RSS

Republic of the Philippines vs. Hon. Migrinio and Troadio Tecson [G.R. No. 89483. August 30, 1990]

15 Aug

Ponente: CORTES, J.

FACTS:

The New Armed Forces Anti-Graft Board (Board) under the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) recommended that private respondent Lt. Col. Troadio Tecson (ret.) be prosecuted and tried for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019, as amended, and Rep. Act No. 1379, as amended.  Private respondent moved to dismiss. The Board opposed. Private respondent filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction with the Regional Trial Court in Pasig, Metro Manila.  According to petitioners, the PCGG has the power to investigate and cause the prosecution of private respondent because he is a “subordinate” of former President Marcos. Respondent alleged that he is not one of the subordinates contemplated in Executive Orders 1, 2, 14 and 14-A as the alleged illegal acts being imputed to him, that of alleged amassing wealth beyond his legal means while Finance Officer of the Philippine Constabulary, are acts of his own alone, not connected with his being a crony, business associate, etc. or subordinate as the petition does not allege so.  Hence the PCGG has no jurisdiction to investigate him.

ISSUE:

Whether or not private respondent acted as a “subordinate” under E.O. No.1 and related executive orders.

HELD:

NO. Civil Case decision dismissed and nullified. TRO was made permanent.

RATIO:

Applying the rule in statutory construction known as ejusdem generis, that is – [w]here general words follow an enumeration of persons or things, by words of a particular and specific meaning, such general words are not to be construed in their widest extent, but are to be held as applying only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned. The term “subordinate” as used in E.O. Nos. 1 and 2 would refer to one who enjoys a close association or relation with former Pres. Marcos and/or his wife, similar to the immediate family member, relative, and close associate in E.O. No. 1 and the close relative, business associate, dummy, agent, or nominee in E.O. No. 2.

The PCGG is ENJOINED from proceeding with the investigation and prosecution of private respondent, without prejudice to his investigation and prosecution by the appropriate prosecution agency.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 15, 2012 in Case Digests, Statutory Construction

 

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: