Case Digest (G.R. No. 36886)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 36886)
Facts:
Clemente Laceste v. Paulino Santos, G.R. No. 36886, February 1, 1932, the Supreme Court En Banc, Romualdez, J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner, Clemente Laceste, was convicted and sentenced for the crime of rape, a conviction he began serving in prison. He had been prosecuted jointly with Nicolas Lachica, who was likewise found guilty. The offended party in the case was Magdalena de Ocampo.
After conviction, Nicolas Lachica married Magdalena de Ocampo, and by virtue of Act No. 1773 and article 448 of the Penal Code then in force (which provided that marriage between offender and offended extinguished penal liability), Lachica was relieved from the criminal prosecution. Laceste, however, continued to serve his sentence despite the marriage of his co-accused to the victim.
On January 1, 1932 the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) took effect; its article 344 (last paragraph) provided that in cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him, and that "the provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the coprincipals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes." The Court noted a clerical error in the Spanish text of that paragraph but read the provision to include coprincipals and accomplices.
Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus asserting there was no sufficient legal ground to continue his imprisonment in light of the Revised Penal Code's provision extending the benefit of such a marriage to coprincipals. The Attorney-General answered in favor of the petition, contending that article 344's last paragraph applied retroactively under article 22 and article 366 of the Revised Penal Code and that the petitioner was therefore entitled to be discharged. The Attorney‑General relied on prior Supreme Court decisions, notably People v. Moran (44 Phil. 433) and People v. Parel (44 Phil. 437), as supporting retroactive application of penal laws favorable to the accused.
The trial court or other lower tribunals' dispositions are not separately reported in the text; the matter was presented to the Supreme Court on the petition for habeas corpus. The Court adopted the Attorney‑General’s observations and granted the petition.
Issues:
- Is petitioner Clemente Laceste entitled to immediate release by writ of habeas corpus under the last paragraph of article 344 of the Revised Penal Code because his coprincipal married the offended party?
- Does article 22 (and the Code’s scheme, including article 366) of the Revised Penal Code operate retroactively to confer on Laceste the benefit of the provision in article 344 despite his conviction having been based on acts committed before the Code’s effectivity?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)