People v.

Concepcion Case Digest

People v. Concepcion G.R. No. 19190 (November 29, 1922) FACTS: Defendant authorized an extension of credit in favor of Concepcion, a copartnership. Defendants wife was a director of this co-partnership. Defendant was found guilty of violating Sec. 35 of Act No. 2747 which says that The National Bank shall not, directly or indirectly, grant loans to any of the members of the Board of Directors of the bank nor to agents of the branch banks. This Section was in effect in 1919 but was repealed in Act No. 2938 approved on January 30, 1921. ISSUE: W/N Defendant can be convicted of violating Sections of Act No. 2747, which were repealed by Act No. 2938. HELD: In the interpretation and construction, the primary rule is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature. Section 49 in relation to Sec. 25 of Act No. 2747 provides a punishment for any person who shall violate any provisions of the Act. Defendant contends that the repeal of these Sections by Act No. 2938 has served to take away basis for criminal prosecution. The Court holds that where an act of the Legislature which penalizes an offense repeals a former act which penalized the same offense, such repeal does not have the effect of thereafter depriving the Courts of jurisdiction to try, convict and sentence offenders charged with violations of the old law.

Case Digest: Primicias vs Municipality of Urdaneta

Facts: On February 8, 1965, Primicias was driving his car within the jurisdiction of Urdaneta when he was found violating Municipal Order 3, Series of 1964 for overtaking a truck. The Courts of First Instance decided that from the action initiated by Primicias, the Municipal Order was null and void and had been repealed by Republic Act 4136, the Land Transportation and Traffic Code Issues: 1. Whether or not Municipal Order 3 of Urdaneta is null and void 2. Whether or not the Municipal Order is not definite in its terms or ambiguous. Held: 1. Municipal Order 3 is null and void as there is an explicit repeal in RA 4136 and as per general rule, the later law prevails over an earlier law and any conflict between a municipal order and a national law must be ruled in favor of the statute. 2. Yes, the terms of Municipal Order 3 was ambiguous and not definite. Vehicular Traffic is not defined and no distinctions were made between cars, trucks, buses, etc. Appealed decision is therefore AFFIRMED.