CONTRIBUTOR AMBITA, Frances Rexanne U.

MODULE Ex-post facto laws (Art. 3, Sec. 22, 1987 Constitution)

TOPIC
CASE TITLE US v. Diaz Conde G.R. NO. G.R. No. L-18208
PONENTE JOHNSON, J: DATE: 14 February 1922
DOCTRINE No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. (Art. 3, Sec. 22,
1987 Constitution) Ex post facto laws are prohibited in this jurisdiction
unless they are favorable to the accused. Every law that makes an action,
done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when done,
criminal, and punishes such action, is an ex post facto law.
FACTS Bartolome Oliveros and Engracia Lianco borrowed P300 from the
defendants on December 30, 1915, and by virtue of a contract, the former
obligated themselves to pay a monthly interest rate of 5%, payable within
the first ten days of each month, with the first payment due on January
10, 1916. The Usury Law (Act. 2655) took effect on May 1, 1916, four
months after the contract was executed. A complaint was filed against the
defendants on May 21, 1921, alleging that they had violated the Usury
Law. The defendants were found guilty by the Court of First Instance of
Manila, who were sentenced to pay a fine of P120 and, in the event of
insolvency, to serve secondary imprisonment in line with the law.

The appellants now contend:

a. That the contract upon which the alleged usurious interest was
collected was executed before Act No. 2655 was adopted;
b. that at the time said contract was made (December 30, 1915),
there was no usury law in force in the Philippine Islands;
c. that said Act No. 2655 did not become effective until the 1st day
of May 1916, or four months and a half after the contract in
question was executed;
d. that said law could have no retroactive effect or operation, and
e. that said law impairs the obligation of a contract, and that for all
of said reasons the judgment imposed by the lower court should
be revoked.
ISSUE/S Whether or Not the defendants are guilty in violation of Usury Law (Act.
No. 2655).

RULING/S NO. An ex post facto law is one that makes an action that happened prior
to the passage of the law and was lawful at the time, criminal, and
punishes it. The accused in this case carried out a legal act prior to the
imposition of the Usury Law. Making the law apply to the defendants'
prior actions would be an ex post facto operation. Furthermore, if a
contract is legitimate in the outset, it cannot be made illegal by later
legislation. Furthermore, no law shall be passed that impairs contract
obligations. With regard to Jones Law, if a statute is passed that has the
opposite effect, the law is null and void. As a result, the higher court
hereby decides that the defendants' acts complained of did not constitute
a crime at the time they were committed, and that the lower court's
sentence should be, and is hereby, revoked, and that the complaint be
dismissed and the defendants be discharged from the custody of the law,
with costs de oficio.