Valeroso v.

People
G.R. No. 164815, February 22, 2008

Facts:

On July 10, 1996, at around 9:30 a.m., SPO2 Antonio M. Disuanco of the Criminal
Investigation Division, Central Police District Command, received a dispatch order from
the desk officer. The order directed him and three (3) other policemen to serve a warrant
of arrest issued by Judge Ignacio Salvador against petitioner Sr. Insp. Jerry C. Valeroso
in a case for kidnapping with ransom.

After a briefing, the team conducted the necessary surveillance on petitioner, checking
his hideouts in Cavite, Caloocan, and Bulacan. Eventually, the team proceeded to the
Integrated National Police (INP) Central Station at Culiat, Quezon City, where they saw
petitioner as he was about to board a tricycle. SPO2 Disuanco and his team approached
petitioner. They put him under arrest, informed him of his constitutional rights, and bodily
searched him. Found tucked in his waist was a Charter Arms, bearing Serial Number
52315 with five (5) live ammunition.

Petitioner was then charged with illegal possession of firearm and ammunition under
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, as amended.

The Trial Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section
1 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act No. 8294 and hereby
sentences him to suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period or from
4 years, 2 months and 1 day as minimum to 6 years as maximum and to pay the fine in
the amount of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00). While the Court of Appeals
modified the penalty imposed by the trial court upon the accused-appellant to 4 years
and 2 months as minimum up to 6 years as maximum and the decision appealed from is
hereby AFFIRMED in all other respects.

Issue:

Whether penal laws have a retroactive application.

Ruling:

The court held that, as a general rule, penal laws should not have retroactive
application, lest they acquire the character of an ex post facto law. An exception to this
rule, however, is when the law is advantageous to the accused. According to Mr. Chief
Justice Araullo, this is “not as a right” of the offender, “but founded on the very principles
on which the right of the State to punish and the commination of the penalty are based,
and regards it not as an exception based on political considerations, but as a rule
founded on principles of strict justice.”
Although an additional fine of P15,000.00 is imposed by R.A. No. 8294, the same is still
advantageous to the accused, considering that the imprisonment is lowered to prision
correccional in its maximum period from reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to reclusion perpetua under P.D. No. 1866.

Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, prision correccional maximum which ranges

from four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years, is the prescribed
penalty and will form the maximum term of the indeterminate sentence. The minimum
term shall be one degree lower, which is prision correccional in its medium period
(two [2] years, four [4] months and one [1] day to four [4] years and two [2] months).
Hence, the penalty imposed by the CA is correct. The penalty of four (4) years and two
(2) months of prision correccional medium, as minimum term, to six (6) years of prision
correccional maximum, as maximum term, is in consonance with the Court’s ruling
in Gonzales v. Court of Appeals and Barredo v. Vinarao.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated May 4, 2004

is AFFIRMED in full.