Case Digest (G.R. No. 17905)
Facts:
On appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS prosecuted JUAN MORAN, FRUCTUOSO CANSINO, AND HILARIO ODA for violations of the Election Law (Administrative Code, § 2639); this Court published a decision affirming conviction on March 31, 1922, after which the accused filed a special motion on May 2, 1922, invoking section 71 of Act No. 3030 (approved March 9, 1922) to contend the offenses had prescribed. The Attorney-General opposed the motion; briefs had been filed and the case had been heard before the motion was presented.Issues:
- Did section 71 of Act No. 3030 bar prosecution of the offenses charged by prescribing them one year after commission?
- Is Article 22 of the Penal Code applicable so as to give retroactive effect to a penal provision in a later special law favorable to the accused, and must courts apply prescription sua sponte?
Ruling:
The Court held that the offenses had prescribed under section 71 Case Digest (G.R. No. 17905)
Facts:
- Background of the dispute
- People of the Philippine Islands prosecuted Juan Moran, Fructuoso Cansino, and Hilario Oda for an offense defined in section 2639 of the Administrative Code (the Election Law).
- The Court of First Instance of Pangasinan convicted the defendants; on appeal this Court affirmed the conviction and increased the term of imprisonment to six months; the defendants appealed and the decision of this Court was published March 31, 1922.
- Subsequent procedural events
- The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration and rehearing after publication of the March 31, 1922 decision.
- While reconsideration was pending, the defendants filed on May 2, 1922 a special motion alleging prescription under section 71 of Act No. 3030 (approved March 9, 1922) and praying for absol...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Questions presented to the Court
- Whether section 71 of Act No. 3030 (providing that "Offenses resulting from violations of this Act shall prescribe one year after their commission") applies to offenses committed before its approval and thus operates retroactively to bar prosecution.
- Whether Article 22 of the Penal Code ("Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony or misdemeanor") is applicable to penal provisions enacted in special laws such as Act No. 3030, in view of Article 7 of the Penal Code (offenses punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Co...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)