4. US VS PARRONE ISSUE: Should Art.
22 of the penal code apply, allowing the amendments
G.R. No. 7038. January 7, 1913.
Topic: SOURCES OF PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL LAWS
Petitioner: THE UNITED STATES
Respondent: ANTONIO PARRONES
Ponente: JOHNSON, J.
FACTS:
Antonio Partacio bought his personal cedula from Parrone for the years
1906 and 1907. In 1908, Partacio tasked Severo Abad to purchase his
(Partacio) cedula from the municipal treasurer. Abad attempted the
purchase, but the municipal treasurer needed to see Partacio’s 1907
cedula, but Parrone was in possession of the document. Abad went to
Parrone to secure the document, and Parrone gave him Partacio’s 1906
and 1907 cedulas. Abad went to the municipal treasurer’s office again to
attempt the purchase but changes in the documents were noticed. The
documents were then in the name of Partacio, but records show that the
cedulas were delivered to Parrone, not to Partacio. Basically, Parrone
substituted his surname in his own cedula with the name of Partacio and
sold the documents to the latter.
Parrone was found guilty of falsifying a personal cedula under Sec. 55 of
Act No. 1189 of the Philippine Commission. Sec. 55 of the act provides
that the penalty shall be a fine not less than P2000 not more than
P10,000 and imprisonment for a term of not less than 1 year nor more
than 5 years. In 1912, the Act was amended by Act No. 2126, and the
penalties were changed to a fine not less than P200 nor more than
P5,000 or by imprisonment for a term of at least 2 months but not mor
than 5 years, or both, at the court’s discretion. The crime was committed
in February 24, 1908.
Parrone went to the SC to appeal his sentence. Art. 22 of the Penal Code
states that penal laws shall have retroactive effect in so far as they are
favorable to the accused. But Art. 7 also says that offenses punishable
under special laws are not subject to the provisions of the said Code. Act.
1189 and Act 2126 are special laws.
of penalties under Act 2126 retroact to the benefit of Parrone?
RULING: YES
Art 22 is found in chapter 1 of title 3 of the Penal Code. Said chapter is
entitled “Penalties In General”. Art. 21 of said title and chapter provides
that no felony or misdemeanor shall be punishable by any penalty not
prescribed by law prior to its commission. Art. 21, therefore, cannot
apply to any provisions of the Penal Code because every felony or
misdemeanor defined in the Code a penalty has been described. Thus,
Art. 21 can only be invoked when the accused is being charged with a
felony or misdemeanor for which no penalty has been prescribed by law.
It is a guaranty that no one will be punished for acts not declared by the
State to be punishable.
Article 22 provides that "Penal laws shall have a retroactive effect in so
far as they favor the person guilty of a felony or misdemeanor, although
at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been
pronounced and the convict is serving same." This provision has no
application to the provisions of the Penal Code, and it can be invoked
only when there is a former or subsequent law under consideration. It
must necessarily relate to: 1.) penal laws existing prior to the penal code;
or 2.) laws enacted subsequent to the Penal Code in which the penalty is
favorable to the accused. If a crime had been committed prior to the date
of the Penal Code the punishment for which was more favorable to the
accused than the provisions of the Penal Code, it is believed that the
accused might invoke the provisions of said article (22) even though he
was not placed upon trial until after the Penal Code went into effect. So
also if by an amendment to the Penal Code or by a later special law the
punishment for an act was made less severe than by the provisions of
the Penal Code, then the accused person might invoke the provisions of
said article. In other words, Art. 22 can only be invoked with reference to
some other penal law. It has no relation to the provisions of the Penal
Code except in relation to some other penal law. Thus, it is not intended
that Art. 22 is inapplicable to special laws by virtue of Art. 7.
In consideration, then, of the provisions of article 22 in relation with the
more favorable provisions of Act No. 2126, and in view of the nature of
the offense in this case, we are of the opinion that the sentence of the
lower court should be modified and that the defendant should be
sentenced to be imprisoned for a period of two months and to pay a fine
in the sum of P200 and costs. So ordered

DOCTRINE/S: This provision (Art. 22) has no application to the provisions

of the Penal Code, and it can be invoked only when there is a former or
subsequent law under consideration. It must necessarily relate to: 1.)
penal laws existing prior to the penal code; or 2.) laws enacted subsequent
to the Penal Code in which the penalty is favorable to the accused.