A.M. No. P-01-1506 - Bicbic vs. Borromeo

The case involves plaintiffs Ong Chang Wing and Kwong Fok, who were convicted in the Court of First Instance for violating article 343 of the Philippine Penal Code.
Article 343 criminalized the operation of a gambling house or the role of a banker in such an establishment.

Two months and one day of arresto mayor, with the additional accessories provided under section 61.
A fine of 625 pesetas, with a provision that in case of non-payment, subsidiary imprisonment (not exceeding one third of the principal penalty) should be imposed.
Collection of costs associated with the trial.

Shortly after the trial and sentence, the Philippine Commission enacted a repeal of article 343 on October 9, 1907 (by Act No. 1767, also referenced as Act No. 1757 in some portions of the decision).
The repealing act did not abolish the offense of gambling or keeping a gambling house but rather reenacted the law with more detailed provisions.
The revised act provided for punishment that was within the same limitations as the sentence already imposed under the former law.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
The primary contention from the accused was that the subsequent repeal of article 343 deprived them of due process, as they were sentenced under a law that was no longer in force at the time of the review.
The Supreme Court based its reasoning on precedents and established principles regarding the retroactive application of penal statutes, particularly relying on Spanish legal tradition and the doctrine embodied in article 22 of the penal code regarding more favorable laws for the accused.

Whether the affirmation of a conviction under a statute that was repealed after the commission of the offense and after the imposition of sentence constituted a deprivation of due process of law.
The accused argued that by applying a repealed statute (or its reenacted provisions), the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands had violated the due process clause guaranteed by the Act of July 1, 1902.

Whether it is within the power of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands to affirm a conviction when the underlying statute has been repealed but replaced with a substantially similar law.
Consideration of whether the penalty imposed remained within the boundaries of the punishment provided for under the new legislative act.

The issue of interpreting the Penal Code and the applicable Spanish legal principles in determining the continuity and validity of the conviction.
Whether the retroactive application of the repealing act, to the extent that it is favorable to the accused, affected the validity of the earlier conviction.