Sec. 21.

Right against double Jeopardy for the same acts

People vs Relova (148 SCRA 292 [1987]

Accused was acquitted for unauthorized wiring connection under an ordinance

on account of prescription. Subsequently, accused was charged with theft of
electric power under the RPC. Double jeopardy for the same act has attached. He
was already acquitted under an ordinance; thus, he may not be charged for theft
under the RPC.

People vs Laggui (171 SCRA 305 [1989])

This is not for the same act. It is for the same offense.

Soriano issued a check which bounced. He was charged for BP22. He pleaded not
guilty. He was acquitted by the judge on the mistaken belief that that
information did not sufficiently state that Soriano knew at the time he issued the
bum check that he has insufficient fund. The Government appealed the case. The
SC ruled that the information was sufficient and the dismissal of the case
amounted to acquittal. Soriano was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to the
offense charged. The SC refused to review the appealed case reasoning that to
do so will put Soriano twice in jeopardy for the same offense.

Sec. 22. Ex post facto Laws and Bill of Attainder

Montenegro vs Castaneda (91 Phil. 882 [1952]

Proclamation No. 120 was issued by the President suspending the privilege of
the habeas corpus. It was questioned on the ground that it is an ex-post facto
law and or a bill of attainder. The SC ruled that Proclamation 120 is not a statute.
The prohibition applies only to statute. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which
inflicts punishment without judicial trial.

Bayot vs Sandiganbayan (128 SCRA 686 [1984])

Bayot is one of the 100 accused for estafa. During the pendency of the case, he
run as Mayor and won. He was suspended in accordance with RA 3019. WON his
suspension violated prohibition on ex post facto law.

No. Suspension is not penal in character but merely a preventive measure before
final judgment; hence, the suspension of a public officer charged with one of the
crimes listed in the amending law, committed before said amendment, does not
violate the constitutional provision against an ex post facto law. The purpose of
suspension is to prevent the accused public officer from frustrating or hampering
his prosecution by intimidating or influencing witnesses or tampering with
documentary evidence, or from committing further acts of malfeasance while in
office.

Katigbak vs Solicitor (180 SCRA 540 [1989]

R.A. No. 1379 was questioned as an ex-post facto law, principally because it
imposes the penalty of forfeiture on a public officer or employee acquiring
properties allegedly in violation of said R.A. No. 1379 at a time when that law
had not yet been enacted.

The SC ruled that the forfeiture of property provided for in Republic Act No. 1379
is in the nature of a penalty; and it being axiomatic that a law is ex-post facto
which inter alia "makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and
which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act," or, "assuming to
regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation
of a right for something which when done was lawful," it follows that penalty of
forfeiture prescribed by R.A. No. 1379 cannot be applied to acquisitions made
prior to its passage without running afoul of the Constitutional provision
condemning ex post facto laws or bills of attainder.

Tan vs Barrios (190 SCRA 686 [1990] Is there such a thing as an ex post facto
ruling? Yes!

Tan brothers were accused of violation of firearm laws and charged before the
Military Court created under Proclamation No. 1081 issued on September 21,
1972. The accused were acquitted. On January 17, 1981, Proclamation No. 2045
ended martial rule and abolished the military tribunals and commissions.

Depriving the petitioners of the protection of the judgment of acquittal rendered

by the military commission in their particular case by retroactively divesting the
military commission of the jurisdiction it had exercised over them would amount
to an ex post facto law or ruling, again, in sharp reality if not in strict
constitutional theory. An ex-post facto law or rule, is one which:

1. makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and
which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act;

2. aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when

committed;

3. changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than

the law annexed to the crime when committed;
 4. alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon
less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the
commission of the offense;

5. assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect

imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which when
done was lawful; and,

6. deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful

protection to which he has become entitled, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty. (In re: Kay Villegas Kami, Inc., 35 SCRA
428, 431)

Article IV, Section 22, of the 1987 Constitution prohibits the enactment of an ex
post facto law or bill of attainder.

SUBIDO v. SB, 266 S 379 (1997)

Facts: RA No. 7975 amended PD No. 1606 by, among others, vesting jurisdiction
on the SB over national and local officials classified as Grade 27 or higher who
are charged with certain criminal offenses regardless of the imposable penalty.
The amending law took effect on May 6, 1995. May said law be applied to
accused who committed a crime on June 25, 1992 without violating the
prohibition on ex post facto laws?

Held: Yes. RA No. 7975 is not a penal law. Penal laws or statutes are those acts
of the legislature which prohibits certain acts and establish penalties for their
violation. RA No. 7975, in further amending PD No. 1606 as regards the SB’s
jurisdiction, mode of appeal, and other procedural matters, is clearly a
procedural law, i.e., one which prescribes rules and forms of procedure for
enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion, or those which refer to
rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly
administer justice. Likewise, it is a curative or remedial statute, one which cures
defects and adds to the means of enforcing existing obligations. As a procedural
and curative statute, RA No. 7975 may validly be given retroactive effect, there
being no impairment of vested rights.

Wright vs CA (235 SCRA 341 [1994]

The Philippines ratified an extradition treaty with Australia on September 10,
1990 and took effect on October 10, 1990. Wright became subject of the said
treaty. He assails the extradition as ex post facto law.

WON an extradition treaty may be given retroactive effect?

Yes. The SC ruled that the extradition treaty is not a penal or criminal statute. "It
merely provides for the extradition of persons wanted for prosecution of an
offense or a crime which offense or crime was already committed or
consummated at the time the treaty was ratified." Hence, it may be given
retroactive effect and does not violate the Constitutional provision.

Bills of Attainder

People vs Ferrer (48 SCRA 382 [1972]

The Anti-Subversive Law is not a bill of attainder because it provides for

conviction in a judicial proceeding of members of the Communist Party who
become member knowingly that the same is a subversive group as
distinguished from a mere nominal member who may be a member of the
subversive group by paper only without his knowledge.

Note: there is no more anti-subversive law in the Philippines.

FAJARDO v. CA, 302 S 503 (1999)

Facts: For issuing a bouncing check in 1981, accused was convicted of violation
of BP Blg. 22 on May 26, 1988 by the RTC. His appeal to the CA resulted to the
affirmance of the conviction on Feb. 27, 1993. He applied for probation but it was
denied because under the amendment to PD No. 986 which became effective in
1986, one who has perfected an appeal is not eligible for probation. Accused now
contends that applying a 1986 amendment to a crime committed in 1981
violates the prohibition against ex post facto laws.

Held: The law is not ex post facto in application. The law applies only to those
convicted after its effectivity. Petitioner was convicted on May 26, 1988, and he
appealed. At that time, he no longer had the option to appeal and still apply for
probation if unsuccessful in the appeal. The amendment was then in full effect.
Hence, he could no longer apply for probation since he appealed. In addition, an
ex post facto law is one that punishes an act as a crime which was innocent at
the time of its commission. The Probation Law, however, is not a penal statute.

PP v. NITAFAN, 301 S 424

Facts: Three cases for violation of Central Bank Circular No. 960 were pending
before the RTC against Imelda Marcos. Without any motion by the accused for
the prosecution, the judge dismissed them on the ground that the Circular is an
ex post facto law. Was his action proper?

Held: No. Every law carries with it the presumption pf constitutionality. To rule
that the CB Circular as an ex post facto law is to say that it is unconstitutional.
However, neither private respondent nor the SolGen challenged it. This Court,
much more the lower courts, will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute
unless assailed in an appropriate action. (Among the requisites of judicial inquiry
are: that there must be an actual case or controversy and the question of
constitutionality must be raised by the proper party.)