GR 32485 Villamor

🔍

↵

⚖️ CASE INTELLIGENCE

📌 CORE DOCTRINE

“The concurring opinion in G.R. No. L-32485 affirms that the law in question is not an ex post facto law, which prohibits retroactive criminal legislation that disadvantages the accused.”

💡 PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

This case involves a judge agreeing that the law being challenged does not unfairly punish people for actions that were legal when they did them. However, the judge disagrees with other parts of the court's decision about how the law should be applied.

📜 LEGAL MAXIM

Nulla poena sine lege | Ex post facto

VERIFIED AI SNAPSHOT FOR ARMZTRONG.ORG

G.R. No. L-32485 – Concurring Opinion

G.R. No. L-32485, October 22, 1970,

♦ Decision, Makasiar, [J]

♦ Concurring Opinion, Fernando, [J]

♦ Concurring Opinion, Villamor, [J]

♦ Dissenting Opinion, Barredo, [J]

♦ Dissenting Opinion, Teehankee, [J]

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-32485 October 22, 1970

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE DECLARATION OF THE PETITIONER’S RIGHTS AND DUTIES UNDER SEC. 8 OF R.A. No. 6132.

KAY VILLEGAS KAMI, INC., petitioner.

Separate Opinions

VILLAMOR, J., concurring:

Concurs in the sense that the law is declared not ex post facto law and dissents as to the rest.

Batas Pinas
_________________________________