[ G.R. No. 17905, January 27, 1923 ]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JUAN MORAN, FRUCTUOSO CANSINO, AND HILARIO ODA, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.
D E C I S I O N
ARAULLO, C.J.:
While it is a rule of general application that unless the defense of prescription is pleaded in the trial court, it will be deemed to have been waived and cannot later be raised, yet this rule is not of absolute application in criminal cases, for if the prescription of the crime, as well as of the penalty whereby criminal responsibility is extinguished, may, as is the case here with regard to the former, be provided by statute after the termination of all the proceedings in the trial court, as well as in the appellate court, and when the case has already been submitted for discussion and is awaiting only the final judgment; and if the prescription of the crime is but the extinguishment of the right of the State to prosecute and punish the culprit, it is beyond question that, once the State has lost or waived such right, the accused may, at any stage of the proceeding, ask and move that the same be dismissed and that he be absolved from the complaint. And not only that, the right to prosecute and punish the criminal having been lost by the prescription of the crime expressly provided by the statute, the State itself, the Government through the proper court, is in duty bound to make a pronouncement to that effect. Therefore, as on March 9th of this year, 1922, when Act No. 3030 went into effect, providing in its section 71 that offenses resulting from the violations thereof shall prescribe one year after their commission, the accused and the Attorney-General had already filed their respective briefs in this court for the prosecution of the appeal taken from the judgment of the court below, and the hearing of the case had already been held, this court itself, without the necessity of any motion of the accused, or of the Attorney-General, should have declared the crime in question to have prescribed, in view of the provision of said section. Consequently, as this court had not up to that time made such pronouncement, the accused are perfectly justified in asking, as they have done in their motion of May 2d of this year, that the offense having prescribed, they be absolved from the complaint. This duty is imperative upon the courts of justice at any moment that the offense appears to have prescribed under the provision of the law. With particular reference to the present case, this conclusion is necessarily reached from the letter as well as the spirit of the provisions of the Penal Code relative to prescription, and from that of section 71 of the aforesaid Act No. 3030, for once the offense or the penalty has prescribed, the State has no right to prosecute the offender, or to punish him, and if he has already been punished, it has no right to continue holding him subject to its action by the imposition of the penalty. The plain precept contained in article 22 of the Penal Code, declaring the retroactivity of penal laws in so far as they are favorable to persons accused of a felony or misdemeanor, even if they may be serving sentence, would be useless and nugatory if the courts of justice were not under obligation to fulfill such duty, irrespective of whether or not the accused has applied for it, just as would also all provisions relating to the prescription of the crime and the penalty.
That such is the duty of the courts of justice and has been so recognized by this court, is shown by the decision in the case of United States vs. Rama, R. G. No. 16247,[1] for the crime of murder of four persons, committed in the month of July, 1902, in the province of Cebu, in which one of the accused was sentenced by the Court of First Instance of the said province to death and the other two to life imprisonment. That case was brought to this court on appeal and, after the filing of the respective briefs of the accused and the Attorney-General a hearing was had. No allegation was made as to the prescription of the crime, yet this court rendered a decision (not yet published in the Official Gazette) wherein, after finding that two crimes of murder and two of homicide had been committed and that seventeen years had already elapsed from the commission of the latter to the institution of the judicial proceeding for the investigation and punishment thereof, that is, more than the fifteen years fixed by law for the prescription of the crime of homicide, this court held that the said two crimes of homicide had prescribed and the criminal responsibility of the three accused for the said crimes extinguished, convicting the accused only of the two crimes of murder. There is, therefore, no reason whatsoever why the allegation of prescription made by the accused in their motion of the 2d of May of this year cannot legally be considered; on the contrary, said motion must be decided before the petition for the reconsideration of the decision published on the 31st of March of last year, and for a rehearing of the case, or, to be more exact, the said petition must be ignored, for the resolution of the aforesaid motion, if favorable to the accused, would put an end to the proceeding right at its present stage.
The first question to be decided, in connection with the contention of the accused, is whether or not the prescription provided in section 71 of Act No. 3030 refers only to that Act and not to any other, for said section 71 says: "Offenses resulting from violations of this Act shall prescribe one year after their commission," and section 72 adds: "This Act shall take effect on its approval."
It is enough to take into consideration the fact that Act No. 3030, is, as its title indicates, amendatory to several sections and parts of sections of chapter 18 of the Administrative Code, known as the Election Law, and of chapter 65 on penalties for the violation of various administrative laws, among them, those of the Election Law itself, included in said chapter 18 of the Administrative Code, in order to understand that when the Legislature used the words "This Act," that is, Act No. 3030, it referred, necessarily, to the Election Law included in various sections and provisions of the aforesaid two chapters of the above-mentioned Code, that is, the Election Law prior to Act No. 3030, under which the herein accused were convicted. One needs but examine one by one all the sections of said Act No. 3030, each of which declares the sense in which each of the sections included in said chapters is amended, in order to convince himself that said Act No. 3030 is similar to the law that preceded it, with the amendments and some additions thereto. If the Legislature had passed and enacted a new Election Law different from that contained in the above-mentioned chapters of the Administrative Code, then it may be said that the phrase "This Act" can in no way refer to the prior Election Law. Furthermore, if the offenses resulting from the violations of the Election Law, the provisions of which are contained in the aforesaid chapters of the Administrative Code, are the same offenses provided for in Act No. 3030, though with some modifications in the details as to some of them and with increase in the penalty, it cannot be denied that when the Legislature used the words "This Act" in section 71 of Act No. 3030, wherein it is provided that said offenses shall prescribe one year after their commission, it necessarily referred to offenses resulting from the violations of the former Election Law, as amended by said Act No. 3030. Besides, one of the objects of this Act, as its title indicates, is to make more effective the provisions and the purposes of the former Law contained in the Administrative Code; so that Act No. 3030 rather than being an integral part of the former election law is in conjunction with the latter the only Election Law in force; and any other interpretation to the contrary of the phrase "This Act" cannot, in our opinion, be accepted as good logic and in accordance with the principles of sound reasoning.
It is true that in the next section, 72, it is provided that said Act No. 3030 shall take effect on the date of its approval, which took place on March 9, 1922, but the meaning of such an expression in connection with prescription is that prescription can be invoked from that date, as was done by the accused, and not that such provision may have a retroactive effect from that same date.
In this connection, there arises the second question as to whether or not the provision of article 22 of the Penal Code above cited, declaring the retroactivity of penal laws in so far as they are favorable to the defendant in a criminal action for a felony or misdemeanor, is applicable to crimes penalized by special laws, as does Act No. 3030, account being taken of the fact that, under article 7 of the Penal Code, offenses punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of the said code.
Several decisions have been rendered by this court on this question in which the distinguished members of this court hold opposite views. Among those may be cited the case of United States vs. Cuna (12 Phil., 241), which is cited in a later case, United States vs. Lao Lock Hing (14 Phil., 86), in which case this court did not lay down a definite rule, but expressly reserved its opinion as to whether or not article 22 of the Penal Code above referred to was applicable. And it was so recognized by the Supreme Court of the United State's, in an appeal taken by writ of error by the accused, Ong Chang Wing (40 Phil., 1046), said high court having limited itself to declaring that the accused, not having been convicted by this court of an offense which was not punishable when committed, and this court having held only that the right to impose the penalty prescribed by the Penal Code of the Philippines had not been lost by the subsequent statute, Act No. 1757, of the Philippine Commission, the accused had not been denied due process of law, for as the Supreme Court of the United States says in its decision, the duty of that court in that case was to determine whether or not the judgment of this court amounted to a denial of due process of law. Therefore, the decisions rendered in those two cases cannot be invoked in the one now before us.
In the cases of United States vs. Lao Lock Hing (14 Phil., 86) and United States vs. Calaguas (14 Phil., 739), cited also in support of the contrary opinion, as the offenses therein involved were penalized by special laws, that is, by the Opium Law, in the former, and by the Law of Police and Railroad Preservation, in the latter, this court held, as it could not have done otherwise, that, under article 7 of the Penal Code, the provisions of the said Code were not applicable to those offenses, inasmuch as said offenses were penalized by the said law which prescribed a special and definite penalty for said offenses, but in those cases said article 7 of the Penal Code was not interpreted in connection with the application of article 22 of the same Code, providing for the retroactivity of penal laws favorable to persons accused of a felony or misdemeanor. Wherefore neither can the holding of this court in those cases have any application to the one now before us.
The case in which this court plainly and definitely decided the question under consideration is that of United States vs. Parrone (24 Phil., 29). There the said accused was charged with the crime of falsification of a cedula certificate, defined and punished in section 55 of Act No. 1189 of the Philippine Commission, but before the conviction of the accused, said Act was amended by Act No. 2126 of the Philippine Legislature, which prescribed a lesser penalty than the previous Act, and this court, after a careful perusal of all its decisions dealing with that question, as above indicated, and a luminous and exhaustive discussion on the interpretation of article 7 of the same Code in connection with the retroactivity of the penalty, in so far as it is favorable to the accused, held, upon the appeal taken by the said accused from the judgment of the court below, that, under the provisions of article 22 of the Penal Code, the penalty provided in Act No. 2126, which was later than Act No. 1189, was the proper penalty to be imposed upon the accused in that case. In the course of that decision, the court said:
"Considering the provisions of article 7 of the Penal Code, are the provisions of article 22 of the same Code applicable to the penal laws of the Philippine Islands other than the provisions of the Penal Code? Article 22 is found in chapter 1 of title 3 of the Penal Code. Said chapter is entitled 'Penalties in General.' Article 21 of said title and chapter provides that 'no felony or misdemeanor shall be punishable by any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its commission.' This article is general in its provisions and in effect prohibits the Government from punishing any person for any felony or misdemeanor with any penalty which has not been prescribed by the law. It (art. 21), therefore, can have no application to any of the provisions of the Penal Code for the reason that for every felony or misdemeanor defined in the Penal Code a penalty has been prescribed.
"The provisions of article 21 can only be invoked, therefore, when a person is being tried for a felony or a misdemeanor for which no penalty has been prescribed by law. Article 21 is not a penal provision. It neither defines a crime nor provides a punishment for one. It has simply announced the policy of the Government with reference to the punishment of alleged criminal acts. It is a guaranty to the citizen of the State that no act of his will be considered criminal until after the Government has made it so by law and has provided a penalty. It (art. 21) is a declaration that no person shall be subject to criminal prosecution for any act of his until after the State has defined the misdemeanor or crime and has fixed a penalty therefor. The doctrine announced by this section has been considered of so much importance to the citizens of a State that many of the States of the Union have been pleased to include its precepts in their constitutions or have so declared by express provision of law.
"Article 22 provides that 'Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony or misdemeanor, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving same.' This provision clearly has no direct application to the provisions of the Penal Code. Its (art. 22) application to the Penal Code can only be invoked where some former or subsequent law is under consideration. It must necessarily relate (1) to penal laws existing prior to the Penal Code, in which the penalty was less severe than those of the Penal Code; or (2) to laws enacted subsequent to the Penal Code, in which the penalty was more favorable to the accused. Rule 80, Ley Provisional para la aplicacion de las disposiciones del Codigo Penal. Under the provisions of said article 22, if a crime had been committed prior to the date of the Penal Code the punishment for which was more favorable to the accused than the provisions of the Penal Code, it is believed that the accused might invoke the provisions of said article (22) even though he was not placed upon trial until after the Penal Code went into effect. (U. S. vs. Cuna[1]). So also if by an amendment to the Penal Code or by a later special law the punishment for an act was made less severe than by the provisions of the Penal Code, then the accused person might invoke the provisions of said article. It appears to be clear, then, that article 22 of the Penal Code can only be invoked when the provisions of some other penal law than the provisions of the Penal Code are under consideration. In other words, the provisions of article 22 can only be invoked with reference to some other penal law. It has no application to the provisions of the Penal Code except in relation with some other law. It is not believed, therefore, that the Legislature in enacting article 7 of the Penal Code intended to provide that article 22 should not be applicable to special laws."
There can be no doubt whatsoever that such was the intention of the legislator, in view of the doctrine laid down by the supreme court of Spain, whose authority as regards the application and interpretation of the provisions of the Penal Code of the Philippines is unquestionable, because said Code is the same as that of Spain. In two cases (decisions of July 13, 1889 and April 26, 1892), among others decided by that court, in which article 22 of the Penal Code was alleged to have been violated by the imposition of the penalty of prision correccional prescribed by the said Code, instead of prision menor, prescribed by article 168 of the Election Law of August 30, 1870, upon the accused therein, who were found guilty of a violation of the said Election Law, which, was therefore, a special law in force prior to the said Penal Code of that same year, the said Code having substituted the penalty of prision correccional for that of prision menor, said court held that the appeal was not well taken on the ground that the penalty of prision correccional had taken the place of that of prision menor prescribed by the said Election Law, and while the duration of both penalties was the same, the correctional penalty was lighter and more advantageous and favorable to the accused than prision menor, as it was of a less grave nature; so that in those two cases, the supreme court of Spain not only applied the provisions of the Penal Code to a special law, but also gave retroactive effect to said provisions on account of being more favorable to the therein accused, in accordance with the precept of article 22 of the Penal Code. And here we have a most complete, clear and satisfactory solution of whatever doubt might have arisen as to the interpretation of articles 7 and 22 of the Penal Code aforesaid.
It cannot be maintained that said article 22 of the Penal Code refers only to penalties and is not applicable to appeals and proceedings, because the prescription of the crime is intimately connected with that of the penalty, for the length of time fixed by the law for the prescription depends upon the gravity of the offense, as may be seen from Title VI of Book I of the Penal Code, containing, as its heading indicates, "General Provisions Regarding Felonies and Misdemeanors, the Persons Liable and the Penalties," without distinguishing between the penalties and the extinguishment of the criminal responsibility dealt with in said Title VI of said Book, which title comes next to Title V, treating of the penalties incurred by those who evade service of sentence and those who, while serving sentence, or after having been convicted by a final judgment not yet served, commit some other crime. And aside from this intimate connection between the prescription of the crime and that of the penalty, a statute declaring the prescription of the crime has no other object and purpose than to prevent or annul the prosecution of the offender and, in the last analysis, the imposition of the penalty. Moreover, if the provisions relative to the prescription of ownership and to the prescription of actions in civil matters are part of the civil law, it cannot be denied that the provisions relative to the prescription of crimes and of penalties are penal laws or form part thereof.
With regard to the question whether prescription must be considered as a matter of procedural or formal law, or as a substantive law for the purpose of the retroactivity of laws, we must state, with reference to the present case, that the prescription provided in section 71 of Act No. 3030 is of the nature both of a substantive law, in so far as it gives a person accused of any of the crimes therein referred to, the right not to be prosecuted nor punished after the lapse of the period of one year from the commission of said crimes, within which the criminal action must be commenced, and of a procedural or adjective law in so far as it fixes the time within which such action must necessarily be commenced in order that the prosecution may be legal and the proper penalty may lawfully be imposed. But however said provision may be considered, the same must have a retroactive effect, as will be seen later on.
Therefore, as the instant case involves two special laws of the Philippine Legislature, to wit, the Election Law contained in the above-mentioned chapters of the Administrative Code, and Act No. 3030 which amended and modified the former, it is evident that the provision declaring that offenses resulting from the violations of said Act shall prescribe one year after their commission must have retroactive effect, the same being favorable to the accused.
This, however, is objected to, although it is based on a general principle frequently applied by many courts of the American Union, and in support of the objection, several decisions of the said courts and a doctrine concerning the matter found in Corpus Juris (volume 16, p. 222) and in Ruling Case Law are cited, wherein it is established that laws fixing a period of prescription are not applicable to crimes previously committed, unless by their terms they are clearly retroactive or contain an express provision to that effect.
We need not discuss each and every one of the said cases, it being sufficient for our purpose to take up one of them, namely, that of Martin vs. State ([1859], 24 Tex., 62). There the Supreme Court of Texas held that as regards crimes and misdemeanors, prescription had no retroactive effect and that the Statute of Limitations enacted in 1854 could not have the effect of barring a criminal action instituted within two years after the enactment of said Act, provided that no period of prescription was fixed in a former law for the crime in question, that is to say, that prescription cannot be invoked as a bar to a criminal action for an offense like that of falsification involved in that case, where said action was commenced under a statute authorizing it and in the old law penalizing that crime no period was fixed for the prescription thereof. As can be seen from a reading of the context of the decision in the aforesaid case and the opinion of the writer thereof, said doctrine was announced without taking into account the difference between the rule governing prescription in criminal procedure and that applicable to civil actions, but, on the contrary, application was made only of the latter; hence the holding that a special provision as to prescription was necessary in the later statute to give it a retroactive effect.
It should be noted, however, that the Chief Justice of that Supreme Court voted vigorously against the said decision, stating in a well-reasoned dissenting opinion the following:
"I * * * am of opinion, that the limitation prescribed to prosecutions applies as well to prosecutions for offenses, committed before the passage of the statute, as afterwards; and that, as the words of the statute plainly import, the limitation commences to run from the time of the 'commission of the offense,' whether that was before or after its passage. The statute makes no distinction, as respects the limitation; it makes no exception, from its provision, of offenses previously committed; and I know of no principle, or rule of construction, which will authorize the court to engraft an exception upon the statute. It is a statute relating to the remedy, and being enacted for the benefit of persons accused, is not an ex post facto law. The constitutional inhibition of the enactment of retroactive laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, has no application to penal statutes. Retroactive criminal laws, which are forbidden, are those which come under the denomination of ex post facto laws. There is nothing to prevent statutes, respecting crimes, from being retrospective, provided they do not come under that denomination.
"It is an acknowledged general rule, in the construction of statutes, that they will not be construed to have a retrospective operation so as to destroy or impair rights of property, or of action, unless the legislature have plainly expressed such to be their intention. But laws which affect the remedy merely are not held to be within the rule or the inhibition against retrospective laws, unless the remedy be entirely taken away, or so restricted, as to impair the right. Nor, as I conceive, do statutes relating to the punishment of offenses come within the rule of construction, or the constitutional inhibition, though their effect should be wholly to defeat a prosecution. On the contrary, laws respecting crimes, whether they relate to the remedy merely, or to the offense, are, I think, always construed to relate to past, as well as future offenses, where their operation is in any wise beneficial to the accused; unless the legislature have plainly declared that they are not to receive such a construction. To give such effect to laws respecting crimes and punishments, is not to render them retrospective, or retroactive laws, in the sense of the constitutional inhibition. These terms have no application to such laws, but relate exclusively to laws affecting civil rights. (De Cordova vs. City of Galveston, 4 Tex., 470.)
"I do not think the reservation contained in the 81st section of the act was intended to have, or should be construed to have, any effect upon the limitation contained in the 75th section. That section was intended only to prevent repeals by implication, and to enforce the observance of the rule, which would have applied on general principles, without its enactment, that where the act mitigates the punishment, the milder penalty should be imposed. To hold it to apply to the limitation prescribed for prosecutions by the act, would be to except all offenses committed before the passage of the act, from the operation of the periods of limitation therein contained, and to hold that those offenses would never become barred under its provisions. I cannot think that such was the intention of the legislature.
"There may be differences of opinion, respecting the policy of prescribing so short periods of limitation, to prosecutions for high crimes. But that was a question for the law-making power; and I can see no reason why the legislature should have intended the limitation to apply to future, and not to past, offenses. The same reasons, and the same policy, which dictated that the prosecution should be commenced within a prescribed period, after the offense was committed, would seem to apply equally to offenses committed before, as to those committed after the passage of the statute.
"Entertaining these views, I could not give my assent to the imposition of the pains and penalties of the law, where the prosecution had not been commenced until after the expiration of the time within which the legislature have positively enacted that the offense 'shall be prosecuted,' or be forever barred."
Furthermore, Mr. Wharton, cited in one paragraph of the said dissenting opinion, in his work entitled Criminal Pleading and Practice, 9th edition, 1889, says that, as a general rule, the laws of prescription of actions apply as well to crimes committed before the enactment, as afterwards, and speaking of the rule to be applied to the prescription of actions and the interpretation of the laws on that subject, he says in section 316, page 215, of said book the following:
"We should at first observe that a mistake is sometimes made in applying to statutes of limitation in criminal suits the construction that has been given to statutes of limitation in civil suits. The two classes of statutes, however, are essentially different. In civil suits the statute is interposed by the legislature as an impartial arbiter between two contending parties. In the construction of the statute, therefore, there is no intendment to be made in favor of either party. Neither grants the right to the other; there is therefore no grantor against whom the ordinary presumptions of construction are to be made. But it is otherwise when a statute of limitation is granted by the State. Here the State is the grantor, surrendering by act of grace its rights to prosecute, and declaring the offense to be no longer the subject of prosecution. The statute is not a statute of process, to be scantily and grudgingly applied, but an amnesty, declaring that after a certain time oblivion shall be cast over the offence; that the offender shall be at liberty to return to his country, and resume his immunities as a citizen; and that from henceforth he may cease to preserve the proofs of his innocence, for the proofs of his guilt are blotted out. Hence it is that statutes of limitation are to be liberally construed in favor of the defendant, not only because such liberality of construction belongs to all acts of amnesty and grace, but because the very existence of the statute is a recognition and notification by the legislature of the fact that time, while it gradually wears out proofs of innocence, has assigned to it fixed and positive periods in which it destroys proofs of guilt. Independently of these views, it must be remembered that delay in instituting prosecutions is not only productive of expense to the State, but of peril to public justice in the attenuation and distortion, even by mere natural lapse of memory, of testimony. It is the policy of the law that prosecutions should. be prompt, and that statutes enforcing such promptitude should be vigorously maintained. They are not merely acts of grace, but checks imposed by the State upon itself, to exact vigilant activity from its subalterns, and to secure for criminal trials the best evidence that can be obtained."
But even if the rule generally and frequently applied by many courts of the American Union and the doctrine laid down by them were those announced in the above-mentioned paragraphs of the Corpus Juris and the Ruling Case Law, the precept of article 22 of the Penal Code being clear and unmistakable, according to which, penal laws have retroactive effect in so far as they are favorable to persons accused of a felony or misdemeanor, the courts of justice of these Islands cannot, and must not, make any application of the said rule and doctrine, but must, on the contrary, abide by the said precept and comply with it and carry it into effect, as hereinbefore stated, although no petition to that effect is made by the accused that may be favored by those laws. And a provision for the retroactivity of penal laws having, as it has, been made in the said article in the terms already mentioned, it is evident that when the Philippine Legislature, the majority of whose members are also members of the Philippine Bar, and, therefore, were aware of this legal provision, drew section 71 of the Election Law, Act No. 3030, to the effect that the offenses resulting from the violations of the said law prescribe one year after their commission, it ought to have known that it was not necessary for it to say that said provision was to have retroactive effect in so far as it was favorable to the accused, inasmuch as such provision had already expressly been made in article 22 of the Penal Code, which was applicable not only to the prescription therein provided when the same might be favorable to persons accused of those crimes, but also to every penal law the retroactivity of which might be favorable to persons accused of a felony or misdemeanor. And, this is the best and most conclusive proof that in making the provision in section 71 aforecited, the Legislature intended that same be given a retroactive effect, because the members thereof could not ignore the law. From all of which it also necessarily follows that, if that doctrine established by many courts of the metropolis is to be applied in the instant case, it must be by saying that the same is useless or that it was complied with in so far as the giving of a retroactive effect to the said prescription was concerned, because that provision regarding retroactivity has already been expressly made in article 22 of the Penal Code, and, therefore, it is of no importance that in the former Election Law, that is, the amended law, no provision was made regarding prescription to give immediate and full effect to the retroactivity provided in section 71 of Act No. 3030. The provision of article 22 of the Penal Code, declaring the retroactivity of laws favorable to persons accused of a felony or misdemeanor, is to be deemed as if also expressly made in any new law at the time of its enactment, when said law is a penal law, or one of a penal character, such as the prescription contained in section 71 of Act No. 3030 here in question, which is of that nature, as above stated, and there is no necessity of making in that law any provisions to that same effect. And this is the reason why in the case of Pardo de Tavera vs. Garcia Valdez, one of the first cases in the Philippine Jurisprudence (1 Phil., 468) in which, the question, among others, was raised whether the defendant, who was accused of grave insult defined and punished in paragraph 1, article 458, of the Penal Code, should be punished under said article, or under the provisions of Act No. 277, which is the Libel Law and went into effect after the publication of the libelous article and the institution of the criminal action, the court held, as stated in the syllabus, that:
"The general rule that penal laws shall be retroactive in so far as they favor the accused has no application where the later law is expressly made inapplicable to pending actions or existing causes of action," which clearly means that in order for a penal statute favorable to the accused to have a retroactive effect, it is not necessary that it be so expressly provided in the statutes, or, to put it in another way, that the provision declaring the retroactivity be repeated therein, but that if the Legislature intends it not to have a retroactive effect, it should expressly so state in the same statute. And the reason for it is obvious. For it being the general rule, according to article 22 of the Penal Code, that penal laws have retroactive effect in so far as they favor the accused, said general rule applies to, all laws that may be enacted in the future, and if the Legislature intends to make an exception to the said rule, it should expressly say so.
Now, the eminent professor of International Law, Mr. Fiore, in his work on the Irretroactivity and Interpretation of Statutes, which is termed by various eminent jurists "a work full of juridical science," after recognizing as a rule universally accepted by the courts and expressly sanctioned by most of modern legislations that no penal law can have any retroactive effect, that is, that no action or omission shall be held to be a crime, nor its author punished, except by virtue of a law in force at the time the act was committed, advocates the retroactivity of a penal law favorable to the offender, not as a right of the latter, but founded on the very principles on which the right of the State to punish and the commination of the penalty are based, and regards it not as an exception based on political considerations, but as a rule founded on principles of strict justice.
The same author, on studying the questions that may arise in case the new law should have changed the rules regarding prescription, that is to say, the retroactivity of the law as to prescription, says:
"The modifications as to prescription introduced by the new law may affect the penal action or the penalty itself. With respect to the former, it can be imagined that the new law has modified the rules as to the applicability or inapplicability of the prescription to a given crime, or the necessary conditions for its effectiveness, or, finally, the time and period when it will have effect.
"The authors who had studied this question have reached different conclusions, because some have considered prescription as a law of procedure or of form, while others have regarded it as a substantive law, thereby admitting, therefore, the principle of vested right on the part of the offender.
"Those who have considered the statutes of limitations as of a formal or remedial nature have maintained the opinion that the new law must always be applied in all cases of prescription where the period was already running at the time of the enactment of the new law on the ground that all procedural laws must be deemed retroactive by nature. Against this theory, however, it has been said that even admitting the principle enunciated, the truth is that the culprit cannot be placed in a worse situation, as would be the case if that theory is adopted, for although the prescription begun under the former law, fixing a shorter period, might have been completed, he would be subject to criminal action under the new law prescribing a longer term, even if the provisions of the latter, concerning the substance of the penal action, were not in force at the time of the commission of the crime. Again, setting aside the theory of vested right on the part of the accused, as we have already done (for we cannot admit any vested right on the part of a private individual as against that which is considered by the sovereign power as indispensable for maintaining the juridical order), it can, however, be maintained that the application of the new law about the prescription of the criminal action, when said law has extended the time of the prescription, is tantamount to giving that penal law a retroactive effect, as regards the very substance of punishment, thus prejudicing the offender and admitting, as to him, a right to punish, which, on account of the longer period fixed in the new law, cannot be considered as based on any law in force and already promulgated at the time of the commission of the crime.
"On the other hand, those who have considered prescription as a substantive law hold that the old law should always be applied, the principal reason adduced by them in support of this opinion being that the accused must at all events suffer the consequences of the situation created by himself by committing the crime. Against this opinion, it has been held, however, that the consideration of public policy, which naturally prevails in matters of prescription, constitutes an obstacle to the invariable application of the old law, for if the new law is less severe as regards prescription, the result would be that the culprit would be subject to the more severe law, which has been modified in harmony with the more modern criteria sanctioned by the new law as more in consonance with justice.
* * * * * * *
"To our mind, in accordance with the principles underlying all the foregoing theories regarding the retroactivity of a less severe penal law, it must be admitted that also when the question is one of prescription must the new law be considered retroactive if it is more favorable to the accused than the former law, and that contrariwise it should not be so considered, if it is found to be more prejudicial Although we are maintaining this opinion, we do not thereby accept the unjustified theory above set forth of those who believe that there must be admitted here the supposed vested right on the part of the offender, for we have already stated the reason why no such vested right can be recognized as against the penalty provided by law. On the contrary, we admit this theory, but founded on the principles of justice itself upon which the right to punish, considered as a supreme right of sovereignty, rests.
"In fact, where the new law has shortened the time of prescription or established easier conditions for its effectiveness with respect to a given crime, it is clear that the reduction of the period made in the new law implies an acknowledgment on the part of the sovereign power that the greater severity of the provision of the former statute relative to the substance of the criminal action is unjust.
"Consequently, if the sovereign power should enforce its right under the former law it would be guilty of an inconsistency in view of its implied admission that the old law was too severe and consequently unjust. The necessity therefore of applying the less severe new law rests upon the principle that the sovereign power cannot exercise its right to punish except only within those limits of justice which that sovereign power has established as being just and equitable at the time of exercising that right.
"On the other hand, when the latter statute of limitations of criminal actions is more severe than the former, either as to the applicability of the prescription itself, or as to the requirements and duration of the action, the application of the said law to crimes committed before its enactment must be avoided not because the culprit has acquired any right to prevent said application, but for the reasons above set out. Indeed, on what ground can the culprit pretend to prevent the sovereign power from doing what it has the right to do for the purpose of maintaining the juridical order? There exists, therefore, no reason in support of the theory of vested right on the part of the culprit, but what must inevitably be admitted is that the sovereign power cannot, without doing an injustice, apply the more severe legal provision in the matter of prescription; and that that provision cannot justly be applied unless it was previously promulgated, as even the right itself to punish cannot come into existence except by virtue of a law duly promulgated and in force at the time that it was violated and the crime committed. The more severe law in matter of prescription extends the field of criminal action and affects the substance of the same, because it determines the basis and the sphere of the right to punish. Now, can the sovereign power do all this without any law? Can it, without committing an injustice, extend the effect of the new law to acts committed before its enactment? As the sovereign power cannot punish any act not expressly penalized by a former law, nor punish with a more severe penalty any act performed before said penalty was prescribed and the law fixing it promulgated, so it cannot extend the criminal action (that is, its right to punish) by virtue of a later law by applying to acts completed before its promulgation the less favorable provisions therein made regarding prescription. In fact, in any case where reduction of the time of prescription formerly fixed is to be made under a new law, or where harder conditions are required by the said law for effectively taking advantage of the prescription, the sovereign power is exercising the right to punish acts committed prior to the promulgation of the new law, and it is evident that no such right can be recognized in the sovereign power.
"From all of the foregoing, we conclude that upon the very principles of justice, under which the less severe provisions of the new law must regulate all the elements of the criminal action, said less severe new law must also control the matter of prescription, provided that there is no final and irrevocable judgment, and this rule holds good even if the modifications of the statute have reference to the prescription of the penalty, because in substance the prescription of the penalty is equivalent to the prescription of the criminal action." (Fiore, pages 423-428.)
Wharton gives a clear explanation of the distinction to be made between the construction of prescription in criminal actions and that of prescription in civil cases in the paragraph above quoted from his book, and the grounds for the distinction are also clear and are not unknown to anybody, for, as Wharton says, they are inherent in the origin and nature itself of the law of prescription, which must be .liberally construed in favor of the accused for if prescription in criminal matters is, as said author says, a benefit, a grace granted by the State, and a waiver of its right to prosecute and an announcement that the crime is no longer the subject of prosecution, from the moment that the granting of that grace or benefit, or the making of such waiver, is known, the prosecution for the said crime and the punishment of the offender would be a juridical contradiction.
But the opinions discussed by Fiore in his book above-mentioned are more in point, for he refers precisely to the prescription provided in a later statute the subject of which is the criminal action or the penalty, that is, the prescription of the crime, as is the case now before us, or the prescription of the penalty, whether prescription be regarded as a law of procedure or of form, or as a substantive law.
After examining the different opinions of the writers on the matter, Fiore has come, as seen from the above quotation, to the conclusion that, whether the statutes relative to prescription be considered as of a procedural or formal, or substantive, nature, the new statute must be applied if it is less severe or more favorable to the accused, but not if it is more prejudicial, notwithstanding the general rule that all procedural laws are retroactive in regard to prescription. In view of the special motion filed by the accused on May 2, 1922, it does not matter and it is of no importance, so far as the question herein raised is concerned, whether the provision contained in section 71 of Act No. 3030 be considered as of a substantive, procedural, or adjective character, because applying the principles above enunciated, the result is the same, and the more severe law in the matter of prescription extends, as Fiore says, the field of the criminal action and affects the very substance thereof, because it determines the basis and the sphere of the right to punish.
It may, perhaps, be argued that no term having been fixed in the Election Law prior to Act No. 3030 for the prescription of the offenses resulting from the violations thereof, and said Act No. 3030 having fixed at one year the period for the prescription, the former law is more lenient, less severe, and more favorable to the persons accused of those offenses than the latter. Such an argument, however, is absolutely erroneous and untenable, if it is borne in mind that no period of prescription having been fixed in the former law, those offenses were imprescriptible, and the offender could be prosecuted and punished at any time and indefinitely, even ten, twenty, or more years after the commission thereof, whereas the new law, that is, Act No. 3030 in providing the period of one year for the prescription, has, in effect, shortened the time of prescription fixed in the old law by virtue of the silence thereof, reducing it to one year and has established less difficult conditions for the application of the same as regards those offenses, which is evidently more favorable and lenient to the violators of the said former law, and, as Fiore says in one of the paragraphs above quoted from his book, the reduction made by the new law implies a recognition on the part of the sovereign power that the greater severity of the former law, as regards the substance of the criminal action, is unjust, and it would contradict itself if it would attempt to enforce its right under the conditions of the former law which has already been regarded by the conscientious public opinion as juridically burdensome, and, therefore, unjust, and the sovereign power cannot exercise the right to punish except within the limits regarded by it as just at the time of exercising it.
If, therefore, in reviewing the former Election Law contained in the two chapters of the Administrative Code herein before mentioned, for the purpose of amending and reforming it in accordance with the dictates of reason, justice and experience, the Legislature did amend and reform it by the enactment of Act No. 3030, which supplied the deficiency found in the old law with regard to the prescription of the crimes penalized therein, by providing in section 71 of Act No. 3030 that those crimes, which under the old law were imprescriptible, shall prescribe one year after their commission, because their imprescriptibility was considered by the conscientious public opinion as juridically burdensome, and, therefore, unjust, it is evident that the State, the Government and the courts of justice representing it, cannot, without committing a gross injustice, exercise the right to prosecute and punish the violator of the old law under the conditions required by the law and outside of the limits now regarded by the sovereign power, that is to say, the Legislature, as just by the enactment of said Act No. 3030, which took effect on March 9, 1922. And such injustice would be more apparent still, if the violators of the old Election Law, which was amended by Act No. 3030, would be prosecuted and convicted five, ten, twenty, or more years after the said violations when the proof of their innocence may not have been kept by them, while the violators of Act No. 3030, who may not have been prosecuted within the one year fixed by section 71 aforesaid, would be free from being prosecuted and punished for the crimes committed by them. And this injustice, which is so contrary to conscientious public opinion and repugnant to humane sentiments, would necessarily result, if the provisions of section 71 of Act No. 3030, which is now in force, are not immediately applied right at this stage of the case in favor of the herein accused, by taking up first the special motion of the accused filed on May 2d of this year, before the petition for reconsideration and re-hearing hereinbefore mentioned, or, better, by ignoring the said petition and disposing of the case by deciding the motion of May 2d, wherein the accused invoked the prescription provided an the said section, for the reason that this action was commenced on December 20, 1920, one year and a half after the commission of the offense resulting from the violation of the Election Law with which they are charged.
In view of the foregoing, we find the said crime to have prescribed, and setting aside the decision of this court published on the 31st of March of this year, the present action is dismissed with all the costs de oficio, and the bond given by the accused for their provisional release is cancelled, which release is hereby declared final. So ordered.
Street, Avanceña, Villamor, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.[1] Promulgated March 28, 1921.
[1] 12 Phil., 241.