Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 175 views

    People v. Jalosjos, (G.R. Nos. 132875-76) (February 3, 2000)

    Uploaded by

    Benedicto Pintor
    This document summarizes a court case, People v. Jalosjos. The accused, Romeo Jalosjos, a Congressman, was convicted of statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness but filed a motion to be allowed to continue his congressional duties while appealing his conviction. The court ruled against Jalosjos, finding that while the Constitution ensures equal protection of laws, political position is not a valid basis for exemption from criminal law obligations. Being a public official does not remove one from the class of validly detained prisoners. Duties of office are not grounds to free someone legally imprisoned.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Jalosjos, (G.R. Nos. 132875-76) (February 3, 2000)

    Uploaded by

    Benedicto Pintor
    175 views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case, People v. Jalosjos. The accused, Romeo Jalosjos, a Congressman, was convicted of statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness but filed a motion to be allowed to continue his congressional duties while appealing his conviction. The court ruled against Jalosjos, finding that while the Constitution ensures equal protection of laws, political position is not a valid basis for exemption from criminal law obligations. Being a public official does not remove one from the class of validly detained prisoners. Duties of office are not grounds to free someone legally imprisoned.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    140. People v. Jalosjos, (G.R. Nos. 132875-76) (February 3, 2000)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case, People v. Jalosjos. The accused, Romeo Jalosjos, a Congressman, was convicted of statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness but filed a motion to be allowed to continue his congressional duties while appealing his conviction. The court ruled against Jalosjos, finding that while the Constitution ensures equal protection of laws, political position is not a valid basis for exemption from criminal law obligations. Being a public official does not remove one from the class of validly detained prisoners. Duties of office are not grounds to free someone legally imprisoned.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    175 views1 page

    People v. Jalosjos, (G.R. Nos. 132875-76) (February 3, 2000)

    Uploaded by

    Benedicto Pintor
    This document summarizes a court case, People v. Jalosjos. The accused, Romeo Jalosjos, a Congressman, was convicted of statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness but filed a motion to be allowed to continue his congressional duties while appealing his conviction. The court ruled against Jalosjos, finding that while the Constitution ensures equal protection of laws, political position is not a valid basis for exemption from criminal law obligations. Being a public official does not remove one from the class of validly detained prisoners. Duties of office are not grounds to free someone legally imprisoned.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    People v.

    Jalosjos,
    G.R. Nos. 132875-76, February 3, 2000

    Facts:
    The accused-appellant, Romeo G. Jalosjos is a full-fledged member of Congress who is
    now confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape on two counts
    and acts of lasciviousness on six counts is pending appeal. The accused-appellant filed this
    motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a Congressman, including
    attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his having been convicted in
    the first instance of a non-bailable offense.

    Issue:
    Whether or not being a Congressman is a substantial differentiation which removes the
    accused-appellant as a prisoner from the same class as all persons validly confined under law by
    reason of the “mandate of the sovereign will”.

    Ruling:
    NO. While the Constitution ensures: "x x x nor shall any person be denied the equal
    protection of laws”. This essentially implies all people comparably arranged will be dealt with
    the same both in rights appreciated and obligations forced. The obligations forced by the "order
    of the individuals" are diverse. The Court can't approve identifications of disparity. The
    necessities forced by open government assistance may legitimize exercise of government power
    to control regardless of whether consequently certain gatherings may conceivably attest that their
    advantages are ignored. Here, political race to the situation of Congressman is certainly not a
    sensible arrangement in criminal law requirement. The capacities and obligations of the
    workplace are not considerable qualifications which lift him from the class of detainees hindered
    in their opportunity and confined in freedom of development. Legal capture and imprisonment
    are relevant to the motivations behind the law and apply to each one of those having a place with
    a similar class. Thus, the exhibition of genuine and even basic obligations by open officials has
    never been a reason to free an individual legitimately in jail.

    You might also like