PENAL LAWS FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED SHOULD HAVE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION

As a general rule, penal laws should not have retroactive application, lest they acquire the character of
an ex post facto law. An exception to this rule, however, is when the law is advantageous to the
accused. Although an additional fine of P15,000.00 is imposed by R.A. No. 8294, the same is still
advantageous to the accused, considering that the imprisonment is lowered to prision correccional in
its maximum period from reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua under P.D.
No. 1866 (Valeroso vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 164815, February 22, 2008).

x—————x

PENAL LAWS FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED SHOULD HAVE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION

Jerry C. Valeroso vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 164815; February 22, 2008
Reyes, R.T., J.

FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari on the Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed with modification
the ruling of the RTC, finding petitioner Sr. Inspector Jerry Valeroso liable for illegal possession of
firearms.

On July 10, 1996, the Central Police District served a warrant of arrest to Valeroso in a case of
kidnapping with ransom. In the course of the arrest, the police found an unlicensed firearm with live
ammunition in his possession. He was then charged with illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No.
1866.

In 1998, the trial court convicted Valeroso of the crime charged and imposed a penalty of prision
correccional for 4 years, 2 months and 1 day as minimum to 6 years as maximum and a fine of
P15,000, pursuant to R.A. No. 8294, which amended P.D. No. 1866 on July 6, 1997. When petitioner
appealed to the CA, the appellate court affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification as to the
penalty imposed.

ISSUE:
Is the retroactive application of R.A. No 8294, which amended P.D. No. 1866, valid taking into
consideration that P.D. No. 1866 was the governing law at the time the petitioner committed the
offense?

HELD:
Yes, the retroactive application of R.A. No. 8294 is valid.

In this case, P.D. No. 1866 was the governing law at the time Valeroso committed and was charged for
illegal possession of firearms. P.D. No. 1866 imposes the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum
period to reclusion perpetua for the said offense. However, R.A. No. 8294 amended P.D. No. 1866 on
July 6, 1997, during the pendency of the case with the trial court.

As a general rule, penal laws should not have retroactive application, lest they acquire the character of
an ex post facto law. An exception to this rule, however, is when the law is advantageous to the
accused. According to Mr. Chief Justice Araullo, this is "not as a right" of the offender, "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."

Although an additional fine of P15,000.00 is imposed by R.A. No. 8294, the same is still advantageous
to the accused, considering that the imprisonment is lowered to prision correccional in its maximum
period from reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua under P.D. No. 1866.

Therefore, as R.A. 8294 is favorable to the accused, its provisions warrant retroactive application.