Doctrine of Processual Presumption

This presumption in Philippine law is based on convenience, public policy and
necessity. It is derived from the Latin maxim “ignorantia legis neminem excusat.”

However, this rule only refers to the existence of a law, not to mistakes regarding
its application or interpretation.
In other words, every person in Philippine jurisdiction is presumed to know that a law
regarding a particular conduct exists, even though in reality, he has not read or even
heard about the the law before. If a person violates a law, even though in truth he does
not know that such law exists, such ignorance of its existence is not a valid legal
defense and will not excuse him from the legal consequences of the law’s violation.
However, if a person made a mistake borne out of a difficult question of law as to its
interpretation or application, such ignorance constitutes an excuse and is a valid legal
defense.
Whether a foreign national has an obligation to support his minor child under Philippine law.
The obligation to give support to a child is a matter that falls under family rights and duties. Since the
respondent is a citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we agree with the RTC-Cebu that he is subject
to the laws of his country, not to Philippine law, as to whether he is obliged to give support to his
child, as well as the consequences of his failure to do so.
However, in view of respondent’s failure to prove the national law of the Netherlands in his favor,
the doctrine of processual presumption shall govern.
Under this doctrine, if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will
presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law. Thus, since the law
of the Netherlands as regards the obligation to support has not been properly pleaded and proved in
the instant case, it is presumed to be the same with Philippine law, which enforces the obligation of
parents to support their children and penalizing the non-compliance therewith.
SC: Petition is granted.
Yes, the passage of Republic Act (RA) 10951 may be beneficial to your
mother. While laws shall have no retroactive effect, according to Article 4 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides:
“Article 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is
provided.”
There are exceptions to the same, one of which is the retroactive effect on
penal laws. Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides that penal
laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they are beneficial to the
accused, to wit:
“Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal laws shall have a
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is
not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this
code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has
been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.” (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of Martin Centeno vs. Victoria
Villalolin-Pornillos, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos,
Bulacan, Branch 10 and the People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 113092,
September 1, 1994), penned by former Associate Justice Florenz Regalado,

explained:
“It 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. They are not to be strained by construction to spell out a new
offense, enlarge the field of crime or multiply felonies. Hence, in the

interpretation of a penal statute, the tendency is to subject it to careful
scrutiny and to construe it with such strictness as to safeguard the rights of
the accused. If the statute is ambiguous and admits of two reasonable but
contradictory constructions, that which operates in favor of a party accused
under its provisions is to be preferred.”
Therefore, the application of RA 10951 may be given retroactive application
provided that your mother is not a habitual delinquent as defined by law.
Article 62 of the RPC provides:
“Article 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and of habitual delinquency. - Mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into account for the
purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the
following rules:
xxx
For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be a habitual
delinquent within a period of ten years from the date of his release or last
conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo,
hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third
time or oftener.” (Emphasis supplied)

The retroactivity of the law was further bolstered by the Supreme Court in the
case of Ophelia Hernan vs. The Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 217874, December
5, 2017), penned by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, wherein it is stated:
“Said recent legislation shall find application in cases where the imposable
penalties of the affected crimes such as theft, qualified theft, estafa, robbery
with force upon things, malicious mischief, malversation and such other
crimes, the penalty of which is dependent upon the value of the object in
consideration thereof, have been reduced, as in the case at hand, taking into
consideration the presence of existing circumstances attending its
commission. For as long as it is favorable to the accused, said recent
legislation shall find application regardless of whether its effectivity comes
after the time when the judgment of conviction is rendered and even if
service of sentence has already begun. The accused, in these applicable
instances, shall be entitled to the benefits of the new law warranting him to
serve a lesser sentence, or to his release, if he has already begun serving his
previous sentence, and said service already accomplishes the term of the
modified sentence.” (Emphasis supplied)
We find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts
you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary
when the facts are

Rights are vested when the right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become the property of
some particular person or persons as a present interest. The right must be absolute, complete and
unconditional, independent of a contingency, and a mere expectancy of future benefit, or a
contingent interest in property founded on anticipated continuance of existing laws, does not
constitute a vested right. So, inchoate rights which have not been acted on are not vested.

Doctrine of Processual Presumption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrine of Processual Presumption

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doctrine of Processual Presumption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This presumption in Philippine law is based on convenience, public policy and

necessity. It is derived from the Latin maxim “ignorantia legis neminem excusat.”

SC: Petition is granted.

mother. While laws shall have no retroactive effect, according to Article 4 of

the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides:

“Article 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is

“Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal laws shall have a

not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this

Villalolin-Pornillos, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos,

September 1, 1994), penned by former Associate Justice Florenz Regalado,

“It is a well-entrenched rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly

extended or enlarged by implications, intendments analogies or equitable

considerations. They are not to be strained by construction to spell out a new

offense, enlarge the field of crime or multiply felonies. Hence, in the

scrutiny and to construe it with such strictness as to safeguard the rights of

contradictory constructions, that which operates in favor of a party accused

under its provisions is to be preferred.”

Therefore, the application of RA 10951 may be given retroactive application

provided that your mother is not a habitual delinquent as defined by law.

Article 62 of the RPC provides:

“Article 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating

circumstances and of habitual delinquency. - Mitigating or aggravating

purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the

For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be a habitual

conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical injuries, robo,

hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third

time or oftener.” (Emphasis supplied)

5, 2017), penned by Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta, wherein it is stated:

consideration the presence of existing circumstances attending its

commission. For as long as it is favorable to the accused, said recent

legislation shall find application regardless of whether its effectivity comes

service of sentence has already begun. The accused, in these applicable

modified sentence.” (Emphasis supplied)

when the facts are

unconditional, independent of a contingency, and a mere expectancy of future benefit, or a

You might also like