G.R. No. 41423 - People vs. Crisanto Tamayo

Appellant, Crisanto Tamayo, was initially convicted in the Justice of the Peace Court of Magsingal, Province of Ilocos Sur, for violating Section 2 of Municipal Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1932.
The ordinance in question criminalized a certain conduct which formed the basis of the charge against the appellant.

On conviction in the lower court, an appeal was filed and the matter was subsequently brought before the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur.
The Court of First Instance affirmed the conviction and imposed a fine on appellant.
During the pendency of the appeal, significant legislative developments occurred concerning the ordinance.

The municipal council repealed Section 2 of the ordinance, effectively decriminalizing the conduct previously prosecuted.
The repeal was not only enacted by the municipal council but was also duly approved by the provincial board.
The repeal was absolute in nature, with no saving clause or reenactment by implication; thus, the conduct became legally permissible.

In light of the legislative repeal, appellant moved for the dismissal of the action against him on the ground that he could no longer be prosecuted for an act that was no longer criminal.
Appellant argued that prosecuting him for conduct that had been decriminalized would be illogical and contrary to justice.

The case cited the leading decisions in United States vs. Cuna (12 Phil., 241) and Wing vs. United States (218 U. S., 272) where the doctrine was established that a repeal through reenactment generally does not destroy criminal liability.
However, the discussion in these cited cases did not suggest that a person could be prosecuted for conduct that has ceased to be criminal.
The court noted that while the common law and American jurisprudence are more favorable to the accused regarding repealed statutes, the rule in the Philippines aligns more with Spanish doctrine.

The primary legal issue was whether the repeal of the criminal provision under Municipal Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1932, eliminates the prosecutorial basis for the charges against appellant.
An ancillary issue was the analysis of whether precedent cases (such as United States vs. Cuna and Wing vs. United States) support the continuation of criminal liability in light of a legislative repeal.
The determination of whether it is proper for the court to proceed in sentencing an individual for an act that the legislature has expressly decriminalized.