LARGA Vs RANADA (SCRA)
LARGA Vs RANADA (SCRA)
“ARTICLE 4: Laws shall have no retroactive application, unless the contrary is provided”
FACTS:
The case involved the violation of the Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) or the
PAG-IBIG Fund Law
Under the said law, the employer is mandated by law to withhold a certain portion of the
salary of the employee and remit them to PAGIBIG members.
Larga happens to be an employer and in accordance with the law, he withheld portions
of the salaries of his workers accruing from 1984 – 1986
It turned out, however, that Larga did not remit them to PAGIBIG
Under the law then in force, non – remittance is a criminal offense
Hence, he was prosecuted
During the pendency of the case, the PAGIBIG law was amended, making the
remittance of contributions voluntary. Hence, non – remittance is not anymore a criminal
offense
Larga invoked the principle that a penal should be given retroactive application if
favorable to the accused
Larga moved to quash the information stating that since non - remittance is no longer a
crime in the new law, this shall wipe out his alleged criminal liability
ISSUES:
Whether or not Larga is criminally liable under Section 23 of PD No. 1752 known as the
PAGIBIG Fund Law
Whether or not Larga would be given the principle of retroactivity due to the amendment
of PD No. 1752 by Section 9 & 10 of EO No 90
RULING:
As a general rule, penal laws shall be given retroactive application if it is favorable to the
accused, except when the law itself provides that it should not be given retroactive
application s when its provisions provide that it shall not apply to pending cases during
the time of its enactment.
The provisions under Section 9 & 10 of EO No. 90 expressly provide that the effect of
the amendment decriminalizing the act of non – remittance will take effect starting
January 1987 and onwards. The period of effectivity is specific.
Section 9 & 10 of EO No. 90 amended PD No. 1752 not retroactively but only
prospectively.
It is equally clear that EO No. 90 did not purport to “de – criminalize” all prior violations of
PD No. 1752 and its implementing rules and regulations and it did not modify or repel,
whether expressly or impliedly, Section 23 of PD No. 1752.
Larga was prosecuted for the act of non – remittance accruing from 1984 – 1986.
The obvious purpose of the new law is to limit its benefits to acts committed from the
time of its enactment. Hence, crimes committed under the old law shall be continued to
be prosecuted and punished.