August 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > August 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 172889 : August 05, 2008] JOSE MA. JAVELLANA V. COURT OF APPEALS :
[G.R. No. 172889 : August 05, 2008]
JOSE MA. JAVELLANA V. COURT OF APPEALS
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated August 5, 2008
�G.R. No. 172889 (Jose Ma. Javellana v. Court of Appeals). � Petitioner, being the president of Marpaz Agricultural Development Corporation, failed to pay the company�s Social Security Service premium contributions. A criminal complaint for violation of Section 22 (a) in relation to Section 28(e) and (f) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1161, was amended by R.A. No. 8282, otherwise known as the Social Security Act, was field against him before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, in Bacolod City.
After arraignment and before trial, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that the facts alleged do not constitute an offense because the law is unconstitutional. Ruling that the issue of constitutionality is not proper ground for a motion to quash, and that it should have been field before a plea was entered as prescribed by the rules, the RTC denied the motion.[1] In denying petitioner�s motion for reconsideration, the RTC upheld the constitutionality of the law.[2]
The Court of Appeals (CA) in its Decision dated July 1, 2003 found petitioner�s appeal to have no merit and denied it due course. Petitioner�s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.[3]
We find no reversible error in the appealed decision. Rule 117 expressly provides that a motion to quash should be filed before the accused enters his plea. From the records, it is clear that the petitioner filed the motion to quash after his arraignment; and the ground he cited is not one of the enumerated grounds in Rule 117.
Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. Those who petition to declare a law unconstitutional must overcome this presumption with solid basis.[4] as found by both the RTC and CA, petitioner failed to overturn this presumption in favor of the Social Security Act.
ACCORDINGLY, acting on the petitioner for review by certiorari, the petition is DENIED.�
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
�G.R. No. 172889 (Jose Ma. Javellana v. Court of Appeals). � Petitioner, being the president of Marpaz Agricultural Development Corporation, failed to pay the company�s Social Security Service premium contributions. A criminal complaint for violation of Section 22 (a) in relation to Section 28(e) and (f) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1161, was amended by R.A. No. 8282, otherwise known as the Social Security Act, was field against him before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 41, in Bacolod City.
After arraignment and before trial, petitioner filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the ground that the facts alleged do not constitute an offense because the law is unconstitutional. Ruling that the issue of constitutionality is not proper ground for a motion to quash, and that it should have been field before a plea was entered as prescribed by the rules, the RTC denied the motion.[1] In denying petitioner�s motion for reconsideration, the RTC upheld the constitutionality of the law.[2]
The Court of Appeals (CA) in its Decision dated July 1, 2003 found petitioner�s appeal to have no merit and denied it due course. Petitioner�s motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.[3]
We find no reversible error in the appealed decision. Rule 117 expressly provides that a motion to quash should be filed before the accused enters his plea. From the records, it is clear that the petitioner filed the motion to quash after his arraignment; and the ground he cited is not one of the enumerated grounds in Rule 117.
Every law has in its favor the presumption of constitutionality. Those who petition to declare a law unconstitutional must overcome this presumption with solid basis.[4] as found by both the RTC and CA, petitioner failed to overturn this presumption in favor of the Social Security Act.
ACCORDINGLY, acting on the petitioner for review by certiorari, the petition is DENIED.�
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Order dated March 5, 2002
[2] Resolution dated May 10,2002
[3] Resolution dated April 25, 2006
[4] Abbas v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 89631. November 19, 1989, 179 SCRA 287.