Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
First enacted in 1930, it remains in effect today, despite several amendments thereto. It does not comprise a comprehensive compendium of all Philippine penal laws. The Revised Penal Code itself was enacted as Act No. 3815, and some Philippine criminal laws have been enacted outside of the Revised Penal Code as separate Republic Acts.
The National Internal Revenue Code is the law establishing the system of national taxation in the Philippines. The most recent extensive revision of the Code occurred in 1997, although the Code was amended in 2005 to expand the coverage and rates of value-added tax .
Republic Act No. 386, the Civil Code of the Philippines (1949). Act No. 3815, the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (1930). The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code: Criminal Law 20 (1998, 14th ed.). Antonio L. Gregorio, Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review 50-51 (1997).
From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed).This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.
For the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law), four things are to be discerned and considered: 1st. What was the common law before the making of the Act. 2nd. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide. 3rd.
In some states, the elements of many crimes are defined mostly or entirely by common law, i.e., by prior judicial decisions. For instance, Michigan's penal code does not define the crime of murder: while the penalties for murder are laid out in statute, the actual elements of murder, and their meaning, is entirely set out in case law. [9] [10] [11]
[12] During oral arguments for the 2016 case, Lockhart v. United States, [13] Justice Antonin Scalia sua sponte raised the question of the rule's application: "...what I worry about is the rule of lenity. You have these dueling canons, and you have a rule that when the government sends somebody to jail for 10 years, it has to cross sharp corners.
There has been calls to repeal the offending religious feelings provision from the Revised Penal Code. It has been argued that it is unconstitutional contrary to the 1987 Constitution's non-establishment clause stating "no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." [1] [8]