US v.

Soliman

FACTS:

Gabino Soliman, the defendant/appellant, was found guilty for false testimony
(perjury) in another criminal case, for falsely imputing to some other persons
the commission of the crime of estafa. The trial judge on the ground that
there was room for reasonable doubt acquitted him. However, appellant was
sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and P300 fine was imposed by the trial
judge for there can be no doubt that the accused was guilty of the crime of
perjury as defined and penalized in Act No. 1697 Sec.3.

The enactment of the Administrative Code (Act No. 2657) was alleged to
have expressly repealed Act No. 1697 Sec.3 where the former became
effective on July 1, 1916. On the other hand, the judgment was entered on
November 23, 1915. It was suggested that the repealed Act No. 1697 Sec.3
should be held to have the effect of remitting and extinguishing the criminal
responsibility of the accused incurred under the provisions of the repealed
law prior to the enactment of the Administrative Code.

ISSUE:

WON the enactment of Administrative Code repealing Act No. 1697 Sec.3
relieved Soliman of his penalties.

HELD:

The repealed Act No. 1697 does not have the effect of relieving an offender in
whole or in part of penalties already incurred under the old law, unless the
new law favors the defendant by diminishing the penalty or doing away with
it altogether, and then only to the extent to which the new law is favorable to
the offender.

It will not be presumed that in the absence of an express language, that it

was the intention of the legislator to let false swearing as to a material
matter in a court of justice go unpunished, and such would be the effect of
the repealed Act No. 1697, unless it be held that the repeal had the effect of
reviving the old statute (Act No. 2142).

The Administrative code (Act No 2657 Sec. 12) which repealed Act No. 1697
dealt with the form and effect of laws in general, providing that “when a law
which expressly repeals a prior law is itself repealed the law first repealed
shall not be thereby revived unless expressly so provided."

The court ruled that the express repeal of Act No. 1697 by the enactment of
the Administrative Code (Act No. 2657) revived the provisions of the Penal
Code touching perjury, which were themselves repealed, not expressly but by
implication, by the enactment of Act No. 2657. Comparing the penalties
prescribed in the Penal Code, Soliman should be given the benefit of the
provisions of Act No. 2142 wherein the penalty prescribed therein is less
than that imposed upon him under Act No. 1697.

The enactment of new penal laws, notwithstanding the fact that they contain
general repealing clauses, does not deprive the courts of jurisdiction to try,
convict and sentence persons charged with violations of the old law prior to
the date when the repealing law goes into effect, unless the new law wholly
fails to penalize the acts which constituted the offense defined and penalized
in the repealed law. The court therefore concluded that “in any case in which
a statute prescribing a penalty for the commission of a specific offense is
repealed, and in which the new statute provides new and distinct penalties
for the commission of such offense, the penalty which must be imposed on
one who committed the offense prior to the enactment of the repealing
statute is that one which is more favorable to the convict”.

The judgment of conviction entered in the trial court was affirmed but the
sentence imposed was reversed giving the accused the benefit of the
provisions of Act No. 2142, a penalty of 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor
and a fine of P75 with subsidiary imprisonment as prescribed by law should
instead be imposed.