You're currently signed in as:
User

CLEMENTE LACESTE v. PAULINO SANTOS

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

2001-09-04
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.