Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JUAN MORAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 164815 2008-02-22	SR. INSP. JERRY C. VALEROSO v. PEOPLE REYES, R.T., J.
As a general rule, penal laws should not have retroactive application, lest they acquire the character of an ex post facto law.[82] 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."[83]
	GR No. 123058 2001-09-26	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NAPUD QUISUMBING, J.
We find, however, that the trial court erred in imposing an indeterminate penalty of ten (10) years and eight (8) months of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum upon appellant for the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the imposable penalty for robbery accompanied by rape is reclusion perpetua to death.[17] Note that at the time of the incident on September 21, 1994, the Revised Penal Code was already amended by R.A. No. 7659. The amendment took effect on December 31, 1993, as held in People v. Simon, 234 SCRA 555, 569 (1994). Following the principle that laws which define offenses and prescribe penalties for their violation operate prospectively,[18] the increased penalties should be applied to appellant's offenses.
	GR No. 125359 2001-09-04	ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
The crucial words in the test are "vital for the protection of life and liberty."[37] We find, however, the test inapplicable to the penal clause of Republic Act No. 7653. Penal laws and laws which, while not penal in nature, nonetheless have provisions defining offenses and prescribing penalties for their violation operate prospectively.[38] Penal laws cannot be given retroactive effect, except when they are favorable to the accused.[39] Nowhere in Republic Act No. 7653, and in particular Section 36, is there any indication that the increased penalties provided therein were intended to operate retroactively. There is, therefore, no ex post facto law in this case.