Ex-post fact law
VALEROSA VS PEOPLE
FACTS: This is a case where a statute was
allowed by the Court to be imposed on the
accused when found guilty.
In July 1996, petitioner Sr. Insp. Jerry C.
Valeroso was arrested by members of the
CIDG for kidnapping with ransom. A firearm
was found in his possession and upon
verification, it was discovered that it was not
issued to petitioner but to a certain Raul
Palencia. Petitioner was then charged with
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition
under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, as
amended, the governing law at that time. The
trial court found him guilty as charged.
However, at the time of conviction, RA No.
8294 amended PD No. 1866 on July 6, 1997.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was to serve
the penalty prescribed under the amending
law or under PD 1866 which was the
governing law when the offense was
committed.
RULING: The Court held that:
“As a general rule, penal laws should not
have retroactive application, lest they acquire
the character of an ex post facto law. An
exception to this rule, however, is when the
law is advantageous to the accused. According
to Mr. Chief Justice Araullo, this is "not as a
right" of the offender, "but founded on the
very principles on which the right of the State
to punish and the commination of the penalty
are based, and regards it not as an exception
based on political considerations, but as a rule
founded on principles of strict justice."
Although an additional fine of P15,000.00
is imposed by R.A. No. 8294, the same is still
advantageous to the accused, considering that
the imprisonment is lowered to prision
correccional in its maximum period from
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
reclusion perpetua under P.D. No. 1866.