Prospective Application of Laws ( Art 4)

1. Exception
-provided in the law itself
-procedural law
-penal law if favourable to the accused but not delinquent (10 yrs
not consecutive 3 times)
-curative and repealing statutes
-creating new rights
-tax statutes
-interpretative statutes

2. Exception to the Exception

- Expost facto laws
-penal laws not favourable to the accused
- substantive laws impairing vested rights
VALEROSO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES GR
164815 February 22, 2008
(focusing on PROSPECTIVITY)
Petitioner: PSINSP JERRY C VALEROSO
Respondent: The People of the Philippines

FACTS:
On July 10, 1996, SPO2 Antonio Disuanco of the Criminal
Investigation Section Division, Central Police District Command
received a dispatch order which directed him and three (3) other
personnel to serve a warrant of arrest against petitioner in a case for
kidnapping with ransom. After briefing, team conducted necessary
surveillance on petitioner, checking his hideouts in Cavite, Caloocan
and Bulacan. Then, the team proceeded to the Integrated National
Police Central Station in Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw
petitioner as he was about to board a tricycle. SPO2 Disuanco and
his team approached petitioner. They put him under arrest, informed
him of his constitutional rights, and bodily searched him. Found
tucked in his waist was a Charter Arms, bearing Serial Number
52315 with five (5) live ammunition.

Petitioner was brought to the police station for questioning. A

verification of the subject firearm at the Firearms and Explosives
Division at Camp Crame revealed that it was not issued to the
 petitioner but to another person. Petitioner was then charged with
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under PD No. 1866 as
amended.

On May 6, 1998 trial court found petitionerguilty as charged and

sentenced him to suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum plus fine. Petitioner moved to reconsider but his motion
was denied. He appealed to the CA. On May 4, 2004, the appellate
court affirmed the RTC disposition.

SC affirmed CAs decision.

ISSUE:
(1) Whether or not retroactive application of the law is valid taken into
account that the commission of the offense was on July 10, 1996
wherein the governing law was PD 1866 which provides the penalty
of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.

HELD:
(1) YES. RA 8294 amended PD 1866 on July 6, 1997, during the
pendency of the case with the trial court. The law looks forward,
never backward (prospectivity).Lex prospicit, non respicit. A new law
has a prospective, not retroactive, effect. However, penal laws that
favor a guilty person, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be given
retroactive effect.(Exception and exception to the exception on
effectivity of laws).