• __
- The sovereign, in enacting a subsequent penal law
more favorable to the accused, has recognized that
the greater severity of the former law is unjust.
- The sovereign would be inconsistent if it would still
enforce its right under conditions of the former law,
which has already been regarded by conscientious
public opinion as juridically burdensome. (People vs.
Moran, 44 Phil. 387, 414)
- RULE [ARTICLE 22 APPLICABLE]: even if the accused is already
serving sentence
- The provision of Art. 22 that penal laws shall have a
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty
of a felony is applicable even if the accused is already
serving sentence. (Escalante vs. Santos, 56 Phil. 483,
485)
- RULE [ARTICLE 22 APPLICABLE ONLY]: In order that a
subsequent statute may have a retroactive effect, it must in the
first place refer to the same deed or omission penalized by the
former statute and must seek the same end and purpose. (U.S.
vs. Macasaet, 11 Phil. 447, 449)
- RULE [ARTICLE 22 APPLICABLE]: Also applicable to SPECIAL
LAWS
- RULE [ARTICLE 22 APPLICABLE] [IF ABSOLUTE REPEAL] [CRIMINAL
LIABILITY EXTINGUISHED]
- ABSOLUTE REPEAL: People vs. Tamayo (61 Phil. 226)
- On the other hand, in the Tamayo case, the
repeal (completely eliminating Section 2 of
the Ordinance under which the accused was
being prosecuted) was absolute.
- Held: A person cannot be prosecuted,
convicted, and punished for acts no longer
criminal. The case was dismissed.
- REENACTMENT: When the repeal is by reenactment,
the court has jurisdiction to try and punish an accused
person under the old law. (U.S. vs. Cuna, 12 Phil. 241,
247)
- Criminal liability under former law is obliterated when
the repeal is absolute.
- RULE [ARTICLE 22 NOT APPLICABLE] [IF IMPLIED REPEAL?] [OR IF
REPEAL BY REENACTMENT] [CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF THE REPEALED
LAW SUBSISTS]
- Art. 366. Application of laws enacted prior to this Code.
Without prejudice to the provisions contained in Art. 22
of this Code, felonies and misdemeanors committed
prior to the date of effectiveness of this Code shall be
punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in force
at the time of their commission.
- IMPLIED REPEAL: These two articles mean that while
felonies and misdemeanors committed prior to the
date of effectiveness of the Revised Penal Code shall
be punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in
force at the time of their commission, the same should
not be the case if such Code or Acts are unfavorable
to the guilty party, for the general principle on the
retroactivity of favorable penal laws, recognized in Art.
22, should then apply. Lagrimas vs. Director of Prisons
(57 Phil. 249)
- REPEAL BY REENACTMENT: When the repeal is by
reenactment, the court has jurisdiction to try and
punish an accused person under the old law. (U.S. vs.
Cuna, 12 Phil. 241, 247)
- [SAVING CLAUSE] ]When there is a saving clause. (U.S.
vs. Cuna, 12 Phil. 241, supra; Wing vs. U.S., 218 U.S. 272)
- The right to punish offenses committed under
an old penal law is not extinguished if the
offenses are still punished in the repealing
penal law. (U.S. vs. Cuna, supra; People vs.
Rosenthal, 68 Phil. 328)
- RULE [ARTICLE 22 APPLICABLE]: General rule, penalty basis is at
the time of the commission of the crime, UNLESS a later law is
more favorable to the accused.
- IF penalty prescribed by a law enacted after the
commission of the felony may be imposed, if it is
favorable to the offender. (Art. 22)
- RULE [ARTICLE 22 NOT APPLICABLE]: TO CIVIL LIABILITY
- The principle that criminal statutes are retroactive so far
as they favor the culprit does not apply to the latter's
civil liability, because the rights of offended persons or
innocent third parties are not within the gift of arbitrary
disposal of the State.
- RULE [ARTICLE 22 NOT APPLICABLE]: as regards jurisdiction of
court. [basis: law in force at the time of action]
- The jurisdiction of a court to try a criminal action is to
be determined by the law in force at the time of
instituting the action, not at the time of the commission
of the crime. (People vs. Romualdo, 90 Phil. 739, 744)
- RULE [ARTICLE 22 NOT APPLICABLE]: a new law increasing the
civil liability cannot be given retroactive effect.
- EXCEPTION TO EXCEPTION POSSIBLE: When the law itself
provides
- Thus, Rep. Act No. 4661, reducing the period of
prescription of criminal action for libel from two years to
one year, specifically provides that "The provisions of
this amendatory Act shall not apply to cases of libel
already filed in court at the time of approval of this
amendatory Act."
- EXCEPTION TO EXCEPTION POSSIBLE: [When there is no law
punishing it before as to retroact to?] [When old RPC did not
punish it, it won’t retroact in a way of no punishment]
- People vs. Carballo (62 Phil. 651)
- Prior to January 1, 1932, when the Revised Penal Code
took effect, there was no law punishing the violation of
a conditional pardon as a crime. Held: The provisions of
the Revised Penal Code cannot be given retroactive
effect.
- Held: The intention of the Legislature in embodying this
provision of Art. 366 in the Revised Penal Code was to
insure that the elimination from this Code of certain
crimes penalized by former acts before the
enforcement of this Code should not have the effect
of pardoning guilty persons who were serving their
sentences for the commission of such crimes. Petition
denied. Lagrimas vs. Director of Prisons (57 Phil. 249)