Retroactive effect of laws brings good news to accused

BY THE MANILA TIMES ON MARCH 17, 2018DEARPAO

Twitter

Persida Acosta

Dear PAO,
My mother has been imprisoned for robbery for two years now. Recently, Republic Act (RA) 10951 was
enacted adjusting the amount or the value of property and damage on which a penalty is based. This
law, however, was passed when my mother was already convicted of the crime charged against her.
My question now is, is it possible that RA 10951 will be beneficial to my mother, considering that I was
told that laws are prospective in application?
Thank you very much,
JV

Dear JV,
Yes, the passage of Republic Act (RA) 10951 may be beneficial to your mother. While laws shall have no
retroactive effect, according to Article 4 of the Civil Code of the Philippines which provides:
“Article 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.”

There are exceptions to the same, one of which is the retroactive effect on penal laws. Article 22 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides that penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they are
beneficial to the accused, to wit:

“Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. – Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they
favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of
Article 62 of this code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been
pronounced and the convict is serving the same.” (Emphasis supplied)

Ads by AdAsia
Moreover, the Supreme Court in the case of Martin Centeno vs. Victoria Villalolin-Pornillos, Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 10 and the People of the Philippines (G.R.
No. 113092, September 1, 1994), penned by former Associate Justice Florenz Regalado, explained:

“It is a well-entrenched rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly against the State and liberally in
favor of the accused. They are not to be extended or enlarged by implications, intendments analogies or
equitable considerations. They are not to be strained by construction to spell out a new offense, enlarge
the field of crime or multiply felonies. Hence, in the interpretation of a penal statute, the tendency is to
subject it to careful scrutiny and to construe it with such strictness as to safeguard the rights of the
accused. If the statute is ambiguous and admits of two reasonable but contradictory constructions, that
which operates in favor of a party accused under its provisions is to be preferred.”

Therefore, the application of RA 10951 may be given retroactive application provided that your mother
is not a habitual delinquent as defined by law. Article 62 of the RPC provides:

“Article 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating or aggravating circumstances and of habitual
delinquency. – Mitigating or aggravating circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be taken into
account for the purpose of diminishing or increasing the penalty in conformity with the following rules:

xxx

For the purpose of this article, a person shall be deemed to be a habitual delinquent within a period of
ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less serious physical
injuries, robo, hurto, estafa or falsification, he is found guilty of any of said crimes a third time or
oftener.” (Emphasis supplied)
The retroactivity of the law was further bolstered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ophelia Hernan
vs. The Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 217874, December 5, 2017), penned by Associate Justice Diosdado
Peralta, wherein it is stated:

“Said recent legislation shall find application in cases where the imposable penalties of the affected
crimes such as theft, qualified theft, estafa, robbery with force upon things, malicious mischief,
malversation and such other crimes, the penalty of which is dependent upon the value of the object in
consideration thereof, have been reduced, as in the case at hand, taking into consideration the presence
of existing circumstances attending its commission. For as long as it is favorable to the accused, said
recent legislation shall find application regardless of whether its effectivity comes after the time when
the judgment of conviction is rendered and even if service of sentence has already begun. The accused,
in these applicable instances, shall be entitled to the benefits of the new law warranting him to serve a
lesser sentence, or to his release, if he has already begun serving his previous sentence, and said service
already accomplishes the term of the modified sentence.” (Emphasis supplied)
We find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our
appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or elaborated. We hope
that we were able to enlighten you on the matter.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may
be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net