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 The enactment of the Administrative Code (Act No. 2657) was alleged to have expressly repealed Act No. 1697 Sec.3 where the former became effective on July 1, 1916.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 It was suggested that the repealed Act No. 1697 Sec.3 should be held to have the effect of remitting and extinguishing the criminal responsibility of the accused incurred under the provisions of the repealed law prior to the enactment of the Administrative Code.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 HELD: The repealed Act No. 1697 does not have the effect of relieving an offender in whole or in part of penalties already incurred under the old law, unless the new law favors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to let false swearing as to a material matter in a court of justice go unpunished, and such would be the effect of the repealed Act No. 1697, unless it be held that the repeal had the effect of reviving the old statute (Act No. 2142). The Administrative code (Act No 2657 Sec. 12) which repealed Act No. 1697 dealt with the form and effect of laws in general, providing that “when a law which expressly repeals a prior law is itself repealed the law first repealed shall not be thereby revived unless expressly so provided."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the Administrative Code (Act No. 2657) revived the provisions of the Penal Code touching perjury, which were themselves repealed, not expressly but by implication, by the enactment of Act No. 2657.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.
