Title
Lagrimas vs. Director of Prisons
Case
G.R. No. 38046
Decision Date
Sep 24, 1932
Eustaquio Lagrimas, detained for assaulting a public official under the old Penal Code, sought release under the Revised Penal Code's favorable provisions. The court denied his petition, ruling that Article 366 mandates penalties under the old code for pre-enactment crimes, precluding retroactive application of Article 22.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-11977)

Factual Background

Lagrimas was charged with assault upon a public official, specifically under Article 251 of the old Penal Code, and was sentenced to two years, eleven months, and eleven days of prision correctional, along with a fine of 375 pesetas. The incident involved Lagrimas slapping Alcazar and using offensive language against her while she was performing her official duties as a teacher.

Legal Argument and Applicable Law

The crux of Lagrimas’s petition for liberty hinges on the interpretation of the Revised Penal Code, particularly Articles 148 and 149, and their respective penalties compared to those of the old Penal Code. Lagrimas argues that Article 149, which concerns indirect assault, should apply and offers a lesser penalty. The respondent, however, contends that Article 148, concerning direct assault, is the relevant provision.

Comparative Legal Analysis

A detailed comparison of relevant articles from the old and revised Penal Codes indicates nuanced differences in definitions and associated penalties of assault. The old Penal Code punished assault with varying degrees and fines, while the Revised Penal Code restructured these definitions, suggesting lesser sanctions in certain cases. It is observed that under the old Penal Code, the penalty could reach up to eight years for severe offenses, while the Revised Penal Code's penalties for comparable offenses are significantly reduced.

Court's Conclusion

The majority opinion affirmed that Lagrimas must serve his full sentence as imposed, as Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code applies to acts committed prior to its enactment. This article specifies that offenses must be punished according to the laws applicable at the time they were committed, notwithstanding its provisions allowing retroactive effects in favor of a convict as outlined in Article 22.

Dissenting Opinion

Chief Justice Avancena dissents, arguing that Lagrimas’s petition should be granted based on the favorable application of the Revised Penal Code. He emphasizes that if the new Code eliminates criminality or reduces the offense's seriousness, those already serving sentences should benefit from such amendments. He contends that a grant of liberty should occur as

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.