Crim1 2019 Case1 Sample
Crim1 2019 Case1 Sample
DELA CRUZ
ACTIVITY NO.07 CRIMINAL LAW 1 LANDMARK CASE
FACTS:
In 2013, then President Benigno S. Aquino III signed into law R.A. No.
10592, amending Articles 29,94, 97, 98 and 99 of Act No. 3815, or the
Revised Penal Code (RPC). R.A. No. 10592 seeks to rehabilitate the
correction system and in effect, diminished some of the penalties of the
prisoners fit for the criteria established. A year later, in 2014, a Petition
for Certiorari and Prohibition was filed against respondents DOJ
Secretary De Lima and DILG Secretary Roxas by convicted prisoners
(Petitioners) in the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) Petitioners filed the case as
real parties-in-interest and as representatives of their member
organizations and the organizations' individual members, as a class suit
for themselves and in behalf of all who are similarly situated.
They contend that the provisions of R.A. No. 10592 are penal in nature
and beneficial to the inmates; hence, should be given retroactive effect in
accordance with Article 22 of the RPC. For them, the IRR contradicts the
law it implements. They are puzzled why it would be complex for the
Bureau of Corrections (BUCOR) and the Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology BJMPJ to retroactively apply the law when the prisoners'
records are complete and the distinctions between the pertinent
provisions of the RPC and RA. No. 10592 are easily identifiable.
Petitioners submit that the simple standards added by the new law,
which are matters of record, and the creation of the Management,
Screening and Evaluation Committee (MSEC) should not override the
constitutional guarantee of the rights to liberty and due process of law
aside from the principle that penal laws beneficial to the accused are
given retroactive effect.
ISSUE:
Should R.A. No. 10592 be given retroactive effect?
RULING:
YES. The Court granted the petition. Every new law has a prospective
effect. Under Article 22 of the RPC, however, a penal law that is favorable
or advantageous to the accused shall be given retroactive effect if he is
not a habitual criminal. These are the rules, the exception, and the
exception to the exception on the effectiveness of laws. In criminal law,
the principle favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda (penal laws
which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect) is well
entrenched. It has been sanctioned since the old Penal Code.
Further, case law has shown that the rule on retroactivity under Article
22 of the RPC applies to said Code and its amendments, as well as to
special laws. penal provision defines a crime or provides a punishment
for one. Penal laws and lawss which, while not penal in nature, have
provisions defining offenses and prescribing penalties for their violation.
Except for the benefits of TASTM and the STAL granted to a prisoner who
chose to stay in the place of his confinement despite the existence of a
calamity or catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of the RPC, the
provisions of R.A. No. 10592 are mere modifications of the RPC that have
been implemented by the BUCOR prior to the issuance of the challenged
IRR. In view of this, the claim of "new procedures and standards of
behavior for the grant of time allowances is untenable. It appears that
even prior to February 1, 1916 when Act No. 2557 was enacted,
prisoners have already been entitled to deduct the period of preventive
imprisonment from the service of their sentences.
These considered, the Court cannot but share the same sentiment of
Roxas et al. It is indeed perplexing why it is complex for respondents to
retroactively apply RA. No. 10592 when all that the MSEC has to do is to
utilize the same standard of behavior for the grant of time allowances
and refer to existing prison records.