People vs Sandiganbayan 211 SCRA 241

Topic: Ex Post Facto Law

Facts: Assailed in this petition for certiorari granted the private respondent’s motion to quash
the information for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground of
prescription of the crime charged. The Tanodbayan referred the complaint to the City Fiscal of
Butuan City who subpoenaed Governor Paredes.
Governor Ceferino S. Paredes, Jr. was charged for the violation of Sec. 3 (A) of R.A. No. 3019
because the accused had allegedly persuaded, induces and influenced the Public Lands
inspector to violate law, rules and regulations by recommending approval of the free patent
application. On January 21, 1976, Paredes a public officer, being then the Provincial Attorney of
Agusan del Sur, tool advantage of his public position by misrepresenting to the public lands
inspector that the land subject of an application filed by Paredes with the Bureau of lands is
disposable by a free patent when the accused well knew that the said land had already been
reserved for a school site thus, paved the way to the recommendation of free patent and
release of a decree of title thereafter. The accused asserts that since at the time of the alleged
commission of the crime is January 21, 1976, it already had prescribed, since the prescription
period is ten (10) years from the date of its commission. However, Batas Pambansa Big. 195
which was approved on March 16, 1982, amending Section I R.A. No. 3019 by increasing from
10 to 15 years the period for the prescription or extinguishment of a violation of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act.
Issue: Whether or not Batas Pambansa Big. 195, amending sec Il of R.A No. 3019, increasing the
prescription period from ten (10) to fifteen (15) years, may apply in the crimes which was
committed by the respondent in 1976, prior to the enactment the said law.
Ruling: No. To apply B.P. Blg. 195 to Paredes would make it an ex post facto law for it would
alter his situation to his disadvantage by making him criminally liable for a crime that had
already been extinguished under the law existing when it was committed. An ex post facto law
is defined as:
"A law passed after the occurrence of a fact or commission of an act, which retrospectively
changes the legal consequences or relations of such fact or deed. By Art. I, Sec. 10 of U.S.
Const., the states are forbidden to pass `any ex post facto law.’ Most all state constitutions
contain similar prohibitions against ex post facto laws.
Since an ex post facto law is proscribed by our Constitution (Sec. 22, Article III, 1987
Constitution), the Sandiganbayan committed no reversible error in ruling that Paredes may no
longer be prosecuted for his supposed violation of R.A. 3019 in 1976, six (6) years before B.P.
Blg. 195 was approved on March 16, 1982. The new prescriptive period under that law should
apply only to those offenses which were committed after the approval of B.P. Blg. 195.
WHEREFORE, the petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit. The resolution dated August 1,
1991 of the Sandiganbayan in Crim. Case No. 13800 is AFFIRMED.
People vs Villaraza 81 SCRA 95, 97
Topic: Ex post Facto Law
Facts: On December 3, 1975 an assistant city fiscal charged Caesar Puerto with estafa in the city
court of Cagayan de Oro City for having issued on October 16, 1974 two bouncing checks for
the total sum of P4, 966. 63. The petitioner judge noted that the accuse had waived the second
stage of the preliminary investigation so he directed that the case be elevated for trial to the
court of First Instance.
The Court of first Instance of Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro Branch VIII, in its order of
February 3, 1977 returned the case to the city court believing that the case falls within the
concurrent jurisdiction of the two courts and, the city court, as the first court which took
cognizance of the case, should try it.
The respondent judge disagreed with the Court of First Instance, and that his order of April 21,
1977 must directed the re-elevation of the case arguing that the case falls within the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance because estafa committed by the accused is
punishable by prision mayor medium under Presidential Decree No. 818 which took effect on
October 22, 1975 and which amended article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
Issue: Whether or not the Presidential Decree No. 818 is applicable and have a retroactive
effect to the accused Caesar Puerto.
Ruling: No. The penalty of prision mayor medium, or eight years and one day to ten years,
imposed by Presidential Decree No. 818, applies only to swindling by means of issuing bouncing
checks committed on or after October 22, 1975. That increased penalty does not apply to the
estafa committed by Puerto on October 16, 1974. To apply it to Puerto would make the decree
an ex post facto law. Its retroactive application is prohibited by articles 21 and 22 of the Revised
Penal Code and section 12, Article IV of the Constitution.