11/16/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 056

[No. 36886. February 1, 1932]

CLEMENTE LACESTE, petitioner, vs. PAULINO

SANTOS, Director of Prisons, respondent.

1. HABEAS CORPUS; CRIMINAL LAW; RETROACTIVITY

OF PENAL LAWS.The principle of the retroactivity of
penal laws, in so far as they favor the defendant, has been
sanctioned in the Revised Penal Code, as it was in the
Code that preceded it.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY.

The petitioner, together with another, was convicted and
sentenced for rape, and although the latter, having
married the offended party, was relieved from the criminal
prosecution, the petitioner was made to serve his
sentence. Held: That in view of the last paragraph of
article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, which extend the
benefits of such relief from prosecution to coprincipals,
accessories before and accessories after the crime, in cases
like the present, and in view, furthermore, of the
provisions of article 22 and article 366 of said Code, the
petitioner must be set at liberty through these habeas
corpus proceedings.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ARTICLE 344, REVISED PENAL

CODE, LAST PABAGRAPH, SPANISH TEXT,
CLERICAL ERROR IN.Attention is called to a clerical
error in the Spanish version of the last paragraph of
article 344 in the Revised Penal Code, where the
preposition a is used instead of the disjunctive conjunction
o in the third line of the paragraph, thus reading "a la,
pena que ya, se le hubiere impuesto" instead of "o la pena
que ya se le hubiere impuesto."

473

VOL. 56, FEBRUARY 1, 1932 473

Laceste vs. Santos

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fc396aef316eafaea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/5
11/16/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 056

ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Habeas

corpus.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Pastor L. de Guzman f or petitioner.
Attorney-General Jaranilla for respondent.

ROMUALDEZ, J.:

The petitioner, Clemente Laceste, prays the court to set

him at liberty through the writ of habeas corpus, pleading
that there is no sufficient legal ground for continuing his
imprisonment any longer.
Together with Nicolas Lachica, he had been prosecuted,
found guilty, and sentenced to commitment for the crime of
rape.
Subsequently Nicolas Lachica married the victim,
Magdalena de Ocampo, and was accordingly relieved from
the criminal prosecution by virtue of section 2, Act No.
1773, and article 448 of the Penal Code then in force, which
provided that such a marriage extinguished penal liability,
and hence, the penalty. But the petitioner herein continued
serving his sentence, which was not affected by the
marriage of his coaccused and the offended party.
However, he is now entitled to the benefits accruing
from such marriage in accordance with the last paragraph
of article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, in force since the
first of this year, providing as follows:
"In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness
and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the
penalty already Imposed upon him. The provisions of this
paragraph shall also be applicable to the coprincipals,
accomplices and accessories after the fact of the above-
mentioned crimes."
"En los casos de estupro, rapto, abusos deshonestos y
violacin, el matrimonio del ofensor con la ofendida
extinguira la accin penal, a, la pena que ya se le hubiere
impuesto. Lo dispuesto en este prrafo alcanza lo mismo
474

474 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Laceste vs. Santos

a Ios coautores que a los cmplices y encubridores de los

delitos ya mencionados." (We have italicized the a). We
have quoted both the English and the Spanish text, in
order to show the real meaning of the provision; for the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fc396aef316eafaea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/5
11/16/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 056

Spanish version contains a clerical error: the preposition a

is used instead of the disjunctive conjunction o in the third
line, so that it reads "a la pena que ya se le hubiere
impuesto," instead of "o la pena que ya se le hubiere
impuesto."
The Attorney-General, answering the petition, is in
favor of granting it, because, under the aforementioned last
paragraph of article 344 of the Revised Penal Code now in
force, which has retroactive effect, the petitioner is entitled.
to his liberty. We approve and adopt the following
observations made by the former:
"It is believed that the Revised Penal Code, Act No.
3815, article 344, last paragraph, applies to the case of the
herein petitioner, and that he should be discharged from
prison. All penal laws have been declared retroactive by the
Honorable Supreme Court in the cases of People vs. Moran
(44 Phil., 433); People vs. Parel (44 Phil., 437). And the
Legislature, under section 366 of the New Penal Code, has
clearly intended to give retroactive effect to article 22,
because section 366 provides:
" 'Without prejudice to the provisions contained in
article 22 of this Code, felonies and misdemeanors,
committed prior to the date of effectiveness of this Code,
shall be punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in
force at the time of their commission.'
"If it was not the intention of the Legislature to make
the new Code retroactive, it would have used the words
'notwithstanding' or 'in spite of, instead of 'without
prejudice.'"
Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code reads as follows:
"ART. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws.Penal laws
shall have a retroactive effect in so far as they favor the
475

VOL. 56, FEBRUARY 1, 1932 475

Laceste vs. Santos

person guilty of a f elony, who is not a habitual criminal, as

this term is defined in rule 5 of article 62 of this Code,
although at the time of the publication of such laws a final
sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving
the same."
That this article applies to crimes committed before the
new Code took effect, cannot be doubted, for article 366 of
said Code unmistakably provides for such cases in the
following words:

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fc396aef316eafaea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/5
11/16/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 056

"ART. 366. Application of laws enacted prior to this

Code.Without prejudice to the provisions contained in
article 22 of this Code, felonies and misdemeanors,
committed prior to the date of effectiveness of this Code
shall be punished in accordance with the Code or Acts in
force at the time of their commission."
It may be clearly seen that as far back as the year 1884,
when the Penal Code took effect in these Islands until the
31st of December, 1931, the principle underlying our laws
granting to the accused in certain cases an exception to the
general rule that laws shall not be retroactive when the
law in question favors the accused, has evidently been
carried over into- the Revised Penal Code at present in f
orce in the Philippines through article 22, quoted above.
This is an exception to the general rule that all laws are
prospective, not retrospective, variously contained in the
following maxims: Lex prospicit, non respicit (the law looks
forward, not backward); lex de futuro, judex de prterito
(the law provides for the future, the judge for the past) ;
and adopted in a modified form with a prudent limitation
in our Civil Code (article 3). Conscience and good law
justify this exception, which is contained in the well-known
aphorism: Favorabilia sunt amplianda, odiosa,
restringenda. As one distinguished author has put it, the
exception was inspired by sentiments of humanity, and
accepted by science.
Article 22 of the new Penal Code is applicable to the
petitioner, who comes within one of the cases especially
476

476 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED

Guevara vs. Almario

provided for in article 344 of the Code: this is a point upon

which there neither is, nor can be, any discussion between
the parties to this case.
Wherefore, the petition is granted. Let the petitioner be
immediately set at liberty, with costs de oficio. So ordered.

Avancea, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor,

Ostrand, Villa-Real, and Imperial, JJ., concur.

Petition granted.

______________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fc396aef316eafaea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/5
11/16/2017 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 056

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015fc396aef316eafaea003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/5