oil to
No. The SC held that the birth certificate of AAA, United Coconut Chemicals, Inc. (UNICHEM)
which did not contained Delantar’s signature, is while the deficiency sales tax was applied on its
prima facie evidence only of the fact of her birth sales of corn and edible oil as manufactured
and not of her relation to appellant. After all, it is products. SPMC opposed the assessments. The
undisputed that appellant is not AAA’s biological Commissioner denied its protest. SPMC appealed
father. Further, according to the maxim noscitur the denial of its protest to the Court of Tax
a sociis, the correct construction of a word or Appeals (CTA) by way of a petition for review.
phrase susceptible of various meanings may be docketed as CTA Case No. 5423. It insists on the
made clear and specific by considering the liberal application of the rules because, on the
company of words in which it is found or with merits of the petition, SPMC was not liable for
which it the 3% miller’s tax. It maintains that the crude
is associated 87 Section 31(c) of R.A. No. 7610 oil which it sold to UNICHEM was actually
contains a listing of the circumstances of exported by UNICHEM as an ingredient of fatty
relationship between the perpetrator and the acid and glycerine, hence, not subject to miller’s
victim which will justify the imposition of the tax pursuant to Section 168 of the 1987 Tax
maximum penalty, namely when the perpetrator Code. Since UNICHEM, the buyer of SPMC’s
is an "ascendant, parent, guardian, stepparent or milled products, subsequently exported said
collateral relative within the second degree of products, SPMC should be exempted from the
consanguinity or affinity." It should be noted that miller’s tax.
the words with which "guardian" is associated in
 ISSUE 1, 1963. It was denied. On July 13, 1963, the
Whether or not SPMC’s sale of crude coconut oil lower court sent a denial order to the counsel
to UNICHEM was subject to the 3% miller’s task. through his wife via registered mail. On
HELD September 10, 1963, the said counsel appealed
Yes. The language of the exempting clause of the lower court’s decision. Then, the appellees
Section 168 of the 1987 Tax Code was clear. The argued that the appeal should be dismissed
tax exemption applied only to the exportation of contending that the appeal should have been
rope, coconut oil, palm oil, copra by-products made up to July 24, 1963 which is the 15 day
and dessicated coconuts, whether in their period of appeal from the date of notice and not
original state or as an ingredient or part of any from the date of promulgation. Thus, the
manufactured article or products, by the appellees claimed that the appeal was filed 47
proprietor or operator of the factory or by the days late.
miller himself. Where the law enumerates the ISSUE
subject or condition upon which it applies, it is Whether the 15-day period should commence
to be construed as excluding from its effects all from the date of promulgation or from the date
those not expressly mentioned. Expressio unius of notice of the decision.
est exclusio alterius. Anything that is not HELD
included in the enumeration is excluded No. The 15-day period should commence from
therefrom and a meaning that does not appear the date of promulgation. Rule 122 of the Rules
nor is intended or reflected in the very language of Court provides, “an appeal must be taken
of the statute cannot be placed therein. The rule within fifteen (15) days from promulgation or
proceeds from the premise that the legislature notice of the judgment or order appealed from.
would not have made specific enumerations in a This period for perfecting an appeal shall be
statute if it had the intention not to restrict its interrupted from the time a motion for new trial
meaning and confine its terms to those expressly is filed until notice of the order overruling the
mentioned. The rule of expressio unius est motion shall have been served upon the defendant
exclusio alterius is a canon of restrictive or his attorney.” The assumption that the fifteen-
interpretation. Its application in this case is day period should be counted from February 25,
consistent with the construction of tax 1963, when a copy of the decision was allegedly
exemptions in strictissimi juris against the served on appellant's counsel by registered mail,
taxpayer. To allow SPMC’s claim for tax is not well-taken. The word "promulgation" in
exemption will violate these established section 6 should be construed as referring to
principles and unduly derogate sovereign "judgment" while the word "notice" should be
authority. construed as referring to "order". That
construction is sanctioned by the rule of
People v Tamani reddendo singula singulis: "referring each to
GR Nos. L-22160-61 | January 31, 1974 each; referring each phrase or expression to its
J. Aquino appropriate object", or "let each be put in its
proper place, that is, the words should be taken
FACTS distributively". Therefore, when the order
On February 14, 1963, the lower court found denying appellant's motion for reconsideration
Tamani guilty of consummated and attempted was served by registered mail on July 13th on
murder. On February 25, 1963, Tamani’s counsel appellant's counsel, he had only 1 day within
received a copy of the decision and consequently which to file his notice of appeal and not 11
filed for a motion for reconsideration on March days. Appellant Tamani's notice of appeal, filed
on September 10, 1963, was 58 days late.